"Intelligence" Agencies

As if there was any remaining doubt, it appears American intel was "dead wrong" in their assessments of WMDs. My Way News Article This is not to say Iraq did or did not have WMDs, but that our intelligence, despite the untold billions we spend on it, is ineffective.

A presidential commision "...recommended dozens of organizational changes". What would we do without presidential commisions?

Reading Bill Gertz's book Breakdown would have given us the same conclusions, a full two and a half years earlier. Below is an exerpt from Publisher's Weekly (from Amazon.com) regarding the Gertz book:

Gertz supports his argument that the intelligence community has "lost sight of its purpose and function" with interviews, news clips and almost 100 pages of government documents, some partially classified (a National Security Agency report reproduced within contains little but the date and the designation "TOP SECRET UMBRA"-the rest is "withheld at the request of U.S. intelligence officials"). He points a very stern finger at the FBI, the NSA and the CIA, "where preservation of the agency's budget takes precedence over its performance."

Thus far, Bush has failed to reform the intelligence idustries in any significant way. This is disappointing, to say the least. It behooves us all to have intelligent services that runs smoothly and effectively.

Gertz points out that we didn't have a single spy in Iraq between the end of the first Gulf War and the start of the second. How about we change that Bush. Next time we try to invade a country--for WMDs or whatever--maybe we'll have the foresight to be thorough with our intel gathering.

I'm not hopeful though. It's been politics as usual at the CIA and FBI, and it will continue to be until we elect a leader who is serious about reform.

In what seems to be a growing theme here, I'm calling on Bush to learn from history... again. Our failure at Pearl Harbor didn't prevent the failure on September 11th. What other failures await us?

I'd rather not find out.