Quote:
Originally posted by rcne,
Quote:
For these reasons, a number of people, including former CIA operatives have proposed splitting the Agency into to separate and distinct outfits. One for intel. Another for clandestine ops. The reasoning is that the cross contamination of intel and operations is reduced by so doing. Anybody know: did Phillip Agee propose this?
| Isn't part of the problem that on the ground human intel was missing. This was a result of the cut back from previous administrations, and the fact that we believed our high tech gizzmos were superior to human intel.
The 9/11 commission recommendations were that we need more not less human intel to gather data - then - an overseer to make sure that gathered data is not held from other agencies. |
I would not put much importance on those 9/11 hearings or their interpretation of what should be done for following reasons.
1. I was incomplete, none of us know what Bush and his Vice Predident said to the panel, and they had to reframe from remarking about the White House and their role until after the elections and so we now stand with knowing only their recomendations for the FBI, CIA but no repremands for Bush and his staff. It is incomplete and thusly lacks giving people a over-all view.
2. The commisssion was staffed by people carefully selected by the White House people who set the rules for what could be made public.
3. The White House and CIA could withhold too much data claiming it was still Top Secret or classified.
4. The TV parts shown contained too many political opinions that were pre-designed and written to sway public opinon and not enough factual evidence being presented. Plus, no interviews of the private person(s) from Iraq who gave Bush information at the his meetings in Texas with them, no interview with Tony Blair or his intelligence people, and no interviews with UN inspectors or members of that organization.
Incomplete, and missleading.
Technosoul.