Trickle-Down Intelligence
I happened to see the beginning few minutes of tonight's CBS News. They were covering the story that Pennsylvania's Republican Representative Curt Weldon claims that a Defense Intelligence team had tracked Mohammed Atta into the US before 9/11 but were advised not to notify the FBI about it. Here is a June 19, 2005 article about this story:
http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14720231&BRD=1672&PAG=461&dept_id=33380&rfi=6
CBS showed video of both a 9/11 commissioner and Rumsfeld claiming they did not know about this until this story broke. Considering that the story broke when Weldon published his book, one might wonder why it wasn't till now that Rumsfeld found out, but hey, who's splitting hairs about that, right? The real question is that if Defense Intelligence knew about this, why didn't word get up to Rumsfeld till now?
I have a new theory about this that I am calling "Trickle-Down Intelligence." Back in the Reagan era we had Trickle-Down Economics where the wealthy got tax breaks that in theory gave them the money they needed to invest in the economy leading to employment for the less than wealthy Americans.
My theory of Trickle-Down Intelligence is a little different.
It seems that in the case of 9/11 and then in the case of Iraq, sound intelligence is common at some mid-levels of the intelligence network, but instead of being pushed up to the top, it only seems to trickle down to the lower levels. Good intelligence doesn't rise to the top. In fact, if this story is to be believed, in the nearly four years since the morning of 9/11, nobody ever told Donald Rumsfeld that Pentagon intelligence knew about Atta's entry into the US and his connection to al-Qaida two years before the attack. Rumsfeld was left believing that US intelligence simply didn't have a clue.
The faithful might have no problem believing Rumsfeld's sorry excuses, but I find it hard to believe that nobody ever tried to tell him about this. The only way I can believe it is with my new theory, but this theory leaves me wondering just what the top of the intelligence chain is doing with their time if not listening to good intelligence. Then again, isn't that what the Bolton debate and the Wilson debate and all the other debates about manipulation of intelligence are all talking about?
http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14720231&BRD=1672&PAG=461&dept_id=33380&rfi=6
CBS showed video of both a 9/11 commissioner and Rumsfeld claiming they did not know about this until this story broke. Considering that the story broke when Weldon published his book, one might wonder why it wasn't till now that Rumsfeld found out, but hey, who's splitting hairs about that, right? The real question is that if Defense Intelligence knew about this, why didn't word get up to Rumsfeld till now?
I have a new theory about this that I am calling "Trickle-Down Intelligence." Back in the Reagan era we had Trickle-Down Economics where the wealthy got tax breaks that in theory gave them the money they needed to invest in the economy leading to employment for the less than wealthy Americans.
My theory of Trickle-Down Intelligence is a little different.
It seems that in the case of 9/11 and then in the case of Iraq, sound intelligence is common at some mid-levels of the intelligence network, but instead of being pushed up to the top, it only seems to trickle down to the lower levels. Good intelligence doesn't rise to the top. In fact, if this story is to be believed, in the nearly four years since the morning of 9/11, nobody ever told Donald Rumsfeld that Pentagon intelligence knew about Atta's entry into the US and his connection to al-Qaida two years before the attack. Rumsfeld was left believing that US intelligence simply didn't have a clue.
The faithful might have no problem believing Rumsfeld's sorry excuses, but I find it hard to believe that nobody ever tried to tell him about this. The only way I can believe it is with my new theory, but this theory leaves me wondering just what the top of the intelligence chain is doing with their time if not listening to good intelligence. Then again, isn't that what the Bolton debate and the Wilson debate and all the other debates about manipulation of intelligence are all talking about?
posted by Bill | 10:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home