[CLUE-Talk] Bush to order bipartisian review of Iraq allegations of WMD

[Randy Arabie]

Quoting "G. Richard Raab" <rraab at plusten.com>:

> On Wednesday 2004 February 04 10:18 pm, Randy Arabie wrote:
> 
> > > Several people, most notably, Bruce Schnier, have suggested that the
> > > problems with our intelligence is the reliance on automation via
> > > computers, rather than 'on the ground' intelligence.
> >
> > Yeah, does any of this sound familiar?
> >
> > http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030715-094950-2180r.htm
> >
> http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/community/DailyNews/chat_bobbaer020118.h
> >tml http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/1997/08/06/opin/opin.2.html
> >
> > I agree with you, if you mean to say we rely too much on satellite
> > imagery and communication intercepts.  That is a well known and well
> > documented problem.  By some estimates, the CIA let approximately 60% of
> > it's "human sources" go in the mid 1990's...thanks to the Clinton
> > Administration [heh, I've been waiting for another opportunity to blame
> him
> > ;-) ]
> 
> OK, now I am curious. WHERE OH WHERE, do you come up with such figures and 
> know that they are accurate?

That number is cited in one of the three links I posted.  WHY OH WHY didn't you
read it?  As far as accuracy goes, I dunno...that's why I predicated my
statement with "some estimates".  You could probably dig up some estimates that
differ, but I challenge you to find something that says the CIA INCREASED it's
"human sources" of intelligence during the mid-1990's.

> According to most stuff that I can find, it appears that CIA budget was on
> the decline from before 1992 to 1996 at which time it was 26.6 BILLION 

 <--snip-->

Please read what I said.  I didn't say Clinton cut the CIA's budget! 

The point is our intelligence community relies almost entirely on SIGINT. 
That's intellignece data collected via satellite, reconnaisance flights, and
communications intercepts.  We need more HUMINT.  That's intelligence data
collected from humans, agents (spies) working in field, on the ground, in
foreign countries.

Who to blame for it really isn't the issue. I'm sorry for hitting your soft spot
for Clinton.  I'll conceed the problem started before Clinton.  It goes back to
some congressional hearings in the 1970's looking into the lack of control over
the CIA, which lead to the formation of the Senate and House Intelligence
committees.  They now have oversight of the CIA, before it was mostly left up to
the Executive Branch.  I'm not arguing against congressional oversight, but
since then it has been clear that the CIA's role in intelligence gathering has
grown smaller.  We have far fewer agents in the field, and now rely too heavily
on SIGINT.  The primary role of the CIA has become one of intelligence analysis,
rather than collection.

> Also, if W and admin is so wanting of human intel, then why are they allowing 
> a traitor in their midst who spills the beans on an operative and her agents?

Who said the "W and admin is so wanting of human intel"?  I didn't.

> BTW, you did listen to the "independent"  group that studied what they could
> about 9/11 and came back with saying that there was more than enough intel to
> prevent it from happening?

Yeah.  And, I don't disagree with that assessment.  Some of best clues they had
regarding the matter happened to be reports filed by FBI field agents...HUMINT!
-- 
Allons Rouler!

Randy
http://www.arabie.org/