Smear Campaign Against the USIC Has Finally Begun

[Simon W. Moon]

I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop.

It's more of the utterly and beautifully absurd pop-con culture of victimhood. Team Bush star in their very own martyrdom play.

The folks who left the Admin w/ unflattering things to say, they were horrid partisans who the innocent and naive Admin hired on. How was teh Admin to know that so many folks working for them were actually lying partisan hacks?

Now, the nation's intel agencies and the Dept of State are in league w/ the Vast Liberal ConspiracyTM, the mind-control weilding MSM and the liberally biased reality itself. It all makes sense now. That's where the MSM got their mind-control devices - the CIA.

It's all here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/417aldhj.asp?pg=1

This is why it looks so bad for the Admin. It's not that they screwed up or anything, it's just that the US Intel Community has turned against them and is plotting their downfall.

Now every pop-con with a granny sandwich can go about their business and ignore the findings of one the world's finest intel services simply by hiding in the belief that the CIA's out to get poor, poor innocent Georgie.

I say, "Good luck," to all the poor schmucks who hold the Admin as immaculate. Soon you won't be able to back-track on your support for Team Bush quickly enough.
[Yes, yes. Of course. I know you wouldn't ever do that. You'll be a true-blue red because it's the right thing to do no matter what the facts are.]

 

[scottyz]

Bush really sort of started this by blaming all of his failures on the IC. It was only a matter of time before they got fed up with it.

 

[oldreliable67]

Simon,

To some degree, you are absolutely right. But is there, like in all good generalizations, a kernel of, if not truth, then perhaps a double standard in all this?

The Plame leak was considered so serious that it was referred to the Justice Dept, as all leaks of classified info are supposed to be - aren't they? But yet, several leaks of presumably classified info mentioned by Hinderaker have produced no announcement of being referred to the DoJ, with the notable exception of the 'secret-prison' leak.

And last year, Robert Novak reported on a meeting between CIA national intelligence officer Paul Pillar, saying that,

"A few hours after George W. Bush dismissed a pessimistic CIA report on Iraq as ''just guessing,'' the analyst who identified himself as its author told a private dinner last week of secret, unheeded warnings years ago about going to war in Iraq. This exchange leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the president of the United States and the Central Intelligence Agency are at war with each other.

the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, sat down Tuesday night in a large West Coast city with a select group of private citizens. He was not talking off the cuff. Relying on a multi-paged, single-spaced memorandum, Pillar said he and his colleagues concluded early in the Bush administration that military intervention in Iraq would intensify anti-American hostility throughout Islam.

The Bush-CIA tension escalated Sept. 15 when the New York Times reported a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that was circulated in August (not July, as the newspaper reported), spelling out ''a dark assessment of Iraq'' with civil war as the ''worst case'' outcome. The NIE was prepared by Pillar, and well-placed sources believe Pillar leaked it, though he denied that at Tuesday night's dinner.

For President Bush to publicly write off a CIA paper as just guessing is without precedent. For the agency to go semi-public is not only unprecedented but shocking."

Source.

I noticed that one blogger (and I can't find it at the moment, but maybe you know the one to which I refer), noted the dis-satisfaction in the Cheney office with the intel product being offered from the CIA. Reportedly, Cheney scribbled in the margin of one the reports from intel guys at DoD words to the effect that "this is better than that crap from the CIA".

So, what is going on?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So, what is going on?

AFAICT, the Admin hasn't been happy with what the professionals have told them, so they set up various ad hoc groups who would tell them what they want to hear.

 

[oldreliable67]

set up various ad hoc groups who would tell them what they want to hear.

With all the criticisms of the intel community in general and the CIA especially, including those criticisms in the Kerr Report that you are fond of sourcing, is it not possible that there is a dissatisfaction with the product and further, that there was an effort to get better intel? Isn't the level of dissatisfaction with the intelligence product the raison de entre for the creation of the DNI function? And a major reason why the need such a function was singled out by the 9/11 Commisssion?

