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

[G. Richard Raab]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 05 February 2004 08:20 am, Randy Arabie wrote:


> > > 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". 

Fair enough. 
Sorry, but I have been putting in 80 hr work weeks. 
There are days that I hate working in start-ups.


> 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.

In this day and age of the Internet, I can find anything that you want.
 But knowing what is accurate is a whole different thing due to GWB's 
classifying everything. The real problem is that I seriously doubt that CIA's 
budget increased for all those years under Clinton, and they did not increase 
the human side of the equation.  

>
> 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.


the mix of intel is a desicion that should be left to the CIA and NSA. 
Everytime an admin tries to control these groups (or the DOD), we end up with 
total crap.  Witness that fact that under Clinton, who supposedly did not try 
to control them, only had 1 known attack on our soils (yeah, we were hit 
elsewhere).
Witness what happens when admins try to control everything;

Carter in the Iraq Hostage rescue attempt. We all know how that ended.

Clinton's admin in Bosnia. Just watch Blackhawk Down.

GWB as a president who has a heavy hand on  DOD, CIA, and NSA, yet runs around 
and blames all 3 of these groups for every little issue.
We have had a successful attack on 9/11; 
	Cool, where is OBL now?
We have had an attack on us with Anthrax and now Ricin; 
	Who did it and when are a few of the lies going to be corrected.

We all see the news and know at least the floor of the number of the bodies 
coming back from Iraq (as one who grew up in the 60s, I find it interesting).

(of course, in all fairness to the current admin, there may be other attack 
here that have been thwarted, but I am guessing that OBL is actually playing 
us with fake aircraft attempts; Normally, OBL shifts strategy after every 
attack; In addition, GWB would let out any info that appears to make himself 
look good, so I really doubt it ).


> Who to blame for it really isn't the issue. I'm sorry for hitting your soft
> spot for Clinton. 

I have no soft spot for Clinton (in fact, it is more for Carter and poppa 
Bush, both whom I regard as being better presidents in my lifetime). I am 
just tired of W's inability to tell the truth and to keep blaming others esp. 
the CIA and NSA. Worse, the apologists that run around and blame everybody 
else is just overwhelming. Most of these got after Clinton for lieing about 
getting a little. Yet, they accept all sorts of lies and hidden truths from 
this bozo.

> 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.

How do you know this? You are counting on info from an admin (or from 
journalists of which on a few are really in the know) that has refused to 
take a single bit of blame for screwing up (we all screw up ).

Today, a journalist claims that the MyDoom is simple retribution by a Linux 
hacker against SCO. Yet they ignore the facts that 
1) most Linux hackers only know Linux.
2) The virus was written to send spam.
3) The virus is spending the bulk of its time sending spam.
4) there was an apology in the code that said "just doing my job".
5) one of the best ways to hide is to point fingers elsewhere.

Yet the journalist felt it necessary to blame a Linux hacker on it.
So, with all the FUD that we have seen on something as open as Linux, what 
makes you think that these journalist are 
1) smart enough to make good judgements
2) have enough good sources and knowledge
3) are truthful
?



> > 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.

hummmmm. Good point. Sorry.



- -- 
cheers
g.r.r.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAIpVbhe/sjaHGmTIRApdqAKCIdA1MGpOzLCW+Fhdwgh8VINnzXQCfXMeR
oqR2YnRC+6LbM6xUcT6t2T8=
=tsiX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----