Former Milty. Analysts Behind (bad) Iraq Intel Were Rewarded
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
From The Washington Post, which may be missing a few key points (check my commentary) on the issues around this topic, as they try to play sharks swimming and circling in the waters around a few individuals that they'd like to see hung out to dry for faulty intelligence reports on Iraq.
Headline is linked.
Analysts Behind Iraq Intelligence Were Rewarded
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 28, 2005; Page A01
Two Army analysts whose work has been cited as part of a key intelligence failure on Iraq -- the claim that aluminum tubes sought by the Baghdad government were most likely meant for a nuclear weapons program rather than for rockets -- have received job performance awards in each of the past three years, officials said.
The civilian analysts, former military men considered experts on foreign and U.S. weaponry, work at the Army's National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), one of three U.S. agencies singled out for particular criticism by President Bush's commission that investigated U.S. intelligence.
The Army analysts concluded that it was highly unlikely that the tubes were for use in Iraq's rocket arsenal, a finding that bolstered a CIA contention that they were destined for nuclear centrifuges, which was in turn cited by the Bush administration as proof that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
The problem, according to the commission, which cited the two analysts' work, is that they did not seek or obtain information available from the Energy Department and elsewhere showing that the tubes were indeed the type used for years as rocket-motor cases by Iraq's military. The panel said the finding represented a "serious lapse in analytic tradecraft" because the center's personnel "could and should have conducted a more exhaustive examination of the question."
Oh, if the story stopped there then The Post and it's friends on the left would be very happy. They'd have a couple of scape goats to go after.
Of course, the article continues and never openly divulges the real desires of the left -- an effort to prove that the analysts were pressured from higher authorities to make up the intelligence, or at least make the intelligence fit the goals of the war-mongers at the top.
Back to the issue of the two individuals:
Pentagon spokesmen said the awards for the analysts were to recognize their overall contributions on the job over the course of each year. But some current and former officials, including those who called attention to the awards, said the episode shows how the administration has failed to hold people accountable for mistakes on prewar intelligence.
Despite sharp critiques from the president's commission and the Senate intelligence committee, no major reprimand or penalty has been announced publicly in connection with the intelligence failures, though investigations are still underway at the CIA. George J. Tenet resigned as CIA director but was later awarded the Medal of Freedom by Bush.
The president's commission urged the Bush administration to consider taking action against the agencies, and perhaps the individuals, responsible for the most serious errors in assessing Iraq's weapons program.
Washington lawyer Richard Ben-Veniste, who was a member of the Sept. 11 commission and whose government experience goes back to service as a Watergate prosecutor, said it is important for the administration to hold the intelligence community accountable for mistakes.
Ah, yes, these folks MUST be held accountable. Fire them. Jail them. Keel-haul them. Torture them if necessary, do whatever it would take to get these folks to say that the people above them were really responsible, right?
At least find a few token individuals to hold accountable.... Gotta be able to do that somehow.
Back to the article:
"It matters whether it was carelessness or tailoring [of intelligence], whether it was based on perceived wants of an administration or overt requests . . . It is time now to demonstrate the need for the integrity of the process," Ben-Veniste said.
Oooops, I said the article didn't open divulge the real desires of the left, I must have been working with faulty intelligence, under pressure from above. Blah. There it is, open and blatant. Gotta find that smoking gun and have evidence that the administration wanted the intelligence to match the goal.
I'm gonna skip through a lot more of the article and jump down to this section, where I'll be a bit more polite than the Post and leave out the actual names of individuals:
In a written statement, the Pentagon, speaking for the NGIC, confirmed that { First Analyst } and { Second Analyst } had received awards, and it said that they were based "on their overall annual performance -- not on a single contribution -- and supervisors were encouraged to reward individuals on the basis of their annual contributions." The awards were given as part of a government-wide incentive program to recognize high-performing employees with cash or time off. An internal NGIC newsletter listed { First Analyst } and { Second Analyst } as among those who received performance awards, lump-sum cash payments, in fiscal 2002, 2003 and 2004.
This circles around a bit to a few points I'd like to make.
These individuals, former military men, working for the military in a civilian capacity could be assumed to be a few things:
Educated. Intelligent. Hard working. Experts in their field. Rewarded for their efforts.
Hmm, sounds a little like a bio that a certain individual keeps trying to tout in defending himself in arguments about why Bush is always wrong. I'd wager a bet that these individuals may even have been through or involved in the Army War College, or worked with individuals that had been there.
So why was it that these individuals could be wrong, and yet some certain other individual can't be wrong, no matter how many wrong-headed Bush bashin' articles get posted in support of selling a book that really deserves to be used as toilet paper, as opposed to holy books of various religions?
I better stop here, as I am probably clearly going over the line into personal attacks, but I would hope that the point is demonstrated. Just because someone is supposed to be educated, has a long history, including being rewarded, promoted and advanced within their field, doesn't mean that the individual is perfect, and that the weight of their statements deserves more importance than those of any others.
As it turns out, I'll join the folks that have tried to say that we should demand better intelligence, and even more, I'd say it's important that we get our intelligence from multiple sources (rather than a single "source" like riot inspiring Newsweek), and it's also important that we provide adequate oversight to our intelligence agencies, though I doubt I'd go as far as the left seems to suggest when they push for what seems to be micromanagement of intelligence agencies.
Headline is linked.
Analysts Behind Iraq Intelligence Were Rewarded
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 28, 2005; Page A01
Two Army analysts whose work has been cited as part of a key intelligence failure on Iraq -- the claim that aluminum tubes sought by the Baghdad government were most likely meant for a nuclear weapons program rather than for rockets -- have received job performance awards in each of the past three years, officials said.