I don't the think the Kerr Report should be described as a "smear campaign", yet there were some quite strong criticisms leveled there, were there not? Certainly, one would have to think the description of the intelligence on WMD as being "clearly wide of the mark" and "strongly influenced by untested, long-held assumptions" is a pretty strong criticism, wouldn't one?

Are those various ad hoc groups still in existence, and if so, who and where in the bureaucracy are they located?

 

[KCConservative]

You're so right, Simon. Those of us who support the president and the administration are schmucks. Feel free to use name calling whenever you feel like it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
You're so right, Simon. Those of us who support the president and the administration are schmucks. Feel free to use name calling whenever you feel like it.

Now that we got the name-calls out, can we now debate the point of this thread?

 

[Billo_Really]

Simon,
Did you start this in the basement out of guilt for all the things you sent down here, or was the elevator out of service and you were too tired to take the stairs? I don't think this thread belongs down here. It does not meet our grade of flame. We hold our low standards in high regard down here. What are our constituents going to think?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

You're so right, Simon. Those of us who support the president and the administration are schmucks. Feel free to use name calling whenever you feel like it.

Hey schmuck, have you noticed that we're in the Basement?


You seem to have some unusual issues understanding the rules. No one else yet has had the the same problems. I realize that you're very, very special person (your momma told me so), but, on the other hand it leads one to suspect that you're intentionally misunderstanding and crying wolf, trying to play innocence abused.

Innocence Abused guards her purity jealously and cannot countenance crude language and gets the vapors over frank references to intimate bodily functions. This digital ingénue is a very weak Warrior ...
​

But, you know, I could be wrong. Perhaps your troubles understanding straightforward instructions and guidelines are genuine.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Simon,
Did you start this in the basement out of guilt for all the things you sent down here, or was the elevator out of service and you were too tired to take the stairs? I don't think this thread belongs down here. It does not meet our grade of flame. We hold our low standards in high regard down here. What are our constituents going to think?

I felt like crying, bitching and whining rather than debating. This is the place for such carrying on.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

With all the criticisms of the intel community in general and the CIA especially, including those criticisms in the Kerr Report that you are fond of sourcing, is it not possible that there is a dissatisfaction with the product and further, that there was an effort to get better intel?

I'd like to see who made the recommendation that a handful of folks thrown into ad hoc groups to go over reports w/o regard to the reports' reliability, veracity or verifiability would lead to "better intel."

It's possible that there was an effort to get better intel. But setting up a shop like the Policy Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group with two fellows, one who has had his security clearances revoked more than once, to go over uncorroborated data doesn't seem like a likely let alone fitting candidate for a group set up provide "better intel." YMMV. Perhaps getting two guys to together to go over reports of widely varying veracity seems like a good way to make life and death decisions to you. Turns out that they cited numerous items that had been previously debunked, originated from known fabricators, and items labelled highly dubious.

The PCTEG mentioned above an the OSP, the two groups in question, both used reports of widely varying veracity and ended up creating estimates that were more wildly off the mark than the USIC. Who would have thought that, a couple of ad hoc groups can't do as good of a job as the entirety of the USIC? I mean on the face of it, it sound like you'd get great stuff from them. On the face of it, it seems that we should scrap the entirety of the USIC in favor of ad hoc groups of a handful of ideologues.

Isn't the level of dissatisfaction with the intelligence product the raison de entre for the creation of the DNI function? And a major reason why the need such a function was singled out by the 9/11 Commisssion?

So? What do the recommendations of the 9-11 commission have to do w/ the creation of these ad hoc groups? Where in the 9-11 recommendations does it say that?

I don't the think the Kerr Report should be described as a "smear campaign", yet there were some quite strong criticisms leveled there, were there not?

So what?

Are those various ad hoc groups still in existence, and if so, who and where in the bureaucracy are they located?

AFAIK, they have been disbanded. They were under the DoD Undersecretary Fieth.
here's a wiki on the OSP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans
Here's an ancient thread from another board:
Pentagon Office of Special Plans (OSP): What's the Deal?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Oh, yeah, these are the groups who "found" that aQ and Hussein were in cahoots. Not only were they wrong abou the WMD, they were wrong about the aQ-Hussein relationship, about post war Iraq etc.

