General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Your Ignorance is not as Good; Or, You Don't Know Fuck-All About Syria [View all]JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)an analyst for about 3 decades (retired just recently).
In the run up to Iraq, behind the scenes, he'd send me links to publicly available information and articles, as his way of letting me know a little of what was going on back in 2002-2004 without actually telling me directly.
One of the things he sent me was a link to an article on the infamous aluminum tubes. He sent it to me months before anyone was talking about that topic. In the article, a reporter talks to an "expert" on this topic. He says those tubes could never be used in centrifuges. And he explained why.
Later, my friend told me that the expert quoted in that article was THE expert on that topic. Not just some knowledgeable guy. He was THE GO TO GUY. The civil servant analysts knew him. And knew his word was definitive on this topic. They had talked to him in even greater detail, and they knew the truth about those tubes.
The problem was that Cheney's team had set up its own little analysis group with political operatives vetting the information that came in. Anything that agreed with their pre-drawn conclusions was kept, everything else was dropped, or in some cases, "footnoted" to the point of irrelevance.
He described how under normal circumstances, a position brief that was created using a wide array of intelligence always included all points of view. The position that was determined to be "most accurate" got the most prominent placement and most detailed discussion in the report. But alternative views would be presented along with that, and other less well supported positions would end up as footnotes. And the various departments indicated which position they saw as most accurate. The intent was to provide the clearest view possible, along with all potential alternatives.
He said Cheney's team would regularly abuse that process. Cheney's team always had a pre-formed primary position, and it was that position that always appeared first, with the most confirming detail included, disconfirming detail dropped or down played. Alternatives were watered down, down played, and often reduced to little more than footnotes.
The aluminum tubes assessment, and THE GO TO GUY's analysis, ended up as a footnote.
He said that during his career he'd never seen anything like it. In his experience, the civil service folks understood that they were paid well and had good career security, which meant they could remain objective and not get themselves tied up in the politics. He was a Republican and he worked closely with Democrats. But they never let their personal politics color their analysis. They wouldn't do it. And those who did attempt that path, usually got clobbered for doing so.
That changed under Bush. Civil servants who towed the line for Bush administration and its politicos who were wandering the halls in the DOD and DOE, advanced. If you pushed back, even if you were right, you got hurt, or passed over.
He retired last year. He said it was much better under Obama (he switched parties in 2008). However, he also said that plenty of those who brought their RW politics into the analysis, and had advanced under Bush, remained. The job security that had helped civil servants remain objective and above politics now allows some sycophants to hide while trying to promote positions not based on experts, but on politics. He did say that those who had kept their politics out of it who remain, are now working to FIX what the Bush administration broke in this regard. Folks who had become political pawns under Bush are now much more likely to find themselves in career limited positions. But its not a perfect or rapid process.