Ex-CIA Officers Rip Bush Over Rove Leak

Ex-CIA Officers Rip Bush Over Rove Leak
Fri Jul 22, 2005 17:57


Ex-CIA Officers Rip Bush Over Rove Leak

The Associated Press
Friday, July 22, 2005; 3:22 PM

WASHINGTON -- Former U.S. intelligence officers criticized President Bush on Friday for not disciplining Karl Rove in connection with the leak of the name of a CIA officer, saying Bush's lack of action has jeopardized national security.

In a hearing held by Senate and House Democrats examining the implications of exposing Valerie Plame's identity, the former intelligence officers said Bush's silence has hampered efforts to recruit informants to help the United States fight the war on terror. Federal law forbids government officials from revealing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer.

Former CIA analysts, Larry Johnson, center, with former analyst and case worker, Col. W. Patrick Lang (ret.), left, and Jim Marcinkowski, right, testifies on Capitol Hill before a joint Senate and House committee, Friday, July 22, 2005, in Washington. The Democrats of the Senate Policy Committee and House Government Reform Committee held a hearing on the CIA leak and the national security implications of disclosing the identity of a covert intelligence officer. (AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson) (Lawrence Jackson - AP)

"I wouldn't be here this morning if President Bush had done the one thing required of him as commander in chief _ protect and defend the Constitution," said Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst. "The minute that Valerie Plame's identity was outed, he should have delivered a strict and strong message to his employees."

Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff, told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in a 2003 phone call that former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues, according to an account by Cooper in the magazine. Rove has not disputed that he told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the agency, but has said through his lawyer that he did not mention her by name.

In July 2003, Robert Novak, citing unnamed administration officials, identified Plame by name in his syndicated column and wrote that she worked for the CIA. The column has led to a federal criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's undercover identity. New York Times reporter Judith Miller _ who never wrote a story about Plame _ has been jailed for refusing to testify.

Bush said last week, "I think it's best that people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. And I will do so, as well."

Dana Perino, a White House spokesman, said Friday that the administration would have no comment on the investigation while it was continuing.

Patrick Lang, a retired Army colonel and defense intelligence officer, said Bush's silence sends a bad signal to foreigners who might be thinking of cooperating with the U.S. on intelligence matters.

"This says to them that if you decide to cooperate, someone will give you up, so you don't do it," Lang said. "They are not going to trust you in any way."

Johnson, who said he is a registered Republican, said he wished a GOP lawmaker would have the courage to stand up and "call the ugly dog the ugly dog."

"Where are these men and women with any integrity to speak out against this?" Johnson asked. "I expect better behavior out of Republicans."


On the Net:

CIA: http://www.cia.gov

Harvard bailed out Bush's Harken with off-the-books partnership

truthout - Marjorie Cohn | Mr. Roberts' Neighborhood
Lets get the Truth Out, changing things for the better through information.

President Bush's Supreme Court Nomination Needs Careful Review

Tuesday 19 July 2005

Senate must ensure that Judge John Roberts will not unfairly strike down environmental safeguards.

Washington DC - The following is a statement by Earthjustice Executive Director Buck Parker regarding President Bush's nomination of Judge John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court:

"Earthjustice is concerned that Judge Roberts may fail to uphold our key environmental safeguards as a Supreme Court justice. In a key environmental case, [1] Judge Roberts questioned the constitutionality of Endangered Species Act safeguards. Roberts's arguments advanced a distorted view of Congressional power that could threaten to undermine a wide swath of environmental protections, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.

"Judge Roberts also displayed a flippant attitude towards preventing the extinction of what he called 'a hapless toad that, for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California.' His language contrasts with the consistent recognition of the value of species reflected by every court to consider the issue, including decisions by conservative Republican-appointed judges that rejected similar claims. [2] As the Bush Administration's own Solicitor General has noted, no court has ever upheld a similar constitutional challenge to any federal wildlife statute. [3]

"Industry groups have filed lawsuits claiming that a wide range of federal laws are unconstitutional, including key safeguards in the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and other statutes that protect the health, safety, and rights of workers and consumers. It is vital that the Supreme Court continue to reject, as it has in the past, these arguments that could threaten decades of progress in cleaning up our environment and protecting our families and communities.

"The Senate must fully and independently review this nomination, and determine whether as a Supreme Court justice, Judge Roberts would uphold the fundamental laws that protect our public health and environment."

"Supreme Court justices decide whether to uphold or strike down environmental laws. The Senate has a duty to ensure that the next Justice will be committed to upholding these safeguards and protecting the rights of all Americans.

"The American people want this country to continue moving forward. We don't want to roll back the progress we have made in protecting the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the wild places and endangered species that are our children's natural heritage. The public has the right to insist that the highest court in our country be fair, balanced, and independent from powerful special interests.

"The Senate's upcoming hearings and vote will affect the everyday lives of all Americans for generations to come. It is essential that all Senators avoid a rush to judgment, and recognize their responsibility to conduct a comprehensive, in-depth review of the nominee's record and views before confirming him to a lifetime seat on the nation's highest court."

[1] Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1158, 1160 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (Roberts, J. dissenting) (denying rehearing en banc).
[2] See Gibbs v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 483 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1145 (2001); National Ass'n of Home Builders (NAHB) v. Babbitt, 130 F.3d 1041 (D.C. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998).
[3] U.S. Brief.


Main Page - Saturday, 7/24/05

    Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]


    messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)