That early listing of past CIA failures looked somewhat hopeful that the reporting would be somewhat objective. But let's look at an example of what they did on Afghanistan. Frontline reported as if CIA won Afghanistan single-handedly, with no help from the Defense Department (i.e., military). They made a big deal of stating that the CIA was in Afghanistan 30 days before any military, making it appear the CIA was in the driver's seat in calling in air strikes on the Taliban forces. Yet, in "The Hunt For Bin Laden," it was the special ops guys who did all that, with almost no assist from the CIA. What is the truth?
Another instance was the reporting of the discussions at Camp David on the weekend immediately after 9/11. Bob Woodward's book on the subject reported very specifically that Rumsfeld did not raise the subject of Iraq when he reported DoD's assessment in response to Tenet's initial presentation. Woodward said Wolfowitz raised Iraq by interrupting Rumsfeld (causing Rummy's eyes to narrow to slits). This caused the president to pass a note that only head's of agencies were to speak. Then late in the day the president called a rest break and a reconvening for final assessments. During the rest break, according to Woodward, the president circulated a memo to all participants saying he had heard enough about Iraq and it should not be a part of the final assessments when the participants reconvened. NONE of this was reported by Frontline, even though Woodward was one of its sources. And Frontline made it appear that Bush's final orders after the Camp David conclave were really dictated by Cheney after he got the president alone. What is the truth? This again appeared to be a pre-conceived agenda transcript regardless of the facts.
Laughing out loud! It puts me in mind of Rummy as some irascible alien on Star Trek NG.