Redstate

The White House packages and publicizes the  intelligence that supports its political agenda, and attempts to bury inconvenient facts. Rogue elements within the intelligence community occasionally point out the most blatant examples of one-sided intelligence peddling. We would all be better served if intelligence was separated from politics.

that the CIA and State have been and remain in near open revolt against the Administration. And the casus belli seems to be the temerity of the Administration has to insist that it, not career intelligence and foreign service mandarins, have the right to establish foreign policy for the nation.

Before anyone takes this latest bit of fluff from the CIA terribly seriously, one should consider this interesting item buried in the story:

Until recently, Iran was judged, according to February testimony by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to be within five years of the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Since 1995, U.S. officials have continually estimated Iran to be "within five years" from reaching that same capability. So far, it has not.

So, according to the same agency that predicts 10 years until Iran has a nuke they have had a nuke every year since 2001.

I hope he continues on in his investigation and quickly scoops another piece of trash into his bag.

Not one, not two, but three screen names. And previously warned by Thomas, too. It's off to The Pile™ for you and your alter egos.

The CIA has been so wrong about so many things so many times I wouldn't trust those circus clowns to pee in a light socket correctly.

1. They missed the Soviet missile buildup. Outside analysts, known as "Team B", correctly called the fact that the Brezhnev regime was pursuing an investment in heavy, silo-based MIRV'ed

ICBM's.

2. They completely misjudged the consequential hollowing-out of the Soviet economy. As Japan was pulling ahead, they continued to rank the Soviet Union as the world's second largest economy.
   
3. They NEVER correctly analyzed North Vietnamese strategy during that war, and completely missed the Tet Offensive in 1968. Like Bush almost thirty years later, they left an American President with his pants down and the family jewels showing.
   
4. Bay of Pigs. Nuff said.
   
5. We now find that they COMPLETELY missed the Chinese naval buildup during the 1990's and are only now catching up to the PLAN naval shipbuilding program. Meantime, while the nation needs their attention on these important matters, CIA is busy trying to undermine the President and help the Democratic Party. Perhaps Valerie could send husband Joe to the Shanghai Naval Construction Shipyard to see if any of these "crazy reports" about Chinese naval shipbuilding happen to be true.

Not that Joe is an intelligence officer. Shoot, that never stopped CIA from using him in the past. I'm sure he could sit by the pool and shoot the breeze with the locals, though.

6. WMD's are a "slam dunk", Mr. President. That's right, folks. Half the reason the CIA leaked so hard against GW was to cover their own teehinies over the fact that they had grown into this hugely incompetent agency that couldn't help but be hugely wrong in its work product. They had to give the impression that ChimpyMcBushitler buffaloed them into providing him with slanted intelligence. Only now, we're finding out that no matter how hard they leaked, it just wasn't so. The CIA screwed up, just like they did at the Bay of Pigs, just like they did in Laos, just like they are doing in Iran today.

I can guarandadgumteeya that the Iranians are much farther ahead than the CIA assessment indicates. The "ten year" number sounds like something that some beuraucrat pulled out of his rear end. The Iranians are putting their best people and their best resources into this, and are making this a top national priority. If the North Koreans can do it, the Iranians can do it, and it won't take ten years.

ALWAYS assume that the CIA is wrong about enemy intentions and capabilities. That assumption will stand you in good stead. You don't think the Israelis are treating this leak with any level of seriousness, do you?

Lamont, you can trust the CIA all you want. I wouldn't trust those maroons to buy my lunch.

...appears to have brought State to heel for the time being. That's what happens when you get your department a 15% increase in real discretionary spending. You can do that when you're Condi.

Porter Goss, otoh, appears to be at sea in a leaky boat.

Let me get this straight:

You're going to say the CIA is always wrong, because they're incompetent, and put your full faith in the Administration??

You do know where your Administration gets its info on foriegn countries, right?

This article is not about Karl Rove. It is about today's leak of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. Your attempt to send the thread careening into your talking point collection ist kerput.

Say hello to the Campus.

As far as I'm concerned, it's now inevitable.  The only question is when it comes about and who sets it up.

The CIA is one of many intelligence agencies.

So the question here really is do YOU know where the Administration gets its information from.

[BLockquote]Until recently, Iran was judged, according to February testimony by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to be within five years of the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Since 1995, U.S. officials have continually estimated Iran to be "within five years" from reaching that same capability. So far, it has not.[/Blockquote]

Just deal with them as if they're close to getting the WMDs regardless.

The question is, "Can the CIA be salvaged?"

I'm not sure it can.  We may need to set up a new spy agency.  The Campus, anyone?  That's where it seems to be going.

