Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
I assume you mean by intelligence, how it is gathered.
So they can judge the validity of the information passed up to them?
So they can tell the President what is, and is not, possible to obtain?
|
I mean how its gathered, and how to make decisions about what needs gathering and how to prioritize directives. How to allocate limited resources to a vast need. How to decide what directives should be carried out by humans and which should be left to technology. That was a huge problem in the CIA in years past - all the people got pulled out in favor of technological intel gathering and the quality of info dropped precipitously.
Not only so they can judge the validity of what they are handed but to know when info is being withheld - the "seeing what isn't there" instinct that only comes with experience. This is the spy business - much is withheld to suit underling agendas.
And yes, to advise the president. But how do you know how to advise the president when you don't know enough about what you are told by your reports to know if its bullshit or not?
Having an inexperienced person at the helm is going to result in the inmates running the asylum. And more different problems than what we've had from the current leadership which while experienced is also devious.
This isn't a partisan issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint
This Panetta must have a huge pair of balls, and an even bigger IQ, if he thinks he go in and change their internal world. The only way this makes sense is if he is some kind of Superman.
|
He isn't.
Either Obama has all of us outfoxed or he just screwed up badly.