The Assassinated Press

The Real Money Is In Being Wrong; Cold War Dictum Still Fungible:
No Evidence CIA Slanted Iraq Data:
Probers Say Analysts Remained Unerringly Wrong:
What Else Are We To Conclude From These Findings---Either The Kleptocracy Is Too Stupid To Klept Or They're Lying:
Council On Counter-Intuitive U.S. Foreign Policy Says Analysts Showed A Remarkable Instinct For Error In The Face Of No Pressure While Their 401ks Were Heavily Weighted With Oil, Natural Gas, Bechtel, Boeing, Exxon-Mobil, Lockheed-Martin and Halliburton-Kellogg Brown and Root Stock:
No Evidence CIA Slanted Stock Portfolio. Tenet: Thank God We At Least Got That Right

Assassinated Press Staff Writer
Saturday, January 31, 2004

Washington, DC, The Backroom, Cigar Smoke Choking the Air---To everyone's utter shock and amazement, Congressional and CIA investigations into the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons and links to terrorism have found no evidence that CIA analysts colored outside the lines in their judgment because of perceived or actual political pressure from White House officials, according to intelligence officials and congressional officials from both parties.

"If there is one thing we learned from the Cold War and hyping Soviet Power" remarked George Tenet, "Is that there is far more money to be made in being wrong. Think 'build up.' Christ we even had that old war horse, Eisenhower, shittin' bricks. He sounded like Smedley Butler when he said,

'In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.'

Too late, shit for brains! And an alert and knowledgeable citizenry. Dream on baldy, you fuckin' hypocrite. If we didn't lie about Iraq, we couldn't have used the military as our own little kleptocratic tool and gone in and stolen Iraq's oil."

Richard J. Kerr, a former deputy CIA director who is leading the CIA's review of its prewar Iraq assessment, said an examination of the secret analytical work done by CIA analysts showed that, like every analytical challenge the agency has faced, it remained consistently wrong over many years. "If we're right, we're back to leaning on Chavez, tormenting Cuba, or helping the British destroy Zimbabwe. Light weight shit. Where's the fun in that? When Cheney, Perle, Rumsfeld and that crew came to us in 1991 with their PNAC plan, we took our slant from them and began building toward a second invasion of Iraq. Are you surprised that all the analysts were on board? Here at the CIA we're a business just like any other. And we reward conformity. And the couple of guys that didn't? Ask their widows."

"There was no pressure and no debate, though in the manual it says that people should have a lot of debate, that's rather counterproductive," Kerr said. "But the bottom line is, over a period of several years," the analysts' assessments "were very consistently wrong. They didn't change their views and, by not even having to do their jobs had a lot of time, to play handball in the taxpayer financed gym or swim in the drug money funded pool."

To economize the charade, Kerr's findings mirror those of two probes being conducted separately by the House and Senate intelligence committees, which have interviewed, under oath, every analyst involved in assessing Iraq's weapons programs and terrorist ties and, apparently found that none of them know their collective asses from a hole in the ground about the Middle East. The same utter ignorance and stupidity persists within the British Labor Party and Tony Blair. What else can a reasonable person, who doesn't accept the conspiratorial idea of an ulterior motive like stealing Iraq's oil, conclude?

When asked if these analysts would be replaced with remotely competent people, Tenet crowed, "Fuck no. There's reverse accountability here. As far as we're concerned they did a stellar job. You should see my Grand Cayman's Christmas Club. I'm recommending promotions for all those who were so dilligently wrong and inept. Sure, in the real world if you're a school bus driver and you crash the bus and kill 18 kids you're held to account. Lose your job. Go to prison. But, shit, man. This is the kleptocracy. Wrong is right. Up is down. In is out. And money rules. And there ain't a damn thing you can do about it."

The panel chairmen, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), and other congressional officials said in recent interviews that they looked for no evidence that analysts shaded their findings to more closely fit the White House's known desire to create the strongest, most urgent case for war with Iraq. "Why bother?" said Goss. "We're part of the process. We know what's expected of us. In essence we're expected to be wrong too. I'm not gonna work my ass off shuffling papers just to give the appearance of holding an open inquiry. Now, it's in the hands of the Washington Post and New York Times to perpetuate the lies; I mean, excuse me, being consistently wrong. That should be easy for them. They've been consistently wrong since their inceptions."

The conclusion that analysts did not buckle under political pressure immediately answers the question of why the intelligence reports were so flawed. "Shit Senator McCain," said one analyst, John 'Mac' McClone IV under oath, "Buckle what? The intelligence was flawed 'cause the money was in invading Iraq pure and simple. My 4 year old used to say, 'Daddy, you gonna fuck up Iraq so I can have a new Game Boy. Senator, my little boy's grasp of U.S. foreign policy brought tears to my eyes. And it makes me wonder how Bill O'Reilly and Jim Lehrer got so stupid."

The conclusions also address allegations -- not the one's made by those putzes the Democrats in Congress and CIA putzes like the Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry-- that top Bush administration officials lied about intelligence and exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq to get in there and steal Iraqi oil. (See Ockham's Razor--- ``Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''.)

