INTELLIGENT INTELLIGENCE (RE: "Bush paves rough patches with fear" by Marianne Means)

Having once attempted to help their hero through the quagmire created by his efforts to redefine the word "is", lefties like Marianne Means have now decided to educate us all on the meaning of a much larger and more complex word, "intelligence". As we approach the third anniversary of what will forever be known as simply "9/11", Ms. Means and, to be fair, a whole laundry list of others suffering from severe myopia, apparently feel there's no rationale for issuing alarms claiming that, gee whiz, there are folks out there who think it might be fun to kill a few more of us, because some of our information has been around for a while.

It would seem that display of fireworks in downtown Manhattan 3 years ago just wasn't dramatic enough to convince ol' Marianne that vigilance is needed.

Well, the next demonstration that we are indeed at war and do indeed need to recognize that fact may be more dramatic still, particularly if anyone in the intelligence gathering community ever starts taking advice from journalists. Consider, for example, Marinanne's crowing over the announcement that some of what our security people are basing their warnings on is "based on old data".

I'm afraid I must state that Marianne's indictment of this fact is at least semi-hilarious because it is simply one of the dumbest things I've ever seen in print. It's like suggesting that the proper way to deal with a 3,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, if one doesn't manage to finish it before bedtime, is to sweep all the pieces back into the box to begin all over again the next morning.

My four years in the intelligence gathering business weren't enough to put me on Bush's short list for the new Head Spook, but I spent enough time wandering the halls at NSA looking for vending machines to know that 4-year-old information can and does play a significant role in getting an accurate picture today. It should, in fact, be no staggering revelation to anyone to learn that old intelligence forms a foundation for new intelligence in such a way that the meaning of the newly gathered stuff can be completely altered by the old stuff's presence or absence.

So what's at work with these lefties that they can't seem to grasp this really simple concept? I suspect it comes from decades of coverups in which the background information is simply too damaging to current perceptions to be allowed in the picture. There are, oh, just tons of examples. But we haven't boiled Ted Kennedy for a while, so into the pot with him.

Picture our friend Ted perched high on his pedestal looking down on Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, grilling him on the ethics of pubic hairs on Coke cans and other lofty government type topics. Picture his Senior Senatorness, in fact, on just about every ethics commission grilling of Republican nominees over the past two decades.

Now picture him as a younger man, a strong swimmer who missed the last ferry from Chappaquiddick Island and must do the Australian Crawl all the way to the mainland so he can dry off and ponder FOR EIGHT FLIPPING HOURS just when might be a good time to tell the local authorities that he got a little drunk and dumped his car in the bay and, oh by the way, there's a girl in it.

As can be easily seen by anyone but Marianne, the above information, which is, by the way, REALLY OLD STUFF, sort of alters the image one might get of Ted if only the recent information was used in creating that image. The new information might give young people - and older Democrat type people with no bloody memory - the impression that Ted Kennedy is a straight-laced and proper fellow, since someone keeps putting him on ethics boards to ask all those really important questions about pubic hairs and Coke cans so we don't end up with a cadre of sleezes in our leadership. The old information, however, forms a foundation for the new information that gives us a completely different picture, hopefully fostering a brain bubble or two about just who it is that thinks this clown should sit in judgment of ANYONE'S ethics with maybe a thought or two left over to wonder about the blind and ignorant drooling Jell-O heads who continually re-elect this pathetic example of dignity and propriety!!!

Okay, so you should all now understand why our spies place such importance on background - or "old", to use Marianne's phrase - data. But the trick, if you want to be a true master of intelligence gathering and analysis, is to figure out why people like Marianne Means and Ted Kennedy seemingly don't.

Ms. Means and, to be fair, a whole laundry list of others suffering from severe myopia, apparently feel there's no rationale for issuing alarms claiming that, gee whiz, there are folks out there who think it might be fun to kill a few more of us, because some of our information has been around for a while.

OOOOKAY....

Aug 17, 2004 - Eight terror suspects arrested in raids across England two weeks ago have now been charged.

Here are the charges in full:

DHIREN BAROT, 32, OF WILLESDEN, LONDON

• Conspiracy to murder.
• Conspiracy to commit a public nuisance by the use of radioactive materials, toxic gases, chemicals and or explosives.
• Possessing a reconnaissance plan of the Prudential Building in New Jersey.
• Possessing reconnaissance plans of the International Monetary Fund in Washington, the stock exchange and Citigroup, both in New York, and two notebooks with information on explosives, poisons, chemicals and related matters.

Source

For clarification purposes, here is one of the terror alert articles:

08/01/04 - WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal government warned Sunday of possible terrorist attacks against ``iconic'' financial institutions in New York City, Washington and Newark, New Jersey, saying a confluence of chilling intelligence in recent days pointed to a car or truck bomb.

In an unprecedented action, the government named these specific buildings in densely populated areas as among the potential targets:

Citigroup buildings and the New York Stock Exchange in New York City.
The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank buildings in Washington.
Prudential financial in northern New Jersey.
Source

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.