The CIA: clueless or conniving?

Douglas Hanson
Greg Richards' excellent article on the CIA's ineptness as being the underlying cause of the Plame-Libby fiasco is spot on.  I might just add one other contradiction within our intell community.  The assertion that they were "wrong on WMDs" despite my and others' (e.g., Dave Gaubatz) revelations on failure of the intelligence community to pursue leads, or noting that the searches were poorly executed, raises the ultimate question.  

CIA operatives - or any intell type for that matter - love to be proven right.  It's their reason for being; to stick it to the analyst across the aisle or his fellow field agent to say "I told you so."  So, why would they go to such great lengths to show the world what buffoons they are about WMD, when so much evidence says that they (and Colin Powell I might add) were right?  Not only was Wilson's trip concocted to weaken the administration in a time of war, but obviously, some in the intell community didn't give a whit about it's already sullied reputation as long as their vendetta made life hell for the administration, which by the way, if successful, would also potentially lead to defeat in Iraq.


Private correspondence and discussions with people involved with organizations attempting to track down Iraq's weapons, such as UNSCOM, remain convinced that Saddam had post-Gulf War I WMDs in violation of UN resolutions.  Even our Soldiers and Marines in the field found CW which squashes any notion of a massive right wing conspiracy.  Therefore, the question remains as to why the CIA would not thoroughly investigate these matters if they had a chance of proving their "slam dunk" case.  As Richards says, if the CIA was burned by failure to predict critical events such as Saddam's progress in building an A-bomb in 1991, wouldn't they want some sort of coup to regain a semblance of credibility?

This affair isn't only about Wilson's trip.  It's about fighting release of unclassified documents, it's about abuse of classification authority in the case of WMD findings reported in the open media, and it's about bargaining with our enemies in Iraq instead of killing or capturing them.  And because of their private war against the President, we are at risk of being overwhelmed by our enemies.

Pay attention to the Plame - Wilson Congressional hearings, since literally the devil is in the details.  If we don't, our so-called protectors' selfishness and deceptions will be our undoing.
Greg Richards' excellent article on the CIA's ineptness as being the underlying cause of the Plame-Libby fiasco is spot on.  I might just add one other contradiction within our intell community.  The assertion that they were "wrong on WMDs" despite my and others' (e.g., Dave Gaubatz) revelations on failure of the intelligence community to pursue leads, or noting that the searches were poorly executed, raises the ultimate question.  

CIA operatives - or any intell type for that matter - love to be proven right.  It's their reason for being; to stick it to the analyst across the aisle or his fellow field agent to say "I told you so."  So, why would they go to such great lengths to show the world what buffoons they are about WMD, when so much evidence says that they (and Colin Powell I might add) were right?  Not only was Wilson's trip concocted to weaken the administration in a time of war, but obviously, some in the intell community didn't give a whit about it's already sullied reputation as long as their vendetta made life hell for the administration, which by the way, if successful, would also potentially lead to defeat in Iraq.


Private correspondence and discussions with people involved with organizations attempting to track down Iraq's weapons, such as UNSCOM, remain convinced that Saddam had post-Gulf War I WMDs in violation of UN resolutions.  Even our Soldiers and Marines in the field found CW which squashes any notion of a massive right wing conspiracy.  Therefore, the question remains as to why the CIA would not thoroughly investigate these matters if they had a chance of proving their "slam dunk" case.  As Richards says, if the CIA was burned by failure to predict critical events such as Saddam's progress in building an A-bomb in 1991, wouldn't they want some sort of coup to regain a semblance of credibility?

This affair isn't only about Wilson's trip.  It's about fighting release of unclassified documents, it's about abuse of classification authority in the case of WMD findings reported in the open media, and it's about bargaining with our enemies in Iraq instead of killing or capturing them.  And because of their private war against the President, we are at risk of being overwhelmed by our enemies.

Pay attention to the Plame - Wilson Congressional hearings, since literally the devil is in the details.  If we don't, our so-called protectors' selfishness and deceptions will be our undoing.