Originally posted at:Fred Hiatt, the editorial and op-ed pages of the Washington Post have gradually moved to the right. Post editorials and op-eds have defended the decision to go to war in Iraq; opposed any improvement in bilateral relations with Russia; refused to acknowledge Israel's misuse of military power in the Middle East; and lobbied against the need for investigation of the detention and interrogation programs of the Bush administration.
As part of the campaign to prevent a rigorous examination of "enhanced interrogation techniques"- (read: "torture and abuse"-), the Washington Post's editorial pages have been particularly protective of the Central Intelligence Agency and its senior leaders--the ideological drivers for torture and extraordinary renditions policies. These CIA leaders, particularly deputy director Steven Kappes and acting general counsel John Rizzo, are not trying to protect the reputation and mission of the CIA; they are trying to protect themselves.
Surely senior journalists from the mainstream media must understand that reliance on anonymous CIA clandestine sources is neither good reporting nor professional journalism. Many of these "anonymous sources"- almost certainly are former and current CIA officials seeking to protect themselves. George Tenet, John McLaughlin, and John Brennan are individuals who fit that description.
The Scheuer article is particularly scurrilous, accusing President Obama of self-righteousness and intellectual arrogance"- in deciding to release the torture memos. Scheuer believes that an end to torture will lead to future terrorist attacks that could involve the "loss of major cities and tens of thousands of countrymen,"- and that the president will bear some responsibility. Scheuer, an aggressive proponent of torture and abuse, was the leader of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit in the 1990s. His behavior at CIA was so bizarre that he was eventually quarantined by the Agency, spending the last few years of his employment in the Agency's library without access to classified documents.
These Post articles also reflect the opinion of key members of the CIA's National Clandestine Service and Office of the General Counsel, who want to cover up CIA war crimes and prevent any authoritative investigation of the CIA's creation, operation, and maintenance of its detention and interrogation programs. The CIA took a similar stance in trying to block investigations of such intelligence failures as the inability to track the decline of the Soviet Union in the 1980s; the 9/11 intelligence failure in 2001; and the provision of specious intelligence to the White House and the Congress of the United States in the run-up to the war with Iraq in 2003.
Over the years, retired and active members of the directorate of operations have taken their stories to Ignatius; they have been rewarded by Ignatius' one-sided accounts of CIA derring-do and willingness to ignore operational and analytical failures. Ignatius is welcome to his opinion on these matters, of course, but he should not be permitted to create facts that don't square with the history of the recent past.
A comparison of last week's op-eds by Ignatius and Goss, a former CIA clandestine operative and a former chairman of the House intelligence committee as well as the CIA director during the period of torture and abuse, is particularly revealing. Both Ignatius and Goss argue that foreign intelligence services will not share sensitive intelligence with the United States and the CIA because of the declassification and release of the torture memoranda. That is nonsense!
The truth is that European liaison services as well as other intelligence services have tempered their cooperation with the CIA because of the use of torture and abuse as well as the extraordinary rendition of innocent individuals from their countries to intelligence services in the Middle East. The CIA's extra-legal activities have complicated and undermined the task of maintaining credible relations with our allies in the battle against terrorism.
Both Ignatius and Goss argue that, because of the release of the memos, CIA clandestine operatives will keep their heads down and avoid assignments that carry political risk, and that the decline in CIA "morale and effectiveness"- will harm American national security. More nonsense! CIA operatives and analysts are professionals who pride themselves on service to the country and their oath to the Constitution.
Very few of them took part in the corruption of intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and very few participated in the policies of torture and abuse. They know that the law should not be broken and they want to get these issues behind them so that they can continue to serve the national interests of the United States. They know that painful truths must be acknowledged and that some price must be paid by all for the chicanery of a few.
The enemy has had this information for more than five years, ever since every major newspaper in the world published the unconscionable images
Two of the most senior Post writers, David Broder and Walter Pincus, who have been reporting on national political and national security issues for decades, joined the apologists for CIA actions. Pincus argues that previous investigations of CIA transgressions damaged the Agency. He ignores the fact that the Church Commission in the 1970s led to the creation of the Senate and House intelligence oversight committees as well as the introductions of "findings"- that made sure a president had to vet plans for covert action with the oversight committees. And he fails to note that the CIA's illegal role in Iran-contra led to the creation of an independent, statutory Inspector General to make sure that CIA transgressions could be inspected internally and reported to the Justice Department whenever necessary.