The Washington Post's in-depth report on the massive intelligence-industrial complex
two years in the making, is already making big waves in Washington, DC,
only hours after going live. Check out our executive summary
and read how the
U.S. intelligence community braced
for the story's impact. Here's
what national security reporters, bloggers, and other interested parties
are saying in reaction to the story.
- This Goes Beyond
Political Parties Salon's Glenn Greenwald writes,
"We chirp endlessly about the Congress, the White House, the Supreme
Court, the Democrats and Republicans, but this is the Real U.S.
Government: functioning in total darkness, beyond elections and
parties, so secret, vast and powerful that it evades the control or
knowledge of any one person or even any organization."
for Abuse' Liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias writes,
"You can’t possibly run an effective organization along these lines, and
the idea that pouring even more hazily defined powers to surveil and
torture people is going to improve things is daft. The potential for
abuses in this system is tremendous, and the odds of overlooking
whatever it is that’s important are overwhelming."
Prompt Much-Needed Intel Reform Conservative blogger Ed Morrissey hopes, "the
reality that we went the wrong direction five years ago in intelligence
reform, and it’s costing us both money and security. While that was
utterly predictable, the exposure of the reality might finally prompt
Congress to return to intel reform and demand real restructuring,
streamlining, and bureaucratic reduction before it really gets
- ...Or Just More Bureaucracy National security
blogger John Little sighs, "In a
perfect world this would spark productive discussion about how the
intelligence community is resourced and managed. What we’ll get though
is political grandstanding, conspiracy theories, and potentially another
layer of bureaucracy. Of course, another other story could always blow
up and shift the public’s attention before this one takes root. Lindsay
Lohan, the DNI is counting on you."
- Now We Know Who's 'Cashing
In' Wired's Noah Shachtman
and Spencer Ackerman write, "Figuring out exactly who’s cashing in
on the post-9/11 boom in secret programs just got a whole lot easier.
... And the spigot — contained in congressional budgets that are either
politically sacrosanct or entirely secret — doesn’t seem to be able to
close." Shachtman and Ackerman explain how contractors over-inflate the
cost of intelligence, footing taxpayers.
- Actually, Redundancy
Can Be Good Foreign Policy's Dan Drezner gets
contrarian. "Some redundancy is actually a good thing, particularly
on an issue like counter-terrorism. ... by adding another bureaucracy,
even a less competent one, the chances of an undetected threat getting
through are cut [significantly]. That ain't nothing."
Business Overtaken Security? Liberal blogger John Cole fumes, "The War on Terror, like
the War on Drugs, is a growth area with unlimited potential, lots of new
fiefdoms, and an endless supply of money. The mission and outcomes are
- All of This Comes to a Head at Tomorrow's
Hearing National security blogger Marcy Wheeler points out that nominated Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper's confirmation hearing is tomorrow.
"The debate that has led up to it has covered whether or not we need a
stronger DNI, whether or not GAO can audit intelligence programs, and
whether more than 4 people should be briefed on major new intelligence
programs. Every single one of the issues that has led to tomorrow’s
confirmation hearing is an issue that goes to the heart of the problems
identified in the WaPo piece: the ongoing lack of real value-added
analysis to make sense of all the intelligence collected, the opacity
and potential waste and fraud of the entire IIC, and the turf battles
that contribute to that waste."
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments
or send an email to the author at
mfisher at theatlantic dot com.
You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.