Henry Kissinger is perhaps the wrong messenger for what is in fact a rather salient and important message. I touched upon it yesterday, and it deserves repeating--Once intelligence estimates become an arm of public political discourse, their very purpo...

But the neocons were just fine with it when the last NIE politicized the intel to catapult the case against Iran. Or when Bolton's crony Frederick Fleitz flat lied in a report to Congress to do likewise (see the post of mine you linked yesterday).

They're just pouting because the latest one stymied their war plans. Cheney spent a year trying to bury it. Their arguments are spurious strawmen. The danger is that people buy the snakeoil the neocons and "Executive First"-ers have to sell, because then we'll never hear about the likes of Fleitz' lying again.

The real question is whether the Bush administration's extraordinary politicisation of all branches of the federal government (remember Rove and his political classes in how each dept. could help Republicans get elected?) hinders every branch's ability to be effective advisors. And the answer is "yes".

Regards, C

I would think the duty of any public servant is to serve the US as a country before offering allegiance to the Executive of the country. Since when have you started believing otherwise, James?

That's not the argument. The question is whether having the intel bureaucracy serving as public advocates for positions undermines their effectiveness as impartial advisors.

In the case of the current NIE summary, Bush & Cheney were very obviously again lying about the intelligence as a means of attacking Iran. Evidently a critical mass of the intelligence establishment found enough spine to force publication of the report. It was the only remaining method they had to protect their own credibility against administration falsehoods.

I would think the duty of any public servant is to serve the US as a country before offering allegiance to the Executive of the country. Since when have you started believing otherwise, James?

If the NIE and other bits of intel like it are what our nation's senior leaders use to make decisions on foreign policy, going to war, etc., why _shouldn't_ the public (that, don't forget, those leaders represent and are beholden to) be capable of drawing conclusions, forming opinions, and demanding their leaders reflect those opinions in their actions from similar information?

The simple answer, and the one most likely considering Kissinger's (and N-Pod's) past is the intense desire to place those in power above second-guessing, oversight, or consequences for their actions. Neocons want Big Daddy to come and take care of them - it's been their social policy all along.

Regards, C

Funny that, my inclination is the exact opposite.

Kissinger is the man who was Nixon's NSA and who had to step down after being Bush's appointee to head the 9/11 commission due to "conflicts of interest". He's a friend of Conrad Black and sat on Hollinger's board while that board looked the other way. There are serious allegations of war crimes (as detailed by Chris Hitchens in his book) such that Kissinger can't even leave the country without fear of prosecution.

This man wants to end oversight of the intelligence community and says they should just shut up and be a tool of the Unitary Executive.

Something that N-Pods "Commentary" is just fine with today.

And that doesn't worry you?

Regards, C

I hope you enjoy this as much as I did:
When Democrats took control of Congress in January, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) pledged to jointly push an ambitious agenda to counter 12 years of Repub...