Comments on: Intelligence Matters: Oh Dear God Not Jami Miscik

By: Loose Change 9/11 Blog & Home Page » Blog Archive » Obama’s Trilateral Commission Connections, Council on Foreign Relations Sellouts and Wartime Military/National Guard Draft Re-Instatement Issues that the Republicans Don’t Eve

Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:29:22 +0000

[...] analysts to ’stretch to the maximum the evidence you had,’ ” journalist Spencer Ackerman recently wrote in the Washington Independent. “It’s hard to think of a more egregious case of sacrificing sound intelligence analysis in [...]

By: Isamar

Isamar — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 03:29:17 +0000

Obviously, you don't know Jami Miscik. I worked directly with her at the CIA a few years ago, and I can honestly say that personally, Ms. Miscik is one of the most honest, responsible, intelligent, and righteous person I have ever worked with. She's been wrongly accused. In my opinion, it was the Bush Administration that distored things. Think about it, it's not unlikely. Just imagine the scandal; it's always easier to blame it on somebody else.

By: Isamar

Isamar — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:29:17 +0000

By: a

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:39:04 +0000

WRONG ON 9/11
WRONG ON WMD
WRONG AT LEHMAN BROTHERS….

By: a

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:37:06 +0000

absolutely true! amazing that she can still have lunch in this town

By: Northern_Virginian

Northern_Virginian — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:41:10 +0000

Spencer: You try hard, you write provocative pieces in generally clear narrative prose, and I enjoyed your coverage of the disastrous Goss regime at CIA – but you have some very, very lousy sources, which plagued even your generally admirable Goss-era reporting, who are probably several degrees of separation from people and event and who apparently report rumint and grousing back to you. One immense problem in most intelligence reporting is that the incomplete mosaics you put together and that finally “make sense” to you after having turned them this way and that, trying to find the best angle, remain woefully incomplete – yet you're down for having to say something against your deadline or simply to close off a story you know you'll never really be able to conclude satisfactorily. (Not unlike intelligence writing, with incomplete, contradictory, fragmentary sources.) You're very wrong on Miscik – full disclosure: yeah, I know her – and, I would surmise from your half-baked opinion of her, have neither spoken to her nor to any one of her direct reports (or even indirect reports) but instead have gleaned your views from all the old hangers on who pretend to still have “connections.” And since when have any politicized congressional or special committee reports been an absolute window on truth?

By: Steve Williams

Steve Williams — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:50:29 +0000

You could not be more wrong. Miscik is an Americanhero. She was forced out of the CIA by Cheney et al after she refused to release partial data that would have misled the American people into believing Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war. This is public knowledge. Your journalist skills are lacking.

By: at

at — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:15:39 +0000

You are flat out wrong on this. Miscik was a fair and honest analyst in the Iraq fiasco. Check your facts with someone who knows.

By: joe styles

joe styles — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 03:56:21 +0000

What I heard is not what you accuse Miscik of. Bush Administration and Cheney wanted Iraq, Al Qaeda analysis to be their way and did not give Miscik time and right resource to give the best accurate intelligence. The administration misused the Pentagon to misinfor America and the rest is history.

By: aaaaa

aaaaa — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:04:56 +0000

Enjoy your imaginary president!