70% of intell budget spent on private contractors

[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

Also, any cut at all is HUGE. This from the party that thinks a two percent rise over inflation is a "cut" in spending on their pet programs? Come on.

And how they spent their money as they transitioned to the elint over humint programs being promoted at the time doesn't change that they were not spending on humint as they had previously.

 

[Cypress]

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.

I thought the claim was made that there were massive budget cuts to our intelligence services.

These facts don't bear that claim out.

And if they "can't talk about their budgets", then neither you nor I know if they were cut.

 

[Cancel7]

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....

Did you notice how I played the dumb girl first, and then even got SF to call me a retard (albeit, he didn't realize it was me), and then gave you the correct term?

I so love being a girl and doing that kind of stuff.

 

[Cancel7]

I thought the claim was made that there were massive budget cuts to our intelligence services.

These facts don't bear that claim out.

And if they "can't talk about their budgets", then neither you nor I know if they were cut.

Cypress, sometimes you and Damo remind me a little bit of Sarge and Scott, though a much more toned down version. I mean, that was actually insane. But it's similar...there's something about each of you that really drives the other one crazy. It's kind of entertaining!

 

[Cypress]

Also, any cut at all is HUGE. This from the party that thinks a two percent rise over inflation is a "cut" in spending on their pet programs? Come on.

And how they spent their money as they transitioned to the elint over humint programs being promoted at the time doesn't change that they were not spending on humint as they had previously.

LOL.

Okay, so we've gone from "massive cuts", to parsing whether a 1 or 2% cut is "massive" or not.

I'm satisfied. I provided the factual information that the cuts, at worst, were in the range of 1 or 2%.

The impression was given earlier in the thread (I thought), that the cuts were massive.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

so both bushes are resoponsible for the current Iraq mess ?

 

[Cypress]

Cypress, sometimes you and Damo remind me a little bit of Sarge and Scott, though a much more toned down version. I mean, that was actually insane. But it's similar...there's something about each of you that really drives the other one crazy. It's kind of entertaining!

HaHaHa: I loved those sarge - scott exchanges.

Nah, Damo is way cooler than Sarge. Sarge was quite literally, insane!

 

[Damocles]

I thought the claim was made that there were massive budget cuts to our intelligence services.

These facts don't bear that claim out.

And if they "can't talk about their budgets", then neither you nor I know if they were cut.

I said, HUMINT was gutted. Do you know how much of the intel budget had been spent gathering "spies" in the past over how much was then spent on technology and research? You won't because it has never been public information.

I have said enough. The problems we have had in the intel department are largely because of the reliance on technology over human intelligence. The groups that would have been able to gather and predict reaction simply didn't exist.

And there were cuts in the Intel programs, as even you have shown. The attempt to say they were "miniscule" in a government that thinks a 6% increase in funds for a program is a "cut" in spending is huge. You helped to prove my point by finding actual cuts in spending in the public figures...

 

[Damocles]

so both bushes are resoponsible for the current Iraq mess ?

If that is what you have read then you have a problem with taking responsibility for the actions of those you may have voted into office as well.

All of the leadership failed us at that time.

 

[Damocles]

LOL.

Okay, so we've gone from "massive cuts", to parsing whether a 1 or 2% cut is "massive" or not.

I'm satisfied. I provided the factual information that the cuts, at worst, were in the range of 1 or 2%.

The impression was given earlier in the thread (I thought), that the cuts were massive.

The cuts in Humint were "massive". If you read, I say that there was a promotion of tech over humint as "cheaper". Whether it actually was cheaper doesn't change what happened. The whole government intel community changed as they believed that the tech programs were better than the humint gathered information and "less expensive". All of the changes were done under the idea that we could use the "savings" in the "Peace Dividend"....

Those who worked in humint left government service and created their own companies who were contracted to gather humint from tech reliant governments. Then when we suddenly realized that there was again a need for humint there was really only one place to go to hire such intel agents.

 

[Cypress]

I said, HUMINT was gutted. Do you know how much of the intel budget had been spent gathering "spies" in the past over how much was then spent on technology and research? You won't because it has never been public information.

I have said enough. The problems we have had in the intel department are largely because of the reliance on technology over human intelligence. The groups that would have been able to gather and predict reaction simply didn't exist.

