Trust Us, We’re Spies (continued)


previous

Tenet’s statement went on to say: “The difference between the appropriation for one year and the administration’s budget request for the next provides a measure of the administration’s unique, critical assessment of its own intelligence programs. A requested budget decrease reflects a decision that existing intelligence programs are more than adequate to meet the national security needs of the United States. A requested budget increase reflects a decision that the existing intelligence programs are insufficient to meet our national security needs. A budget request with no change in spending reflects a decision that existing programs are just adequate to meet our needs.”

Hogwash, says Aftergood. “Because the intelligence budget request and appropriation are aggregates of many hundreds of individual programs, the total budget figures do not reflect an overall assessment of U.S. intelligence at all,” he wrote in a rebuttal to Tenet’s declaration. “The single budget figures can conceal massive turmoil or natural growth or anything in between.”

Martin adds that, “If you examine the reasoning of [Tenet] in his declaration, it’s illogical on its face.” In fact, Aftergood notes, Tenet’s own declaration would seem to indicate he himself is guilty of damaging national security because he allowed the release of the budget totals in 1997 and 1998.

The CIA did not even address that central point in its final appeal, according to Martin and Aftergood. “It nowhere explains why, if it was not harmful to release the budget number for ’97 and ’98, it’s now harmful to release it for ’99. They have no answer to that,” Martin said.

What the CIA did offer is an almost sneering indictment of the plaintiffs’ argument, asserting that Aftergood used “tortured logic and vague references to government ‘bad faith’ in his attempt to persuade this Court that it should substitute plaintiff’s judgment about risks to national security for the well-reasoned judgment of … Tenet.”

next

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.