 

[KCConservative]

Oh, yeah, these are the groups who "found" that aQ and Hussein were in cahoots. Not only were they wrong abou the WMD, they were wrong about the aQ-Hussein relationship, about post war Iraq etc.

They were wrong or they lied? Make up your mind.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

They were wrong or they lied? Make up your mind.

They're not mutually exclusive states.

 

[KCConservative]

They're not mutually exclusive states.

Another non answer. Thanks.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Another non answer. Thanks.

Perhaps your toubles are real rather than feigned.

What someone says can be wrong when they are lying.

I don't think my humble powers are great enough to help you.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon
I felt like crying, bitching and whining rather than debating. This is the place for such carrying on.

In that case, welcome to the jungle, we got fun and games. Over here we have the KCC ride of relevence and reason.....

 

[oldreliable67]

I'd like to see who made the recommendation that a handful of folks thrown into ad hoc groups to go over reports w/o regard to the reports' reliability, veracity or verifiability would lead to "better intel."

So there were two groups that were studying the Iraq situation out of the Defense Dept: this Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group (CTEG) and the Office of Special Plans (OSP), both Douglas Feith creations? The NYT article says that the OSP was involved in prewar planning but not intelligence analyis, which was the province of the CTEG. But the Guardian article says that "when the established agencies [CIA, DIA] came up with nothing concrete to link Iraq and al-Qaida, the OSP was given the task of looking more carefully."

Sounding like its describing the CTEG, the Guardian says, "The OSP had access to a huge amount of raw intelligence. It came in part from "report officers" in the CIA's directorate of operations whose job it is sift through reports from agents around the world, filtering out the unsubstantiated and the incredible." So exactly who was who and did what to whom?

So? What do the recommendations of the 9-11 commission have to do w/ the creation of these ad hoc groups? Where in the 9-11 recommendations does it say that?

Sorry, didn't make myself clear. I was wondering whether the 9/11 commissions findings are indicative of the level of dissatisfaction with the intl product being produced by the USIC in the years leading up to and the period following 9/11. That is, there must of been some reason(s) that the admin distrusted or otherwise thought the USIC product was not as good as it should have been. Is it not possible that it was this dissatisfaction that contributed to an atmosphere that in which these so-called 'ad hoc' groups were able to function? The reason Cheney wrote his 'crap from the CIA' comment?

In a natural reaction, its awfully easy in hindsight for those whose inclinations are naturally with the USIC to be critical of these efforts of the OSP or the CTEG - they were, after all, second-guessing the USIC. True, the OSP/CTEG, in comparison to the USIC, should have been regarded as amatuers. But if the USIC wasn't producing the goods???

 

[KCConservative]

In that case, welcome to the jungle, we got fun and games. Over here we have the KCC ride of relevence and reason.....

You boys sure spend a lot of time referencing me in your posts to one another. :thanks:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
You boys sure spend a lot of time referencing me in your posts to one another.

Because that's the only time you respond and leave the illusion of a possible debate. Quickly though, it goes back to your lame, Hate-Bush Mantra.

 

[KCConservative]

Because that's the only time you respond and leave the illusion of a possible debate. Quickly though, it goes back to your lame, Hate-Bush Mantra.

And remember, what Simon says goes.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
And remember, what Simon says goes

Trust me, he likes me a lot less than he likes you. You and Simon are both on the same side (conservatives). I'm not. Him and I are definately not allies. But I do respect the way he does is homework and draws conclusions from the evidence instead of going off of pure emotion. And no, I'm not accusing you of the latter. I think we are all guilty of that from time to time.

 

[Billo_Really]

Sh_t! I forgot to say something about Bush in that last post.

 

[KCConservative]

You and Simon are both on the same side (conservatives).

Sorry, Billo, but he's no conservative. His words tell the real story every day.

 

[scottyz]

Sorry, Billo, but he's no conservative. His words tell the real story every day.

Yeah, real Conservatives blindly believe whatever the Bush admin. tells them to. :roll: