70% of intell budget spent on private contractors

[uscitizen]

So you don't remember the "Victory Equity" after the wall fell? How the intel agencies were taken apart on nearly a wholesale basis? Those who left created their own companies and are now contracting the same skills they used as employees of the government ran intel. Where do you think they got their experience?

Do you remember which party was most excited about the "Victory Equity"?

Oh yes I remember Regan and Bush I bragging on it all.

If they are a card carrying member of the republican party, blackwater hires them.
Umm we are also paying these contractors at least twice what internal employees would cost. so much for outsourcing saving money.

 

[Cancel7]

"Damo let's talk about the Peace Dividend...didn't Ronald Reagan state that there was one? Didn't he cut military spending because of it?"

Both parties are guilty of the cut backs in the intel community. While it began with the Dem Congress, the Rep Congress that followed did little to prevent the gutting or reverse it... instead if memory serves me correctly, they continued the gutting. They believed that electronic intel would be sufficient.

Bush I did continue it, I have researched this before.

 

[Damocles]

"Damo let's talk about the Peace Dividend...didn't Ronald Reagan state that there was one? Didn't he cut military spending because of it?"

Both parties are guilty of the cut backs in the intel community. While it began with the Dem Congress, the Rep Congress that followed did little to prevent the gutting or reverse it... instead if memory serves me correctly, they continued the gutting. They believed that electronic intel would be sufficient.

Many in the Intel community held this belief as those who were left were those who most relied on Elint methods. At this time I was working in the Navy as a Russian Translator...

However, it was these cuts that created the need that we have now to hire those companies which are almost entirely made up of former employees in the intel community. Many of my friends are making quite a bit of money in these ventures right now.

 

[Damocles]

Bush I did continue it, I have researched this before.

Like I said, within the government community those who most relied on elint were left and they promoted it as the equal, if not superior way, to collect intel. Those who were left in the cold, so to speak, continued their work as contractors.

I believe that the dearth in humint helped to create the environment that made the Iraq war possible.

 

[Cancel7]

He cut spending specifically on nuclear weapons. However it was the congress who promoted it as reason that we "no longer needed" the intel machine that was created to battle the "communist threat". Often against republican objection the intel specifically was gutted to a "skeleton crew" limit, thus forcing them to rely on technology rather than humint methods. Those in humint created their own companies.

Where do you think those people came from, or where they got their clearances? They weren't born from the Ether.

Ok, strictly intelligence I don't know, I'd have to look it up. I do remember doing some research on this when someone claimed that the dems have gutted the military, and finding that Reagan talked up the peace dividend as yet another benefit of his single-handedly having ended the cold war, and that he did cut military spending overall. (and that Bush I made further cuts) I do not believe it was just on nukes. But as for intelligence spending, I wont argue with you about that, that could be true.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"However, it was these cuts that created the need that we have now to hire those companies which are almost entirely made up of former employees in the intel community. Many of my friends are making quite a bit of money in these ventures right now."

I know, I agreed with you on this point. I just wanted it to be clear that while the Dems certainly were more vocal about it, both parties were responsible for the cuts that led to this situation.

Desh will be the only one not to get this. As she didn't even read her own article.

 

[Cancel7]

Like I said, within the government community those who most relied on elint were left and they promoted it as the equal, if not superior way, to collect intel. Those who were left in the cold, so to speak, continued their work as contractors.

I believe that the dearth in humint helped to create the environment that made the Iraq war possible.

Right, cutting back on human intelligence, I did read about this, I think right after 9/11 there was a lot of noise about that? That we had very little. But was that a "dem thing" or just an overall culture of "technology is king"?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Darla... I doubt you will ever find a quote or comment from Reagan taking sole responsibility for bringing an end to the cold war. That said, I will be interested to see his more private opinions when the 'Reagan Diaries' comes out. Whether you like the man or not, it should be an interesting read. Provide some insight into what he really thought of people and events.

 

[evince]

"The claim here is that the post cold war realignment of the intell comminity is responsible for the need to hire Bush buddies at the tune of 70 % of the intell budget.

Lets see some kind of proof this is the case?"

Ummm... lets see... how about YOUR article.... seriously... do you even READ the links you post????......

From YOUR article......


