So far my favorite example of a bitter internal U.S. intelligence dispute manifesting itself in a very flawed (to say the least) public perception crisis of what was really taking place. Below, the Special National Intelligence Estimate, Sep. 1962:
The one person in the Kennedy administration who believed the Soviets were sending offensive missiles to Cuba was CIA Director John McCone. The problem -- or problems?
1. McCone was on his honeymoon in Paris at the time, not in Washington. His order for daily U-2 overflights in Cuba was overruled by Dean Rusk and Robert McNamara. His suggested SNIE raising the alarm was similarly ignored for the above.
2. McCone was a Republican in a Democratic administration. And GOP Senator Kenneth Keating was banging on about Khrushchev sending surface-to-surface missiles to Cuba, prompting Kennedy officials to suspect McCone was leaking to him.
(He wasn't. Keating's sources were almost certainly Cuban refugees.)
3. The placement of SA-2 surface-to-air defensive missiles around Cuba made McCone very suspicious, as these were not guarding airfields. The manual for the SA-2 was provided to CIA by Oleg Penkovsky, a HUMINT source whose identity JFK didn't even know.
(JFK knew the CIA had a Soviet colonel working for them, but not who or his closeness, via Varentsov, to Khrushchev.)
4. The manual for the SS-4, the medium-range nuclear-capable missile the Soviets placed in Cuba, was also provided by Penkovsky. And that system was judged to be the culprit only after U-2 overflights restarted -- that is, once John McCone got back from his honeymoon in Paris.
Until that photographic proof, McCone had relied instead on his own judgment, the available slate of circumstantial evidence, and information provided by an incredibly high-value Soviet mole. The conventional wisdom was: "The Russians won't do it because they haven't before."
To recap: one of the most dangerous postwar crises the U.S. ever faced -- the threat of nuclear war with the USSR -- might have been more fleet-footedly (or even preemptively) dealt with had the CIA director not run off to be married at the wrong time of year.
And a nice coda to this story:
JFK later told McCone, "You were right all along."
To which McNamara said: "But for the wrong reasons." What the hell did that mean?
McNamara later confessed to McCone's executive assistant, "I don't know. I had to say something."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The only person who emailed us today about this was... Paul McKeigue. No one claiming to represent the “Berlin Group 21” did so. So now I would like to know why the “Berlin Group 21” claims they contacted us directly when someone who denies having anything to do with them did.
And we incorporated McKeigue’s denial into our article. He had declined to comment in advance of publication.
And note the “Berlin Group 21” correctly states that a request was addressed to the “journalists”. Indeed, McKeigue emailed both @JettGoldsmith and myself at our personal email accounts. How would the “Berlin Group 21” know that?
NEW: A group of British academics and bloggers sowing disinformation about Syria's use of chemical weapons have coordinated their efforts with four different Russian diplomatic missions around the world, emails show: thedailybeast.com/syria-chemical…
A number of stunning revelations in a three-month correspondence between one of the academics and "Ivan," someone he believed was a Russian spy.
"Ivan" was in reality @CIJAOnline, an NGO collecting evidence of war crimes in Syria, conducting a sting operation.
Professor Paul McKeigue, an epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh, mapped out his cohort's entire network of disinformation peddlers and their liaisons: Russian officials in The Hague, New York, London and Geneva.
This piece by @TomRtweets is the best anatomy I've seen as to the ongoing dispute between CIA and NSA on the now much scrutinized GRU "bounties" story. And it's conveniently short: washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/inside…
Note that there was no climb-down from the original leaked allegations, as reported correctly in the NYT that NSA had a lower level of confidence in this intelligence than did CIA. ("Moderate" confidence means pretty good, in laymen's terms.)
The fact that this intelligence made it into the President's Daily Brief (Trump's) also suggested it wasn't quite the nothing-burger it's since been portrayed as in the press. Ditto making it into the WH statement on sanctions:
I'm going to watch this tomorrow, but I still can't figure why they had to invent a CIA case officer for Rachel Brosnahan to play. She'd have been perfect as Janet Chisholm, who (to my mind) played a more daring role than Wynne in this op. spytalk.co/p/spytalk-at-t…
You've essentially got MI6's answer to the Marvelous Mrs. Maisel in this character.
There was initially almost no suspicion about Penkovsky, whose cover gig was to meet trade delegations, gallivanting around Moscow with Wynne. Janet, meanwhile, had to do brush-passes in broad daylight, in a Moscow park, with -- checks notes -- three small children and a pram.
So in 2014 the GRU blew up Czech military ammunition destined, via a Bulgarian arms dealer, for Ukraine. Then it twice tried to murder the Bulgarian with a nerve agent, first in Sofia, then on the Bulgarian coast. The puzzle pieces finally fall into place.
Emilian Gebrev had all sorts of other theories as to why the Russians wanted him dead—his arms dealing to Georgia and Ukraine, he believed, was too small-stakes to qualify.
So here now, from the White House itself, is the mention of the GRU/Taliban 'bounties' claim. No sanctions levied, but the matter is "being handled through diplomatic, military and intelligence channels": whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/…
Note that it isn't much of a revelation that the IC assessed the 'bounties' story with "low-moderate confidence." NSA and CIA always disagreed about this allegation. From NYT, July 2020:
And the intelligence wasn't just based on Taliban detainee interrogations. It's next to impossible, for instance, that detainees would have known which specific unit of the GRU was responsible for these payments. Intercepts played a part, as per NYT: nytimes.com/2020/06/30/us/…