If you notice, when I cited that article I didn't in any way say I believed the allegations of this man. None of us have the low level knowledge required to make that kind of judgment.

What I find chilling though is that, if he uncovered WHAT HE BELIEVED to be serious things that should have been fully investigated, it's the job of intelligence agencies to do exactly that and not dismiss whatever evidence he obtained because it's not politically expedient.

Yeah, maybe we couldn't have prevented Pakistan from obtaining nuclear warheads but it sounds as if it was simply "too hard" or "too uncomfortable" to try. That's unacceptable to me. We expect our government to take on the impossible missions or at least put in maximum effort to find alternative strategy and to fully embrace the concept of brainstorming which seems to be a dirty word in Republican administrations of late.

That whole concept requires the ones at the top to be humble enough to listen to ALL ideas coming from resources below them and to take them all seriously without shooting the messenger. Careful analysis may indeed remove the possibility from the primary discussion but at no times should you dismiss future concerns from analysts even if the subject has been tabled. Good and functional systems know how to deal with these individuals by carefully counseling them and reassuring them that other conditions ease their concerns. Often it's just a matter of letting people know their voices are heard and respected.

We've heard numerous accounts from people who've left this administration that brainstorming is a rigged game today, that people must conform to the party line or risk their reputations sullied and positions ended. That tactic doesn't work in business and personal relationships and it certainly doesn't seem to work in intelligence and military or foreign policy.

Art