And there were cuts in the Intel programs, as even you have shown. The attempt to say they were "miniscule" in a government that thinks a 6% increase in funds for a program is a "cut" in spending is huge. You helped to prove my point by finding actual cuts in spending in the public figures...

I agree.

There were definetly problems with transitioning from a cold war posture, to a counter terrorism posture. HumInt was left to atrophy. Big Mistake. Everyone agrees.

However, I don't think the problem was money, or massive cuts, as was suggested earlier. Everyone (except the John Birch Society) wanted a peace dividend in 1991. It was bipartisan.

The government's problem, was that it didn't have the foresight to reform the intell services after the cold war. That's a management problem. Not a "massive budget cuts" problem.

 

[Battleborne]

Kudos....!

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"?

Damo is the man..he speaks the truth regardless of any PC implications!

 

[uscitizen]

If that is what you have read then you have a problem with taking responsibility for the actions of those you may have voted into office as well.

All of the leadership failed us at that time.

Oh no disagreement on that. Our current govt sucks form both parties.

But we had a lot more republicans in control during that timeframe than we did dems.

both in WH and congass.

 

[Damocles]

Oh no disagreement on that. Our current govt sucks form both parties.

But we had a lot more republicans in control during that timeframe than we did dems.

both in WH and congass.

Not true. During Reagan Congress was under the Ds, during Bush the Congress was under the Ds. During Clinton the Executive was under the D, and congress was for a time. As I said I was pissed at the Rs in Congress for not turning around the problem with the intel...

This is truly a bipartisan problem. Like almost all of them are.

It just kept on keeping on. Even when supposedly "Clinton and Congress realized we needed intel because of terrorism" as Cypress stated the reliance on tech intel over humint remained and is seriously problematic and almost totally worthless against such groups as we are currently fighting.

 

[Cypress]

Not true. During Reagan Congress was under the Ds, during Bush the Congress was under the Ds. During Clinton the Executive was under the D, and congress was for a time. As I said I was pissed at the Rs in Congress for not turning around the problem with the intel...

This is truly a bipartisan problem. Like almost all of them are.

It just kept on keeping on. Even when supposedly "Clinton and Congress realized we needed intel because of terrorism" as Cypress stated the reliance on tech intel over humint remained and is seriously problematic and almost totally worthless against such groups as we are currently fighting.

If you and USC are talking about the time frame of Reagan-Poppy-Billy-Shrub , USC is right. The federal government has been mostly under GOP control:


Presidency: GOP controlled 18/26 years: 70% of the time

Senate: GOP controlled 18/26 years: 70% of the time.

House: GOP controlled 12/26 years = 46% of the time.



The win goes to USC: GOP has overwhelmingly controlled the Executive and the Senate, and in addition has controlled the House almost half the time.

 

[Damocles]

If you and USC are talking about the time frame of Reagan-Poppy-Billy-Shrub , USC is right. The federal government has been mostly under GOP control:


Presidency: GOP controlled 18/26 years: 70% of the time

Senate: GOP controlled 18/26 years: 70% of the time.

House: GOP controlled 12/26 years = 46% of the time.



The win goes to USC: GOP has overwhelmingly controlled the Executive and the Senate, and in addition has controlled the House almost half the time.

And the Budget is made where? Regardless... It was not all one party. Any attempt to make it so is ridiculous. It's like attempting to blame Muslim Radicalism on Carter.

If you notice, I place the budgets under the control of the actual people who make the budget? Did you read my post at all?

"During Reagan Congress was under the Ds, during Bush the Congress was under the Ds. During Clinton the Executive was under the D, and congress was for a time. As I said I was pissed at the Rs in Congress for not turning around the problem with the intel..."

 

[uscitizen]

And who has to pass and sign that budget damo ?

 

[Cypress]

American Civics 101 - For Damocles:

The president proposes budgets; negotiates with congress to try to get them implemented; and then signs budgets into law.

Short version: The president isn't a powerless potted plant, when it comes to budgets.







teasing you man!

 

[Cancel7]

Boys, do I have to start pulling ears in here?

 

[uscitizen]

I figure this oursourcing might have been intentional.
how many ex cia , military, congressmen do you think got lobbyiest jobs because of this outsourcing. and how much more money coming in from lobbyists ?