Is the CIA controlled by the White House... or not?

[Pangloss]

Just a few days ago the story was that intelligence officials were contradicting the White House on the subject of Iran. Nobody seemed to have any trouble believing that those intelligence officials MUST be correct, because, after all, it was contrary to the White House position.

 

Thank goodness for the objectivity of our inspiring intelligence network, so thoughtfully and carefully placed outside of executive control!

 

And yet just a few days later we get the story about CIA documents being shredded, and suddenly the White House is right back in the supervisory role. An ABC News story on Saturday ended with the reporter stating that Harriet Myers' claim to have asked the CIA not to shred the documents couldn't possibly be true, because she could have simply ordered the CIA official not to shred them.

 

Thank goodness for the dependency of our inspiring intelligence network, so thoughtfully and carefully placed under executive control!

 

ABC News reported that White House lawyer Harriet Myers urged him not to do it. But, a former CIA official told ABC News that, if she had wanted to, "she could have ordered him not to destroy them."

 

"After all," the source said, "Rodriguez and the CIA work for the White House … not the other way around."

 

[Sisyphus]

Lack of accountability is pretty much inherent in the role of the CIA, so the short answer is always going to be "who knows?" That said, I don't necessarily see anything contradictory here. Is the implication really that the White House would have stifled the Iran report if they could have? Perhaps it was contrary to the White House's opinion because it was new information for them, too. Or relatively new (I'm sure they don't tell the President and the New York Times on the same day), but the White House didn't have time to adjust. Or, the White House couldn't have suppressed such a thing, because the CIA is not under sole dominion of the executive branch, but is also under Congressional oversight.

 

As for shredding documents, none of those possibilities would really surprise me, either. It could be CIA officials acting independently (as if THAT would be unusual), or it could be they were "asked" not to (wink wink, nudge nudge) by the Administration.

[iNow]

Sisyphus - Not sure what the Iran report has to do with the topic. This story is in relation to the destruction of interrogation tapes... tapes showing interrogation of terrorists, by the CIA.

 

In my view, it's disgusting.

 

 

Here are two 2-minute CBS News videos on it (after the 20 second ad):

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3592797n

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3595119n

[Sisyphus]

The Iran report was the other event Pangloss was contrasting it with in terms of the CIAs relationship with the White House.

[iNow]

The Iran report was the other event Pangloss was contrasting it with in terms of the CIAs relationship with the White House.

 

Thank you. I honed right in on the destruction of tapes issue and breezed past the stifling of the Iran report debacle. Just goes to show how I should finish my first cup of coffee in the morning prior to responding. Mea culpa.

[Pangloss]

To clarify, I think both of the stories are legit, but both seperately and together they demonstrate a lack of depth in media coverage.

[bascule]

This is the first time in awhile where the CIA hasn't bent over and been the administration's whipping boy.

 

I found the change in Bush's rhetoric regarding Iran shortly after the release of the report (which he allegedly never saw) highly suspicious as well:

 

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/06/countdown-special-comment-the-nie-reflects-an-unhinged-irrational-chicken-little-of-a-president/

 

March 31st: “Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon…”

 

June 5th: Iran’s “pursuit of nuclear weapons…”

 

June 19th: “consequences to the Iranian government if they continue to pursue a nuclear weapon…”

 

July 12th: “the same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons…”

 

August 6th: “this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon…”

 

Notice a pattern?

 

Trying to develop, build or pursue a nuclear weapon.

 

Then, sometime between August 6th and August 9th, those terms are suddenly swapped out, so subtly that only in retrospect can we see that somebody has warned the President, not only that he has gone out too far on the limb of terror — but there may not even be a tree there…

 

McConnell, or someone, must have briefed him then.

 

August 9th: “They have expressed their desire to be able to enrich uranium, which we believe is a step toward having a nuclear weapons program…”

 

August 28th: “Iran’s active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons…”

 

October 4th: “you should not have the know-how on how to make a (nuclear) weapon…”

 

October 17th: “until they suspend and/or make it clear that they, that their statements aren’t real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon.”

 

Before August 9th, it’s: “Trying to develop, build or pursue a nuclear weapon.”

 

After August 9th, it’s: “Desire, pursuit, want… knowledge, technology, know-how to enrich uranium.”

[Mr Skeptic]

It would be nice to have a website that contained every word of every public speech that each of our politicians have made. It may help fight deception and promise-breaking and other shenanigans. Gotta analyze those politicians.

[iNow]

It would be nice to have a website that contained every word of every public speech that each of our politicians have made. It may help fight deception and promise-breaking and other shenanigans. Gotta analyze those politicians.

 

As always, start with the Library of Congress. Very robust, very useful:

 

http://www.loc.gov/index.html

 

 

You can also try here:

 

http://www.wfu.edu/~louden/Political%20Communication/Class%20Information/SPEECHES.html

 

 

The C-SPAN Presidential Libraries project is rather useful as well:

 

http://www.c-span.org/apa/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=APA&ShowVidNum=6&Rot_Cat_CD=APA&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=60&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=30

 

 

 

Happy reading. Let us know what you find.