My friend Siobhan Gorman has a great piece in The Wall Street Journal anticipating that Obama won’t significantly change Bush’s intelligence policies, which would be a human-rights travesty and a massive betrayal of his promise for a new beginning. Read her whole piece for the full flavor and context. I want to focus on just one aspect of it. Namely this:
The intelligence-transition team is led by former National Counterterrorism Center chief John Brennan and former CIA intelligence-analysis director Jami Miscik, say officials close to the matter. Mr. Brennan is viewed as a potential candidate for a top intelligence post. Ms. Miscik left amid a slew of departures from the CIA under then-Director Porter Goss.
Oh. Dear. God. There aren’t many intelligence professionals I hold in less esteem than Miscik. Miscik, you see, was head of intelligence analysis during the 2002 turmoil over Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction and non-existent ties to Al Qaeda, and according to the 2004 Senate intelligence committee report about what went wrong, she pretty much disgraced herself. When the administration insisted on an intelligence assessment of Saddam Hussein’s relationship to Al Qaeda, Miscik blocked the skeptics (who were later vindicated) within the CIA’s Mideast analytical directorate, and instructed the less-skeptical counterterrorism analysts to "stretch to the maximum the evidence you had." And, as the maraschino cherry on top of this disaster, Miscik decamped to a lucrative position at the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers.
It’s hard to think of a more egregious case of sacrificing sound intelligence analysis in order to accommodate the strategic fantasies of an administration. If there’s an alternative explanation, I haven’t heard it. The idea that Miscik is helping staff Obama’s top intelligence picks is most certainly not change we can believe in.
Crossposted to The Streak.



9 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Inciting torture is a crime. Refusing to prosecute those who have incited torture is to be an accessory after the fact. I
expecthope Mr. Obama shows us that he’s neither a criminal nor an accessory to those criminals he succeeded.Okay, Cliff! You gather up all the wood! Gonna burn us some witches!!
Obama REALLY needs some procedure for his supporters to vote people off the island of advisors. Change.gov could be the vehicle.
Enablers of Bush law breaking and treaty busting should have no place on the island (unless they are dismembered and the tasty/tender pieces are in the stew pot).
Tell it to the guy who taught ARVN soldiers to waterboard captured VC.
They gave the guy tens years for merely teaching the procedure.
Was he a “witch”?
If refusing to prosecute a crime is a crime that must be prosecuted, you might run short of jail cells and then of prosecutors.
And if you think that ten years for teaching waterboarding is proper, what would you suggest for someone who actually does it?
That person have a name ?
Let out the 800,000 or so people serving time for simple marijuana possession and that should loosen up enough up enough jail cells for those who commit crimes under the color of authority.
And that is the issue here: crimes committed under the color of authority.
Re-establishing the rule of law in this country requires investigations aimed at the top of that criminal enterprise known as the Bush/Cheney Administration.
If the Democrats refuse to hold these criminals to account then they are acting as accessories after the fact.
Do you think you or I would be held to a different standard?
Got a photo and some background
On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced “a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk.” The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.
I think we find a historical parallel in J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI and his denials that the Sicilian/American mafia existed. Hoover was an accessory to organized crime. If the Democrats do not hold Bush et al accountable, then they similarly act as accessories.