WaPo Wants a Head

On the topic of the WMD information prior to the Second Gulf War being wrong. Since they can't seem to make a clear and intelligent analysis, they get into the screeching about 'group-think.'

Don't bother analyzing the castration of intelligence agencies by the Clinton administration, or the politicizing of the management of the agencies, where they choose their political ideals and then stand in the way of the president's policies.

Quoting the old gray cadaver's Thomas Purdum:

Yet in its own way, the presidential commission on intelligence left little doubt that President Bush and his top aides had gotten what they wanted, not what they needed, when they were told that Saddam Hussein had a threatening arsenal of illicit weapons. . . .

"But already some people have been judged, albeit it indirect ways, while others have been rewarded, even promoted. Some who foresaw potential disaster were punished or pushed aside, while the president and vice president were given new terms."

What's wrong with that statement? First, if the intelligence they gave was only for what Bush wanted to hear and not the truth, then that is indicative of a complete lack of professionalism by the intelligence workers and not the president's fault. And if you think that isn't an attempt at laying blame on the president, you should go crawl back under your rock. The second paragraph makes that completely evident. How else do you state that the president was "given" a new term? No election occurred?

Which leads to this brilliant bit of logic, and I use that word in its broadest terms.

"Boston, Mass.: Does the administration itself bear any responsibility for the failure of its intelligence agencies?

"Dana Priest: The CIA and its director work for the president. The president is responsible for hiring and firing that person, for holding that person and his agency responsible, for making sure, ultimately, that the agencies are working properly, spending more effectively and serving him -- and the American people -- the way it is supposed to. Was Nixon responsible for the operations of Attorney General John Mitchell? Were Johnson and Kennedy responsible, in any way, for the excesses of J. Edgar Hoover? Does Johnson bear any responsibility for McNamara's Vietnam vision? What about Bush I? What's his responsibility over a CIA that missed the collapse of the Soviet Union? Should Clinton bare a burden for the intel world's failure to see the imminent threat from Osama bin Laden? Does Bush have responsibility for his advisors so misjudging 'post-war' Iraq? You get my drift. It's your call and you bet historians will be writing about that subject for years to come."

Specifically, the CIA has probably been broken for a long time. The president only appoints the director, and then they have to work with the monster that is a bureaucracy run amok. God only knows what runs around in that organization. I also recall a powerful wailing when Bush did change who ran that agency, and they started a purge. The vilifications of Bush when that occurred seem to be a bit of history that Priest is missing.

I could go on for a long time on this gem of an article. No politics floating around in this spin fest. You can glean a few rare points in this tirade, but they are few and far between.