Work continues at "The Company" as those entrenched continue to resist change. Is there a need for change at the CIA after 9/11/01? The failed political policies of the Agency to undermine the 2004 election, ( Wilson & blame - WMD), and retain the job of those who failed with WMD briefs became more important than National Security.
Clearly there was internal confusion in the CIA on their Iraq-Niger intelligence. But the National Intelligence Estimates states that as early as 2001 "...Niger planned to send several tons(500) of 'pure uranium' (probably yellowcake) to Iraq... , this was cleared by the CIA for the Presidents speech. That is enough for ten bombs.
Now comes the TWIST and the MSM's cry "Where are the WMD"? Is this POLITICAL, you bet. Plant two estimates, later to be called CONFUSION, and condemn the President with either - "there is NO evidence or there IS evidence for Iraq having capability of WMD."
Today David Ignatius (Washingtonpost.com) discusses the "Danger Point In Spy Reform." Ignatius speaks of the " incomplete effort to restructure the intelligence community." It is human nature to resist change. It is more so if you are a D.C. bureaucrat.
He concludes with"The half-baked intelligence reorganization should go back in the oven. Negroponte, supported by President Bush, must finish the process -- and consolidate this overlayered bureaucracy. Getting intelligence right is a life-or-death matter for America, and, so far, it's only partly right."
I wholeheartly agree that the process started by President Bush MUST be finished. I disagree with the tone of the article that this "Spy Reform" is being botched by President Bush's Republican Porter Goss as director of the CIA. The ones sent to bring about REFORM, call the"Gosslings" at Langley by the LIBERALS is a sign of their hatred of this President. That's POLITICAL.
Bill Gertz in his book, "Breakdown" has it right. There is enough blame to go around in both Democrat and Republican Administrations. The intelligence failures that led to September 11, 2001 was a "life-or-death matter for America." That was and is bigger than "MY JOB" at the CIA or "HOW CAN I GET POLITICAL ADVANTAGE FROM THIS TRAGEDY."
2 comments:
The real risk.
Your account certainly sounds reasonable. But the fact of the matter is that a decision to go to war didn't have to be made when it was made. A simple decision tree would have shown that the risk simply was not worth the effort. The real risk was not and IS not WMD. The real risk is reinforcing an unstable middle east. AND reducing America's ability to leverage/pressure other issues throughout the world.
The decision DID NOT have to happen when it did. Nothing material would have changed if the decision had been delayed, PERIOD. The administration/President had a lot of information, BUT that should not have changed the options on the table. If the information on WMD was convincing, it was and still is a very, very bad decision.
john c
i_answer_to_john thanks for your comment."I Spy" post is primarily about the NEED to change the CIA.
The REAL RISK is for another post and I'm sure we will post on that in the near future.
You may have more inside information on the timing of sending in troops than I do - or did at the time.
I believe the President and the Congress had the SAME information, and both agreed to send in the troops. I believe it then became POLITICAL. It should not be.
Post a Comment