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: LindyBill who wrote (133834)	8/23/2005 7:51:26 AM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 793848

But the statement, which did not identify the officer by name, said that the commission's staff had determined that "the officer's account was not sufficiently reliable to warrant revision of the report or further investigation" and that the intelligence operation "did not turn out to be historically significant." Of course it was and is insignificant. The only way to make intelligence significant is to act on it. But the job of the commission was to discover these lapses and prevent them from happening again. Denial makes for a horrible beginning to that task. The denial and lack of follow thru is significant. I believe Congress understands this and the commission didn't/doesn't.(Afterall this is why Congress established the commission to begin with.) This all begs the question...What other capability or significant intel was missed?