Maybe the MEK can start going after some of the folks working on the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

I'm not so sure that GW depends on the CIA as much as you might think he does. Negroponte is where he is for a reason.

> You're going to say the CIA is always

> wrong, because they're incompetent

More the activist left-wing Bush-hating parts of the CIA.

But they can't really stop folks from leaking.  And look - now it's conventional wisdom that we are ten years from an Iranian bomb.  This squawking is going to get worse, not better.

you apparently missed the message above.

This public service announcement has replaced your deleted comment.

before suggesting unleashing MEK. I'm not a big believer in all the "moral high ground" nonsense but using MEK would not be a good move and given their effectiveness pre-2003 not a useful one.

If we'll remember, before the War in Iraq, there were a lot of ridiculous predictions from civilian sources too:

From:

Victorian Peace Network: Medical report forecasts huge death toll

(12 November 2002)

http://www.vicpeace.org/stories/03/1053.html

A US-led attack on Iraq is likely to result in between 48,000 and 260,000 deaths during the first three months of combat, according to a study by medical and public health experts launched in Parliament House by the Medical Association for Prevention of War (MAPW) today. Post-war health effects could take an additional 200,000 lives.

[...]

The report, titled "Collateral Damage: The Health and Environmental Costs of War on Iraq", is based on projections from the 1990-91 Gulf War, which led to an estimated 205,000 casualties. It analyses current U.S. combat scenarios and concludes that a new conflict will be much more intense and destructive than the first Gulf War.

The report forecasts a huge death toll, a massive humanitarian crisis and long term health and environmental damage from any war on Iraq. If nuclear weapons were used, the death toll would rise into the millions. The aftermath of such a military attack could include civil war, famine, epidemics, millions of refugees and economic collapse, according to the report.

We need to slow down this program...

the MEK provides an option. On their best day the most they could accomplish was getting run out of Iran.

any question on this with a "you know we are concerned about the leak of intelligience-especially the selective leaking, so instead of answering your questions we intend to figure out who the leaker is, and charge them with leaking classified information" or something along those lines.

They should respond with that every single time the CIA or State decides to do another hit on the administration.

Virtually ALL of those agencies, except for the FBI and DIA, report to the DCI.

The FBI has no jurisdiction outside of our borders and the DIA is primarily concerned with tactical intelligence.

... high profile trials and an execution or two might change the leak problem.

I'd start with subpeonas for the WaPo and NYT writers and editors. They will of course refuse so a few years behind bars is in order. Lie detector tests and interviews of anyone at CIA et al and on Capitol Hill and anyone failing has their security clearance lifted and their library card suspended followed by criminal indictments.

Personaly I am sick and tired of people who think that they have some special calling to reveal America's secrets "for the good of America." BS, its for their own personal or political gain. In a free society secrecy should be adopted sparingly, but once it is it needs to be observed.

with our intelligence community.  The entire structure of our intelligence community is flawed.  Although steps have been taken to rectify it there STILL exists far too many chinese walls between agencies that don't allow intelligence to be properly disseminated.

For anyone interested I recommend Fixing Intelligence by William Odom.  Odom is a former head of the National Security Agency and he goes into great detail explaining how we have completely screwed up our intelligence community by allowing various departments to wage turf wars instead of building strong intelligence organizations.

As for the belief that the CIA is Anti-Bush there is probably some truth to that.  But it's not because of a turf issue.  It's because the President let the CIA take the fall for the WMD debacle.  And before anyone says "Well they screwed up so they SHOULD take the blame" that isn't the point.  The ACTUAL PEOPLE in the CIA likely view his actions as a betrayal.  He is their boss.  He SHOULD have taken responsibility.  This is what commanders do.  If you are the Captain of a ship it is YOUR responsibility no matter WHAT happens.  

Having said all that I think it is VERY important that we DON'T make reforming our intelligence community a partisan issue.  

But remember this position when your aren't such a fan of a future Administration.

Leaks are a critical part of how our government operates.  They make sure that our government doesn't try to pull a fast one on us, at least in theory.  

issue of Bush letting the CIA take the fall-for one thing the CIA has screwed up more than enough on intelligience gathering issues since 2000 that they in fact do carry the burden of the blame to some extent.

But I think the CIA also marches to its own drum for the most part-the CIA wasn't slavering over Clinton either, there are certainly partisans within the CIA, but overall the CIA does what the CIA wants, because it is the CIA and operates in secrecy.

State I think has it in for the administration, because it doesn't like it (the GOP and current foreign policy), but the CIA I think doesn't like any administration telling them what to do.

Rove thing again?

