Fair and Balanced Intelligence
I have a question. If there is someone known to the intelligence community as a serial fabricator, should you continue to use him as a source? Shockingly, Laura Rozen's reporting for The American Prospect suggests that we may be continuing to give a forum to Manucher Ghorbanifar, someone who has long been discredited. I think I was most taken aback by this:
“If there are two or three real contending points of view, we want policymakers to know about that. As a result, policymakers are getting to see a lot more than they used to.”I won't add my commentary because I think Rozen's article is sufficient to cause significant alarm:
Murray says Ghorbanifar and his associate cobble together “intelligence” using translations from regional newspapers and the newsletters put out by the cultish, formerly Saddam Hussein-backed Iranian terrorist group, the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK), which has a large outpost outside Paris; and “then they create stuff.” French and German intelligence services have also rejected Ghorbanifar and his associate’s intelligence, according to Murray.I'd recommend taking a look at some of Laura Rozen's other reporting on Ghorbanifar, Weldon, "Able Danger" and how
“The plain and simple fact is that no intelligence service uses as a source someone who had been proven to provide false information, or information which he cannot source,” Murray continued. “This man has consistently done both.”
Amazingly, however, like Chalabi and his INC defectors before them, Ghorbanifar and his associate seem to have found new channels open to the Bush administration. And there’s precious little evidence that anybody is trying to stop them. There may be a Senate Select Intelligence Committee Inquiry on pre-Iran war intelligence in our future.