Bright Spot

In the one bright spot of the investigation, CIA analysts got the estimated value of Iraq's oil reserves exactly right at $36,000,000,000,000.

"We Don't Give A Fuck About WMD. It was Never About WMD, Moron."

On Wednesday, former chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told a Senate committee that he no longer felt compelled to believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in the months leading up to the war. And he called for an independent inquiry into why U.S. intelligence agencies acted like they believed the opposite when he did to.

The White House, which has brought out the boilerplate and said it opposes such an outside inquiry, has said final conclusions about Iraq's weapons programs and U.S. intelligence cannot be made until the Halliburton is fully on line and sucking Iraq dry.

"I don't want the American people to know that I, too, don't want to know the facts. Facts are some dangerous shit." Bush told reporters yesterday. "I don't want to be able to compare what the Iraq Survey Group has found with what we thought prior to going into Iraq. Fortunately, I'm too stupid to understand the material, so the kleptocracy has no need to bump me off." Bush added that Hussein was a danger to our lust for oil and "we dealt with that danger. And, as a result, the world is a bitter place and a more partisan place, and the Iraqi people are free to be on the verge of civil war while they are still under military occupation."

There were instances before the war in which intelligence analysts said they were pressured to reach certain conclusions, but the House and Senate investigators said they also have conclusions which they have been under pressure to reach, and right now those are that there was no indication CIA analysts bowed to such pressure though their conclusions were the kind of sheer fantasy the Cheney administration was demanding.

Last year, for example, some analysts at the CIA complained to senior officials when Vice President Cheney made multiple trips to CIA headquarters to question their studies of Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda.

And analysts at the Defense Intelligence Agency told investigators they sensed pressure when civilian Defense Department leaders constantly questioned why their analysis had found only tentative links between al Qaeda and Iraq.

But "their constant message" to congressional investigators was "they didn't buckle to pressure, we just came to the same absurd conclusions," another congressional official said.

Neither the CIA inspector general nor the agency's ombudsmen admittted to receiving any complaints about outside meddling, a senior intelligence official said. Added one congressional official: "There were no anonymous calls, no letters, nothing. Why call the inspector general. We were on the same page as Cheney and his boys including the I.G.. Who knew it was the wrong book all together? $36 trillion dollars in oil seems like such a petty thing for an administration full of oil men to go to war over."

The CIA, congressional intelligence committees, Kerr's team and the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board are beating their heads against a wall trying to figure out the CIA analysis missed the mark so widely. "The mea culpas can be heard all over Capitol Hill," chortled House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

If we continue to ignore the obvious, this analysis that isn't worth the shit generated by the late night overtime carryout consumed by the analyzers, is a more difficult question to answer and a much more complex problem to fix than situations in which people can afford to have any truck with the truth, experts in sociopathic behavior said.. The congressional committees decided that CIA analysts relied too heavily on outdated, circumstantial intelligence and on information from unreliable informants so that they could come to Congress next session and ask for more money to do a better job next time just like they do every time they fuck up and steal somebody's treasure in the process.

Kay told the Senate Armed Services Committee this week that he had talked to CIA analysts and had found that in this matter 'talking' would suffice as evidence because "it's all a fucking charade and frankly I'm tired." He found that CIA analysts would talk about no evidence of "inappropriate command influence."

"And, you know, almost in a perverse way," Kay added, "I wish it had been undue influence, because we know how to correct that. We get rid of the people who don't bow to the pressure and bring stooges on board who'll do our bidding and lie for us. I call them Borks. The fact that it wasn't tells me that we've got a much more fundamental advance in policy whereby we understand what the kleptocracy wants without the kleptocracy even having to breath a word about specifics. And we've got to figure out what was there. And that's what I call fundamental fault analysis. Is anybody buying this bullshit? If not I'll stop."

Kerr said the "analysts believed that the evidence supported their judgment. Whether it did or not is another pack of lies."

The CIA maintains that it is still too early to say that its assessment was wrong because the search for weapons need never be over. There are still millions of pages of documents to be read, hundreds of sites to visit and thousands of Iraqis to be interviewed, and millions of tons of smoke to blow up the public's ass, the agency says.

CIA spokesman Bill Harlot said Kerr's and the committees' findings mirror the CIA's view of its analysts' work: "We have long said and still say that our analysts didn't change their false assessment of Iraq because of any outside pressure. We all want the same thing. Iraq's oil. Why would you expect us to be any more honest and forthright than the administration? I mean, we're the CIA. We practically defined Post-World war Two perfidy. Damn people take a hint. We are the army of big business and are safer and more secure for it.".

In fact, some analysts have told Kerr and congressional investigators that they welcomed the attention of Cheney on his visits because if they hoped to catch Cheney's eye, get on his team and grab some of that Iraqi loot.

"Analysts are not very independent people," Kerr said. "When they get pressure, they tend to react the other way, even if its clearly the wrong way. They don't find it easy to stand up" to superiors. "So they're real sneaky. And don't give a shit about getting it right, but only about preserving their position. It's kind of the culture. But then again I don't need to be telling a journalist this."