Has the US Intelligence Establishment Turned Against the Administration?

[Spectre]

Sir, this is just the buildup, and every one is firing away to see what clicks. Of course you know that already. The situation will gel soon, and then the lead contenders from both sides will bring up stories such as these once again for primetime advantages.

Hmm what you are insinuating is that someone is playing the long game. Obviously no one from the democratic side as Hillary quite clearly the only option.

And as I earlier stated - why go through so much trouble of convincing 50 plus analysts to go public when you are not even sure that either you or your candidate would win the primaries in Republican side - unlike earlier elections there is no front runner.

Certainly republicans will milk this for all it's worth but accusing them or certain lobbies who back them of being the hidden hand seems too much like a conspiracy theory.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

Now Sir, you are just over-reaching - planted information serves some interests either national or political. Here it does just the opposite.

The intelligence officials going public en masse is unprecedented.

Most "leaks" are actually done by high ups in the administration. Purposefully planted to test the waters or save face.

There are pawns and then there are the invisible hands.

 

[VCheng]

Hmm what you are insinuating is that someone is playing the long game. Obviously no one from the democratic side as Hillary quite clearly the only option.

And as I earlier stated - why go through so much trouble of convincing 50 plus analysts to go public when you are not even sure that either you or your candidate would win the primaries in Republican side - unlike earlier elections there is no front runner.

Certainly republicans will milk this for all it's worth but accusing them or certain lobbies who back them of being the hidden hand seems too much like a conspiracy theory.

Or, it could be as simple as groups trying to present evidence that they think will help them deal with the coming change of administration that suits them best.

 

[Spectre]

Or, it could be as simple as groups trying to present evidence that they think will help them deal with the coming change of administration that suits them best.

As i said too many ifs, buts and uncertainties to your theory. People who have capability to manipulate things to such an extent don't play with such odds.

 

[VCheng]

As i said too many ifs, buts and uncertainties to your theory.

Nothing complicated at all in what I have said. That is just the way the system is known to work.

 

[Spectre]

Nothing complicated at all in what I have said. That is just the way the system is known to work.

Ok as the argument is turning circular - let us table it for the moment.

 

[VCheng]

Ok as the argument is turning circular - let us table it for the moment.

We can return to it as the election circus proceeds, Sir.

 

[TaiShang]

Secret Service Chaffetz Leak Probe Reopened After Director Caught in a Lie

02:17 06.10.2015

The inspector general’s office is reopening their investigation into the Secret Service leaking documents to the media about a congressman, in retaliation for his criticism of the agency.

On Monday, Inspector General John Roth announced that his office will be renewing the investigation due to Secret Service Director Joseph Clancy changing his story regarding when he first learned about agents looking into Congressman Jason Chaffetz’ background.

Secret Service Sought to Defame Congressman Who Was Probing Agency

Chaffetz is the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

In March, it was leaked to the media that he had applied to be part of the Secret Service in 2003 and was rejected.

The personnel file containing this information is legally required to be kept private, yet 18 minutes after a hearing in which Chaffetz voiced criticism of the Secret Service, an agent was digging around in his file. Over the next month, over 40 agents would access the private records.

Before the information was leaked to the Daily Beast, the assistant director of the agency sent out an email to another director suggesting that the information should “get out.”

“Some information that he might find embarrassing needs to get out,” Assistant Director Edward Lowery wrote regarding Chaffetz. “Just to be fair.”

Lowery has maintained that he never directed anyone to leak information about Chaffetz and claimed that the email was just him venting out of stress and anger.

Previously, Clancy claimed that he did not know about anything that was going on until April 1, shortly before the leak. Last week, however, he changed his story to claim that he first heard rumors about Chaffetz as early as March 25.

Roth has stated that his office will now be conducting additional interviews as well as other “investigative steps” prior to issuing an addendum to the report, the Associated Press reported.

 

[jhungary]

At first glance, OP article (and OP) know little to none on how intelligence circle works, at least US intelligence circle.

US intelligence service (DIA/CIA/NSA/DHS) runs on a platform of open information since 2001 after 9/11. Intelligence itself are open source, however, the source is classified to maintain intelligence integrity. What's that mean is that any or every agency in this US Governmental network can have the real time first hand overall picture of certain incident, but also open to challenge the intelligence source and their validity.