The civilian analysts, former military men considered experts on foreign and U.S. weaponry, work at the Army's National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), one of three U.S. agencies singled out for particular criticism by President Bush's commission that investigated U.S. intelligence.
The Army analysts concluded that it was highly unlikely that the tubes were for use in Iraq's rocket arsenal, a finding that bolstered a CIA contention that they were destined for nuclear centrifuges, which was in turn cited by the Bush administration as proof that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
The problem, according to the commission, which cited the two analysts' work, is that they did not seek or obtain information available from the Energy Department and elsewhere showing that the tubes were indeed the type used for years as rocket-motor cases by Iraq's military. The panel said the finding represented a "serious lapse in analytic tradecraft" because the center's personnel "could and should have conducted a more exhaustive examination of the question."
Oh, if the story stopped there then The Post and it's friends on the left would be very happy. They'd have a couple of scape goats to go after.
Of course, the article continues and never openly divulges the real desires of the left -- an effort to prove that the analysts were pressured from higher authorities to make up the intelligence, or at least make the intelligence fit the goals of the war-mongers at the top.
Back to the issue of the two individuals:
Pentagon spokesmen said the awards for the analysts were to recognize their overall contributions on the job over the course of each year. But some current and former officials, including those who called attention to the awards, said the episode shows how the administration has failed to hold people accountable for mistakes on prewar intelligence.
Despite sharp critiques from the president's commission and the Senate intelligence committee, no major reprimand or penalty has been announced publicly in connection with the intelligence failures, though investigations are still underway at the CIA. George J. Tenet resigned as CIA director but was later awarded the Medal of Freedom by Bush.
The president's commission urged the Bush administration to consider taking action against the agencies, and perhaps the individuals, responsible for the most serious errors in assessing Iraq's weapons program.
Washington lawyer Richard Ben-Veniste, who was a member of the Sept. 11 commission and whose government experience goes back to service as a Watergate prosecutor, said it is important for the administration to hold the intelligence community accountable for mistakes.
Ah, yes, these folks MUST be held accountable. Fire them. Jail them. Keel-haul them. Torture them if necessary, do whatever it would take to get these folks to say that the people above them were really responsible, right?
At least find a few token individuals to hold accountable.... Gotta be able to do that somehow.
Back to the article:
"It matters whether it was carelessness or tailoring [of intelligence], whether it was based on perceived wants of an administration or overt requests . . . It is time now to demonstrate the need for the integrity of the process," Ben-Veniste said.
Oooops, I said the article didn't open divulge the real desires of the left, I must have been working with faulty intelligence, under pressure from above. Blah. There it is, open and blatant. Gotta find that smoking gun and have evidence that the administration wanted the intelligence to match the goal.
I'm gonna skip through a lot more of the article and jump down to this section, where I'll be a bit more polite than the Post and leave out the actual names of individuals:
In a written statement, the Pentagon, speaking for the NGIC, confirmed that { First Analyst } and { Second Analyst } had received awards, and it said that they were based "on their overall annual performance -- not on a single contribution -- and supervisors were encouraged to reward individuals on the basis of their annual contributions." The awards were given as part of a government-wide incentive program to recognize high-performing employees with cash or time off. An internal NGIC newsletter listed { First Analyst } and { Second Analyst } as among those who received performance awards, lump-sum cash payments, in fiscal 2002, 2003 and 2004.
This circles around a bit to a few points I'd like to make.
These individuals, former military men, working for the military in a civilian capacity could be assumed to be a few things:
Educated. Intelligent. Hard working. Experts in their field. Rewarded for their efforts.
Hmm, sounds a little like a bio that a certain individual keeps trying to tout in defending himself in arguments about why Bush is always wrong. I'd wager a bet that these individuals may even have been through or involved in the Army War College, or worked with individuals that had been there.
So why was it that these individuals could be wrong, and yet some certain other individual can't be wrong, no matter how many wrong-headed Bush bashin' articles get posted in support of selling a book that really deserves to be used as toilet paper, as opposed to holy books of various religions?
I better stop here, as I am probably clearly going over the line into personal attacks, but I would hope that the point is demonstrated. Just because someone is supposed to be educated, has a long history, including being rewarded, promoted and advanced within their field, doesn't mean that the individual is perfect, and that the weight of their statements deserves more importance than those of any others.
As it turns out, I'll join the folks that have tried to say that we should demand better intelligence, and even more, I'd say it's important that we get our intelligence from multiple sources (rather than a single "source" like riot inspiring Newsweek), and it's also important that we provide adequate oversight to our intelligence agencies, though I doubt I'd go as far as the left seems to suggest when they push for what seems to be micromanagement of intelligence agencies.
taken at all seriously. The promotions you see are the payoffs for their job well done. It sounds stupid but that's Americans for you. Recall when they so nicely shot down the Iranian commercial airliner. Their crew were given medals. Just remember that the invasion was going to be taking place no matter what, and the fixed evidence was the pretext. Remember that your leaders make fun of you and make you look like fools because while millions of you were all protesting the coming invasion, the plan was already hatched. You had no say and would never have any say in a true democratic fashion. It's laughable when you hear Bush saying they're spreading freedom and that bullshit. Freedom begins at home. Democracy begins at home. Fixing evidence (which means the tellers know they're lying) has killed a few thousand GI's now. Fixed evidence has killed 100,000 Iraqis. Fixed evidence is, believe it or not, illegal under American judicial laws. Fixing evidence is, according to the US lawbooks, illegal and prosecutable with a mandatory sentence. Fixing evidence makes innocent people suffer.
