Pat Roberts and the Faux CIA HearingsSomervell County Salon-Glen Rose, Rainbow, Nemo, Glass....Texas


Pat Roberts and the Faux CIA Hearings

27 July 2005 at 11:38:55 PM

Via Huffington Post

Pat Roberts, the Kansas Senator who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, announced this weekend that he'll hold hearings on how the CIA designates and protects undercover officers. Roberts explained to CNN that the "outing" of Valerie Plame makes these issues a "big deal."

But then he contradicted himself. After referencing Plame's "outing," Roberts suggested she wasn't really outed because she wasn't really covert. Got that? In an effort to defend the White House, he trotted out this speculative smear:

"From a common sense standpoint, driving back and forth to work to the C.I.A. headquarters, I don't know if that really qualifies as being, you know, covert."

So Pat Roberts arrogantly believes he can retroactively determine which agents qualify as covert.

If he keeps this up, you can expect his hearings will try to discredit CIA policy on covert officers, as Arianna argued in a recent post.

Why focus on the CIA right now? The approach offers two potential benefits for Republican leak apologists.

First, it helps them claim they are responding to calls for Congressional investigations by holding hearings, even though the hearings aren't about the actual leak. The goal is to blur the distinction between serious oversight hearings and Roberts' speculative CIA-bashing. Some of this week's press coverage already shows that tactic is working.

Second, focusing on CIA policy instead of the White House leak protects the Administration and diverts blame to the CIA.

But this is a risky strategy that could backfire on live television.

On the merits, the public record shows Plame was undercover. That's why the CIA asked for an investigation in the first place. Her undercover status was a prerequisite for the crime in question. As one CIA official explained, if Plame "was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral. " And the classified memos detailing Plame's undercover status were marked secret, so Bush officials knew she was undercover.

Now Roberts can try to conduct hours of hearings contradicting those basic facts. But the farce will be obvious to objective observers.

Of course, Roberts has effectively exploited his committee for partisan politics before, like blaming the CIA for the Administration's deceptive use of prewar intelligence. But people eventually rejected that argument, and now most Americans believe the Bush Administration "intentionally misled the American public" before the war. People don't blame the CIA for the Administration's prewar intelligence deceptions, and I don't think they're going to blame the CIA for the Administration's postwar smears.

Strategically, these hearings can backfire by drawing attention back to the White House leak. Televised hearings give Senators a chance to expose more details on Plame's outing and directly confront Roberts' smears. If any Senator on the committee substantively challenges Roberts, it would put the Chairman on the defensive, make news and get people talking about how this leak compromised national security.

Should Roberts be worried? His staff is already concerned the hearings will depart from their partisan script. Two days after the CNN announcement, a Roberts spokesperson strained to remind everyone that Plame was off limits for the hearings, declaring the committee will not examine "specific actions taken by White House aides in connection with the Plame leak."

But it may be too late. When the gavel drops and the cameras go live, Senators from both parties will have to choose between partisan attacks on the CIA and a serious inquiry of undercover outings and twisted intelligence.

The Intelligence Committee's official jurisdiction requires it "provide vigilant legislative oversight" to ensure intelligence activities conform to the "laws of the United States." It doesn't look like Chairman Roberts takes that duty seriously. Soon we'll find out if any of his committee members do.

     Views: 540 
Latest Blog Post by salon -Video- Somervell County Commissioners Court Special Sessions (2) Dec 23 2019

 You! Leave a Comment! You Know you Want To!
You must be a registered member to comment on the blog.
Your first post is held pending approval to make sure you're not a spammer bot

 Not registered? Or you can login!

LOGON - Name:Password:

New poster comments are moderated, meaning they won't show up until approved... or not.  Be patient-we have lives outside this blog, so it might take awhile You want to be rude? totally stupid? inappropriate? Racist? Bigoted? Flame war baiter? Your post may be deleted. Spammers or people posting pretend interest comments but really wanting to hawk their latest book or sell stuff or govt propaganda flacks won't see their posts published. Comments do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the site owner(salon).
If you have a problem with logging in or registering, please speak up right away. Love your comments. Oh, except spammers
More on commenting


Click Here for Main Page

Today Is  
Thursday, January 23, 2020

Latest Posts

Paul Harper offered to settle State of Texas ex rel. Best v Harper lawsuit for $68k back in 2016
pharper 12/29/2019 Views 619

Video- Somervell County Commissioners Court Special Sessions (2) Dec 23 2019

salon 12/23/2019 Views 649

Top 100 Posts on Somervell County Salon for 2019

salon 12/22/2019 Views 452

Plans for Somervell County Salon Blog for 2020
salon 12/22/2019 Views 359

Imagine you were called up for jury duty and some people said they'd already made up their mind
salon 12/22/2019 Views 378

National Review on Removing Trump from Office (12/2019)
salon 12/22/2019 Views 371

More Blog Headlines



salon > Quick update on this, via Pacer-Click on pic to see larger (Turk Case Update- Telephone Conference Hearing Set for March 8 2019 )

salon > Lance Been awhile. Send me an email at with the names of who you're talking about, above. Also, the newspaper editor is no longer local, ie officed here, but the paper is run.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )

LanceHall > I'd love to see the Hotel Guest books and see if Jacene's name shows up long before he officially *found* the tracks.  I'd like to know if the Visitor's Bureau has emails wit.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )

LanceHall > I see the land or that part of it is now in the hands of Glen Rose's own Corky Underwood. Is Jacene still involved?   I had already informed the Visitor Bureau manager (who's.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )

Home | Blog Home | About | News | Piazza | Calendar | Audio/Video/Open Rec | Search
Write!  |profile | quotes |
top Daily | top Weekly |top Month | top Year | Top All! | archives | subscribe RSS