Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (11246)	10/7/2003 8:44:15 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793931

On the other hand, if the Plame affair had not come up, the question of the moment might be, "Why did the CIA get the intelligence on Iraq's WMDs so completely wrong?" Yes. In which case the retort would be: "We didn't!" Intelligence is being politicized to a fare-thee-well, to the detriment of the our security. DeLong did not emphasize a point I think is rather obvious, namely, the fact that the politicization of intelligence, with agents' identities being revealed as part of the politicization, is crossing a line over which the CIA will go to bureaucratic war with anyone, including the WH. After all, lives are at stake, even if Plame's wasn't and even if her husband is a bit on the cheesey side. A fight over principle. I see it as a reminder of two things: Be careful with identities, don't reveal IDs negligently, and don't do it intentionally. On reflection, the bureaucratic war may be justified, depending on what steps were taking to correct the problem out of the public eye. Such an approach may not have worked because of Wilson's antipathy to the WH--he was going to politicize the issue personally if the CIA didn't.