Now, by classifying the information dissimilation method, this allow the intelligence pieces itself contain and everyone up and down from ombudsman to director can openly challenge any source without endangering the source, in the intelligence circle, this is call secondary verification.

Most information "leaked" to public are either verified false information either to openly shame that piece of intelligence or whoever collect them (ala Edward Snowden), or they are used as a tool to misinform other intelligence agency. Therefore, leak exist.

If for one second, you would think any responsible intelligence operator will "leak" any sensitive information that have negative consequence and violate the source integrity, then I can only say you felt for the misinformation

By the way @TaiShang Secret Service is NOT an intelligence organisation.

 

[TaiShang]

In September it was revealed that 50 intel analysts had formally complained that their conclusions were being distorted “to adhere to the administration’s public line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra, al Qaeda’s branch in Syria”.

I guess this is an important shortcoming. I guess Bush administration, too, tailored or ignored intelligence reports to promote their agenda before launching the Second Iraq War.

It is understandable that the intelligence community is deeply bothered by foreign policy that is more ideological than pragmatic and scientific.

 

[jhungary]

I guess this is an important shortcoming. I guess Bush administration, too, tailored or ignored intelligence reports to promote their agenda before launching the Second Iraq War.

It is understandable that the intelligence community is deeply bothered by foreign policy that is more ideological than pragmatic and scientific.

Wrong again.

The incident you are quoting is about how individual (this time 50) interpret the same piece of intelligence pieces.

All intelligence piece are neutral, the way it dissimilate is neutral, you can have a different conclusion than me on the same piece of intelligence, and again, that's what make it open to challenge.

How the execution branch (Bush in your case) use those intelligence is another story, you suggest that the intelligence have grudge and resentment to administrative decision, in fact, this will never happen as intelligence is not a single piece to single action comparative, but a group of information dissimilate in a way to give way to a decision, so for the person or people collect those intelligence, they will not know what the other pieces were unless it was also given to them, and in that way, they cannot be resent to the administrative decision as the decision does not make by just a single piece of intelligence material.

Which is saying the intelligence personnel would not know what Bush know as a whole to challenge the decision, they gather information on their end, and their ID are not supposed to know by other, so how do each of them know exactly what the other know? Or what Bush know to say it is wrong and misleading?

What you are implying is that intelligence gathering have a say or opinion on foreign policy, well, this is wrong in ANY level. As I said, you do not know how intelligence circle works in the US and I am in no mood nor time to teach you how.

By the way, WMD (Chemical Weapon) does exist in Iraq, hence justified the invasion, which is a FACT that many seems to ignore.

 

[TaiShang]

There was no nuke, that is, weapons capable of doing what was insinuated by the term "mushroom clouds."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/02/opinion/remember-that-mushroom-cloud.html?_r=0

About the intelligence reports, sure, there must be a number of them from a number of various branches. And the administration must have used the one best suited to their agenda.

CNN.com - Ex-CIA official: WMD evidence ignored - Apr 23, 2006

 

[somebozo]

Intelligence agencies do what they want or need to do...point in case when they determined many nazi engineers to be beneficial to USA and sneaked them in with new credentials.

 

[jhungary]

There was no nuke, that is, weapons capable of doing what was insinuated by the term "mushroom clouds."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/02/opinion/remember-that-mushroom-cloud.html?_r=0

Dude, nobody say Iraq have nuke, they said they have WMD-Weapon of Mass Destruction. Last I check, Chemical Weapon is counted as WMD.

Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New York Times Reports WMD Found in Iraq - US News

About the intelligence reports, sure, there must be a number of them from a number of various branches. And the administration must have used the one best suited to their agenda.

CNN.com - Ex-CIA official: WMD evidence ignored - Apr 23, 2006

Dude, first of all, the article is wrong as WMD did found in Iraq in 2008, they can't find them by 2006. The question you ask is what the administration to justify their action? None, WMD was and DID EXIST in Iraq. Just nobody care about that when they found them in 2008, a fact you seems trying to ignore.

India Completes Chemical Weapons Disposal; Iraq Declares Stockpile | Global Security Newswire | NTI


Second. An intelligence report does not make up with ONE SOURCE, nobody, beside whoever prepare the report and the POTUS himself have seen the report, me, as an intelligence analyst would not know what information is included in the report.

If I don't know what's in there, and I just know what I know, then how do I come out and say the POTUS twisted my intelligence??