Apparantly you are now all for leaks.

Sorry, but if something is classified, it is classified, and somebody in the government-especially somebody cloaked with secrecy, shouldn't be out there revealing classified information.

If that is how our government works, then no wonder our intelligience is so crappy-nobody can keep their mouths shut, and you apparantly don't expect them to.

I think it is VERY important that we DON'T make reforming our intelligence community a partisan issue.  

Surely you jest. Bush can't even nominate a frigging UN Ambassador without it turning into a food fight.

The only thing to do about this is to keep marginalizing the Democrats, make them lose as many seats as possible in each election, until all they can do is pout in their media.

Nothing less than that can describe this statement.  From the list

National Security Agency belongs to DoD

National Reconnaissance Office belongs to DoD

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency belongs to DoD

Defense Intelligence Agency belongs to DoD (and it is not primarily concerned with "tactical intelligence" which is the province of a divisional Military Intelligence battalion)

And on and on.

In fact, the CIA has no line or budgetary authority over any other intelligence agency - it merely has tasking authority over some assets and that tasking authority can be overridden by the SecDef - which is why the National Intelligence Director's position was created.

that the analysts who misinterpreted the data are blameless but the guys who used the misinterpreted data should take the heat. And they have a right to feel betrayed when their wrong decisions come to light.

Okay. That's pretty clear. Bizarre, but clear.

no moral value to leaks.  Sometimes leaks are good and sometimes they are bad.  

I don't have a position on the Rove thing.  Fitzgerald will eventually end his inquiry and if the grand jury finds that a crime was committed they will indict someone.  I have no idea so I pretty much will wait and see.

I don't have ANY IDEA what sort of classification the NIE report has.  Is it a Top Secret report?  What makes it Top Secret?  A report can be marked Top Secret because of specific content while other portions can be considered unclassified.  For instance a Top Secret report on Iran may provide a general overview of the political framework of Iran.  That wouldn't be classified. However the report may containt intelligence findings that ARE classified.  A person could leak the overview information and not be violating any laws whereas a person leaking the intelligence findings would be.

This is what I have been trying to tell you for a couple of weeks now.  Simply assuming that something is classified is far too broad.  The NIE report on Iran may be a Top Secret report.  However that doesn't mean that everything IN the report is classified.  

As much as you may not be willing to believe this the CIA takes security violations VERY seriously.    Do you REALLY believe that Porter Goss would allow some CIA analyst to leak sensitive information without punishment?  

Do you REALLY believe that Porter Goss would allow some CIA analyst to leak sensitive information without punishment?

I figure part of the reason he's there is to shut that down. But first he has to find the cretins who are doing it.

no one listens to you is because you are wrong.

The highest security classification in a report determines the security classification of the entire report. An individual can't release that information, even the declassified parts, and say that the information was included in a classified report. Part of a classified report can be declassified through agency clearance, but an individual can't make that decision.

I wish people would quit talking about "intelligence" as if it were an objective entity.  Intelligence is nothing more than data, as such it has no value apart from the purpose it serves. In a democracy such as ours, that means it is designed to support the policy and actions of our democratically elected leaders. So to speak ill of the Bush Adinstration for focussing on the intelligence data that best supports its policies is foolish.

There are those in the CIA who seek to selectively use (and leak) that intelligence which best supports THEIR policies. The difference is that they weren't elected by anybody.

Contrary to the post I saw earlier, "leaking" is not a fundamental part of our government.  That's nuts. Leaking is what frustrated and bitter people do when they don't like the direction that democratically elected leaders are taking.

   

The analysts disseminate the data they don't make policy decisions on the data.  There is a GREAT deal of question regarding WHO was doing the interpreting of the data.  

But of course since it is a Known Fact that the Administration leadership was duped by those pernicious analysts there isn't much reason to argue this.  

Contrary to the post I saw earlier, "leaking" is not a fundamental part of our government.  That's nuts. Leaking is what frustrated and bitter people do when they don't like the direction that democratically elected leaders are taking.

It is the democratically elected leaders who are doing the leaking.  I assume they aren't bitter and frustrated.

Leaks have been going on since the beginning of our country.  Take a look at this article for a brief overview of some of the more notable ones.

http://hnn.us/articles/342.html

the EEEEEVIL Bush Administration browbeating poor analysts who were kept chained in the basement of Cheney's office until they changed their principled analysis over past 12 years to conform to... their analysis over the past 12 years.

Until until this year the Director of Central Intelligence was responsible for the ENTIRE intelligence community.  While various agencies may have been part of the DoD they STILL ultimately reported to the DCI.