"Faced with arbitrary staffing limits and uncertain funding, the report said, intelligence agencies are forced "to use contractors for work that may be borderline 'inherently governmental'" -- meaning the agencies have no clear idea about what work should remain exclusively inside the government versus work that can be done by civilians working for private firms. "

How long were the Rs in control of spending?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"But was that a "dem thing" or just an overall culture of "technology is king"?"

more of the latter than the former. It was both parties that were responsible, the reps were just more low key about it. Probably setting the dems up just in case it backfired.... like it did.

bottom line though... Desh is a moron.

 

[Cancel7]

Darla... I doubt you will ever find a quote or comment from Reagan taking sole responsibility for bringing an end to the cold war. That said, I will be interested to see his more private opinions when the 'Reagan Diaries' comes out. Whether you like the man or not, it should be an interesting read. Provide some insight into what he really thought of people and events.

Probably not, I was being facetious because if you listen to Republicans today, you would swear that's how it went down. Meanwhile, back then, the right wing of his own party was freaking out when he opened up good relations with Gorbachov. Now, they have written that right out of their history and you would swear they were standing there cheering him on.

But they were not. They are the same people who want to bomb Iran today. Nothing ever really changes.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"How long were the Rs in control of spending?"

For the love of god retard.... read the posts in the thread.... read your own article.... do try to comprehend at least SOME of it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Probably not, I was being facetious because if you listen to Republicans today, you would swear that's how it went down."

On the far right... probably true. Most understand his role, but understand that the Pope, Thatcher, the polish people and Gorbachev all had a big part in the final act.

"Meanwhile, back then, the right wing of his own party was freaking out when he opened up good relations with Gorbachov."

They also told him not to include the "tear down the wall" portion of his speech. They thought it too inflamatory. (side note: that was 20 years ago today... where has the time gone???)

"Now, they have written that right out of their history and you would swear they were standing there cheering him on."

Many were. But you are correct. The hardliners wanted no part in how Reagan was dealing with Gorbachev.

 

[Damocles]

Ok, strictly intelligence I don't know, I'd have to look it up. I do remember doing some research on this when someone claimed that the dems have gutted the military, and finding that Reagan talked up the peace dividend as yet another benefit of his single-handedly having ended the cold war, and that he did cut military spending overall. (and that Bush I made further cuts) I do not believe it was just on nukes. But as for intelligence spending, I wont argue with you about that, that could be true.

Under Bush I, most of the intel spending was cut. The R Congress under Clinton didn't turn it around either. It was one of the things I was ticked about. And I fully believe it was one of the reasons we had 9/11 as well as the first bombing at the WTC. It was also one of the reasons there was bad intel for the Iraq war, those in humint that could predict the reaction on the ground were simply not there. Predictions were spotty at best and they were relying on seriously unreliable sources of humint to base their plans of the aftermath on.

 

[Cypress]

Right after the wall fell and the Soviet Union fell apart the Democrats in Congress began working the "victory equity". They felt there was no more need of the intelligence machine we had in the past and began to systematically gut intelligence budgets.

Many of those who worked in intel left and created their own companies to collect intel, usually hired by governments such as Australia and the UK, and are now hired back by the US government at a much heftier price now that there is a realization that technology intel didn't provide the correct information and that there is a need for their services. It's more expensive, it's less controlled, but the need was created in the past because there was no longer a "need" for such and we should spend our "victory equity" on domestic issues.

You mean "peace dividend". Not "victory equity".

Peace dividend was a bipartisan consensus. Remember, that wall fell in 1989? When Poppy was president? It was a bipartisan consensus to spend less on the military.

 

[evince]

Congress, meanwhile, is beginning to ask serious questions about intelligence outsourcing and how lawmakers influence the intelligence budget process. Some of that interest has been generated by the Cunningham scandal. In another recent case, Rep. Rick Renzi, a Republican from Arizona, resigned from the House Intelligence Committee in April because he is under federal investigation for introducing legislation that may have benefited Mantech International, a major intelligence contractor where Renzi's father works in a senior executive position.

In the Cunningham case, many of MZM's illegal contracts were funded by "earmarks" that he inserted in intelligence bills. Earmarks, typically budget items placed by lawmakers to benefit projects or companies in their district, are often difficult to find amid the dense verbiage of legislation -- and in the "black" intelligence budgets, they are even harder to find. In its recent budget report, the House Intelligence Committee listed 26 separate earmarks for intelligence contracts, along with the sponsor's name and the dollar amount of the contract. The names of the contractors, however, were not included in the list.

