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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (147415)	10/8/2004 1:54:26 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

The C.I.A. has a distinct edge: "unique access to policy makers and unique control of intelligence reporting," the report found. The Presidential Daily Briefs, for example, are prepared and presented by agency analysts; the agency's director is the president's principal intelligence adviser. This allows agency analysts to control the presentation of information to policy makers "without having to explain dissenting views or defend their analysis from potential challenges," the committee's report said. This problem, the report said, was "particularly evident" with the C.I.A.'s analysis of the tubes, when agency analysts "lost objectivity and in several cases took action that improperly excluded useful expertise from the intelligence debate." In interviews, Senate investigators said the agency's written assessments did a poor job of describing the debate over the intelligence. From April 2001 to September 2002, the agency wrote at least 15 reports on the tubes. Many were sent only to high-level policy makers, including President Bush, and did not circulate to other intelligence agencies. None have been released, though some were described in the Senate's report. Several senior C.I.A. officials insisted that those reports did describe at least in general terms the intelligence debate. "You don't go into all that detail but you do try to evince it when you write your current product," one agency official said. But several Congressional and intelligence officials with access to the 15 assessments said not one of them informed senior policy makers of the Energy Department's dissent. They described a series of reports, some with ominous titles, that failed to convey either the existence or the substance of the intensifying debate. Over and over, the reports restated Joe's main conclusions for the C.I.A. - that the tubes matched the 1950's Zippe centrifuge design and were built to specifications that "exceeded any known conventional weapons application." They did not state what Energy Department experts had noted - that many common industrial items, even aluminum cans, were made to specifications as good or better than the tubes sought by Iraq. Nor did the reports acknowledge a significant error in Joe's claim - that the tubes "matched" those used in a Zippe centrifuge. The tubes sought by Iraq had a wall thickness of 3.3 millimeters. When Energy Department experts checked with Dr. Zippe, a step Joe did not take, they learned that the walls of Zippe tubes did not exceed 1.1 millimeters, a substantial difference. "They never lay out the other case," one Congressional official said of those C.I.A. assessments. nytimes.com

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (147415)	10/8/2004 2:15:31 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Respond to of 281500

EDIT: THis is a reply to Neocon's message: Message 20618468 Yes, I read that very clearly. Here's the flaw in looking at that as a cover-his-ass excuse: Condeleeza Rice is not the president. Her job involves minutia, the Presidents does not. Presidential Daily Briefs are hopefully not the only information used to justify a war. Also, in other reports, Cheney set up a special "Office of Special Plans" within the intelligence community (will dig out the link, can't remember if it was within the CIA or Pentagon) charged with coming up with information that aligned with what they wanted to do. This last point is one admittedly you have to reach for, but I am not strictly coming to conclusions because people in the intelligence area stated this as fact. I've seen interviews with intelligence analysts who were aware of this planning group, and who had differing views that collided with the planning group. Given what we know now, and we know the time line of information that was known, its clearly evident that a chain of "plausible deniability" was set up. OSP is the scape goat. Intentionally. And they are volunteers in that cause I am sure.