,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
There's a lot of bad info floating around out there about how the IC works and how it does the Worldwide Threat Assessment. So as someone who has helped draft these documents (including on issues like Iran!), let me try and set a few things straight in this thread: 1/
None of the judgements in the ATA are new or surprising (or at least they shouldn't be) to those who regularly receive intelligence. The IC doesn't break new news in the ATA. That means that Trump and others have known about these assessments on NK and Iran for some time. 2/
The unclassified assessment (which we heard two days ago) is consistent with the classified brief. There are certainly more details and info in the classified version, but its not like the classified version contains the "real" assessment. 3/
For those who say "If only the IC would have considered my pet data point X," I hate to break it to you, but they did. These assessments reflect all available info even if they don't mention that info specifically (there are limits imposed by space, scope, and classification). 4/
The IC doesn't write its assessments with the intent to "contradict" anyone. Its an apolitical body doing the best it can to make sound judgments about the most important threats facing the country. 5/
It is 100% true that there is a tension between intelligence and policy ("world as it is" vs trying to change that reality), and healthy policymaker skepticism of intelligence assessments is fine, BUT... 6/
There is a difference between healthy skepticism/tension - where policymakers, for example, can ask the IC for their best guess on what factors would need to change in order to realize policy goals, and what policies might have the best impact...7/
...and an unhealthy relationship, where policymakers ignore what the IC says (because they think its naive, biased, doesn't conform to their goals, etc.), disengage, and operate in their own reality. 8/
Trump's reaction to his intel chiefs' testimony--and the sheer number of differences that apparently exist and the fact that they are on some of the most critical issues--suggest we're operating in the latter territory. 9/9
