"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 09:21:25 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:


http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/lawmaker/toc.htm

From the above link: "Intelligence agencies also make no effort to
screen the publications provided for content; if the publications are on
the list to go to the committees, they go. At present, these
publications include current intelligence, notably the National
Intelligence Daily (NID) and DIA's Military Intelligence Digest (MID),
as well as estimative intelligence, including all NIEs. In 1995
approximately 5,000 such publications were delivered to each of the
intelligence committees."

1) they are not screened for content
2) The President is not in the loop as to what gets sent to congress 3)

The link wasn't to be argumentative. It was to be enlightening. ;-)

Thanks, grin and I wasn't argueing with you.

Do
note, however, not all intelligence comes from the CIA. There are other
sources. I'm sure you have read about the Office of Special Plans whose
purpose was to bypass the CIA.

The department of Defence has access to many of the same info channels the
CIA has but needed a military slant on info for planning. The CIA and the
military have different prioritys. The department of commerce also has a
different slant and I wouldn't be supprised if they had their own
specialists using CIA info for business planning.

That intel wasn't shared with Congress and
that was the main funnel for Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress' faulty
intelligence. Neither were the Dept. of Energy's assessment of those
infamous aluminum tubes.


http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

Seems to indicate that Chalibi info came thru the regular intelligence
channels but the Office of special plans (part of the Department of War
which accesses info from intelligence agencies) came to the conclusion from
that and more info that Iraq had WMD.

As to the conclusions gleamed by the Office of Special plans, there was a
comment about the Chalabi info in a brief from someone at the CIA that
questioned it's accuracy. That's the type of document that some in congress
claim they hadn't received (but they did).