Shouldn’t he mind that the State Department is denying “country clearances” to CIA operatives?
(Page 2 of 2)
The State Department has the legal authority over government passports. But it should never — repeat never — be able to interfere with CIA operations that the Director of the CIA deems necessary to gather essential information abroad. Whether Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, or even President Obama is behind the State Department’s actions, Petraeus is duty-bound to defend his agency’s mission even to the point of taking the issue to the bipartisan leaders of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees.
The intelligence committee leaders have cooperated on a bipartisan basis on a great many important issues since 9/11. Only a few weeks ago, they held a joint press conference to urge a thorough investigation of the leaks of intelligence information evidently coming from the White House.
They should take action now. The four — Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.), Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ala.), Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) should call Petraeus to the Hill for a classified briefing on the State Department’s interference in intelligence operations. Once they find out how big and how severe the problem is, they can demand that the CIA — and the White House — solve it forthwith.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?