That changed with the creation of the Director of National Intelligence.  That position is now in charge of the intelligence community.

The DCI never exerted line or budgetary authority over any intelligence agency other than the CIA. That was the plan when the DCI was created. It never happened.

that permits the analysts to decide what material is and isn't classified, and that they can anonymously release it to the public?

they don't disseminate intelligence outside authorized channels. They don't decide on declassification. It doesn't happen that way.

I am not exonnerating the CIA.  But I am also not exonnerating the Bush Administration which was guilty, at the very least, of pushing for selective intelligence.

But I guess you think that hyperbole bolsters your position.  To each their own.

I said that parts of a classified document can be considered unclassified.  Since I have no idea what classification the NIE report had I have no way of knowing what if any of it even NEEDED to be declassified.

I wish people would quit talking about "intelligence" as if it were an objective entity.  Intelligence is nothing more than data, as such it has no value apart from the purpose it serves. In a democracy such as ours, that means it is designed to support the policy and actions of our democratically elected leaders. So to speak ill of the Bush Adinstration for focussing on the intelligence data that best supports its policies is foolish...

Contrary to the post I saw earlier, "leaking" is not a fundamental part of our government.  That's nuts. Leaking is what frustrated and bitter people do when they don't like the direction that democratically elected leaders are taking.

Intelligence supports policy and actions? I figured that intelligence helps to design policy and actions, but should never be shaped to support policy and actions. It either supports policy and actions, or it is time to change those policies and actions. Anything else is illogical, but surely all things happen in politics - however, it doensn't make them right.

Jounalism is a fundamental part of our government, and they bring leaks to light. In theory the leaks are whistle blowers, people who are on the inside and know more about what is going on than the American people do. When the people are swayed by bad information a leaker with proper journalism behind it can inform the public of something the people may not agree with.

The problem is that some of us don't believe the jounalists and therefor we don't trust the leakers, and rightly so, journalism seems to be in a slump right now, and MSM isn't taking up the slack.

The DCI never had budgetary authority over any DoD intel agency, including DIA. And the DIA does much more than just tactical or military intelligence; it does political intelligence and counterterrorism to the same extent as CIA. in fact, CIA does its analysis primarily off of human intelligence whereas DIA does all-source intel.

Do I think it's kinda silly we have 13 intel agencies? You bet. But, it does say something that the CIA is NOT the primary when it comes to intel and that there is a lot of community wide checks and balances in analysis.

... I was, and remain, opposed to "leaks." This government leaks like a d*mn sieve and this is no way to run a railroad.

It appears the everyone in DC feels they have some God-given right to determine what is or is not to be public knowledge. We are, whether the WaPo and NYT like it or not, at war. Frankly I don't think it is too much to ask the "Doyens of DC" to keep their d*mn mouths shut.

And personally if some of the leakers on Capitol Hill, Langley, Foggy Bottom, WaPo, NYT et al, at whatever level {wink, wink, nudge, nudge}, were as Joe Wilson likes to say, "frog marched" off to a federal penetentiary I think we'd all be a lot better off for it. And the odd firing squad would prove even more salubrious.

-------------------

Is interesting to the MSM: The airline outing hurts us directly. The selective leak of the Iranian study simply confuses our policy and allows us to run the danger that the Iranians surprise us rather badly. But it would certainly give the MSM more to blame W for, in the 'surprise' proof of Iranian nuclear ability.

Surely you have not forgotten how 'surprised' the intel community was when we found out only after GW1 that Saddam was, as he had been accused, close to a nuke ability.

I would rather have intel that errs on the side of actually protecting us than one that plays to the MSM at the expense, a la 911 our national security.

the DIA does much more than just tactical or military intelligence; it does political intelligence and counterterrorism to the same extent as CIA.

Oh good. Are they on our side?  ;)

The notion that rogue elements of the CIA or the State Department intelligence bureaus are conducting 'psyops' on the American public is a terrifying possibility. But this latest leak warns us that this is indeed the case; such a group is operating to influence American politics in accordance with their own vision of what those politics ought to be.

We should insist that these elements be identified, rooted out, and punished. The last thing we need is unelected "spooky people" manipulating public opinion according to their own whims. That way lies a very frightening form of tyranny.

Or maybe the locus of this cabal is not at Langley but on 15th Street, NW.  Or a couple of blocks over at a nice lunch spot.  

We can't know what the Post knows, only what they publish, and what they say they know.  They won't be publishing anything to support GWBush no matter who leaks it to them.  They won't be worried about Iranian nukes until they can publish the headline: Bush Fails, Iran has Bomb.

As I recall, even the CIA website notes that it uses all-source intelligence.