Both the House and Senate are now considering intelligence spending bills that require the DNI, starting next year, to provide extensive information on contractors. The House version requires an annual report on contractors that might be committing waste and fraud, as well as reviews on its "accountability mechanisms" for contractors and the effect of contractors on the intelligence workforce. The amendment was drafted by Rep. David Price, D-N.C., who introduced a similar bill last year that passed the House but was quashed by the Senate. In a statement on the House floor on May 10, Price explained that he was seeking answers to several simple questions: "Should (contractors) be involved in intelligence collection? Should they be involved in analysis? What about interrogations or covert operations? Are there some activities that are so sensitive they should only be performed by highly trained Intelligence Community professionals?"

If either of the House or Senate intelligence bills pass in their present form, the overall U.S. intelligence budget will be made public. Such transparency is critical as contracting continues to expand, said Paul Cox, Price's press secretary. "As a nation," he said, "we really need to take a look and decide what's appropriate to contract and what's inherently governmental."

 

[Cypress]

Well, I knew I'd have to check that actual facts, rather than rely on what posters claim to remember.

The intelligence budgets were never drastically "slashed", as a result of the peace dividend. That's pure poppycock.

At best, there were tiny, nearly insignificant cuts made to overall spending on intelligence from 1991-1994.

http://www.fas.org/irp/budget/index.html

I suspect that after about 1995, funding took off again when Clinton and congress recognized there was a terrorist threat out there.


I think the problems with the intell community you all may be refering to, was the problems transitioning it from a cold-war footing, to a human intelligence and counter terrorism footing. No doubt, that has been a problematic transition.

But, the claims of massive budget cuts are demonstrably false. Maybe y'all heard Sean Hannity say that. But, the facts say otherwise:

http://www.fas.org/irp/budget/index.html

 

[Damocles]

You mean "peace dividend". Not "victory equity".

Peace dividend was a bipartisan consensus. Remember, that wall fell in 1989? When Poppy was president? It was a bipartisan consensus to spend less on the military.

Read the thread, catch up. There was more to the conversation since this post.

I have pointed out where most of the "peace dividend" was spent, also thanked Darla for giving me the correct words, then spoke of where the two parties were at odds. I'll add to it now and speak on how GHWB had a love for tech intel and believed it to be an answer to his problems so, against most of his party, he promoted and got it under the D controlled congress as a way to gut the Intel community.

There is a reason for Humint.

However the attempt to blame it all on Bush, or to say he's doing it to enrich his friends ignores the history behind the need for contractors.

Leaders in both parties felt we could relax, that there was no "enemy" to worry about important enough to collect such expensive intel on....

 

[Damocles]

Well, I knew I'd have to check that actual facts, rather than rely on what posters claim to remember.

The intelligence budgets were never drastically "slashed", as a result of the peace dividend. That's pure poppycock.

At best, there were tiny, nearly insignificant cuts made to overall spending on intelligence from 1991-1994.

http://www.fas.org/irp/budget/index.html

I suspect that after about 1995, funding took off again when Clinton and congress recognized there was a terrorist threat out there.


I think the problems with the intell community you all may be refering to, was the problems transitioning it from a cold-war footing, to a human intelligence and counter terrorism footing. No doubt, that has been a problematic transition.

But, the claims of massive budget cuts are demonstrably false. Maybe y'all heard Sean Hannity say that. But, the facts say otherwise:

http://www.fas.org/irp/budget/index.html

Open funding is clearly different than the funding they "can't talk about" and promoting tech intel over humint didn't solve the problem.

One of the main problems in Iraq was the fact we had almost no reliable humint gathering in that nation. Such expensive intel gathering had almost entirely been cut from intel budgets.

 

[Cancel7]

Under Bush I, most of the intel spending was cut. The R Congress under Clinton didn't turn it around either. It was one of the things I was ticked about. And I fully believe it was one of the reasons we had 9/11 as well as the first bombing at the WTC. It was also one of the reasons there was bad intel for the Iraq war, those in humint that could predict the reaction on the ground were simply not there. Predictions were spotty at best and they were relying on seriously unreliable sources of humint to base their plans of the aftermath on.

Your first part makes sense to me and I think you're right. Maybe about the second part too, but I do think Cheny had more to do with this so-called "intelligence failure" than anything else. On the other hand, I can see that it's possible that if the cia had more and better info, it would have been tougher for him to pull that off.