Bob - This Watson/PCRB argument started when he submitted his manuscript to the PCRB, as required, for review and approval for publication. I don't know exactly what happened, but the damage between the two sides was done then, during the initial part of the review period, the impasse reached, the acrimony set in place, the path forward blocked. The PCRB, part of a vast bureaucracy, unable to give more, the author too stubborn to give ground, to negotiate. I know of four or five cases from years past that developed in this manner, and I would bet there have been many more. That seems to be the way human nature works. It's not clear whether Mark Zaid currently represents Mr. Watson, but he's a good lawyer and has learned much about dealing with the CIA, thanks in good part to my late partner, a highly skilled CIA operations officer and, later, a successful lawyer. She knew all about that cat. Mr. Watson doesn't. He seems to have forgotten that he was a case officer.
Colin, thanks. Mark Zaid definitely represents Watson in the lawsuit. I spoke to him on the phone and his name and signature are all over the court records.
There was a basic analytical error involved in this. Iraq was alleged to have a weapons of an ass destruction program. Weapons programs proceed through milestones. Milestone one is for a requirement. Usually a program proceeds through several milestones, a preliminary design field, testing, implementation, and training. A program in the early stages is not a threat, especially since most programs take about 10 years to complete conclusive evidence said Iraq actually had a WMD program, but only prove that it might be a threat once a program was completed based on even on what curveball is alleged to say an Iraqi WMD program was years away from implementation and therefore could not have been a current threat
Can someone let dumb fool know the real reason for invading Iraq was not for WMD. That was the justification to mobilize median IQ masses toward supporting war. We are too stupid to stomach harsh realities even when it is for our own good. Iraq was invaded to stop Saddam's oil bourse, protect the petrodollar, nullify Iraqi oil contracts with China, and try to reconnect the Kirkuk–Haifa oil pipeline for countering Russian energy hegemony over Europe. It wasn't a misjudgement. Stop beating the dead horse.
Hey Colin, thanks for the comment. I won't speak for Jerry Watson here but I think the PCRB put him in an untenable position by demanding he remove all classified material, and everything stemming from it, without telling him what that might be. I spoke to other authors who got their manuscripts back with clearly identified pages or passages for deletion or rewriting, so that they could then negotiate, as you suggest. How is Watson supposed to negotiate on this? Mark Zaid clearly knows how the system is supposed to work. I don't believe he would take the case, and press the lawsuit, unless he felt there was grounds for getting the PCRB to take another look at this.
A very senior CIA operations officer from days long past, and a personal friend and mentor, had a favorite saying: There's more than one way to skin a cat. Mr. Watson apparently paid this folksy advice no mind. Too bad because he might have saved himself much grief and perhaps money had he not decided to stick with the battering-ram approach, head first into a steel door. The PCRB exists to protect the CIA and its secrets. This office's decisions sometimes seem short on common sense or just plain wrong, but it also must adhere to rules and dictates from above. The PCRB does negotiate, however, and has some flexibility, leading to compromise and solutions. Some former CIA officers with tales to tell insist, by gosh and by golly, that every word they write is sacred and refuse to bend when the PCRB dictates. The result? An unpublished story. Maybe even a trip to court to force the CIA to cave. Good luck on that. Mark Zaid knows all this. Perhaps other lawyers do as well. Mr. Watson is not brave, I fear, just stubborn.
Colin, thanks. Mark Zaid represents Mr. Watson in his lawsuit. I spoke to him on the phone and his name and signature is all over the court records.
Bob - This Watson/PCRB argument started when he submitted his manuscript to the PCRB, as required, for review and approval for publication. I don't know exactly what happened, but the damage between the two sides was done then, during the initial part of the review period, the impasse reached, the acrimony set in place, the path forward blocked. The PCRB, part of a vast bureaucracy, unable to give more, the author too stubborn to give ground, to negotiate. I know of four or five cases from years past that developed in this manner, and I would bet there have been many more. That seems to be the way human nature works. It's not clear whether Mark Zaid currently represents Mr. Watson, but he's a good lawyer and has learned much about dealing with the CIA, thanks in good part to my late partner, a highly skilled CIA operations officer and, later, a successful lawyer. She knew all about that cat. Mr. Watson doesn't. He seems to have forgotten that he was a case officer.
Colin, thanks. Mark Zaid definitely represents Watson in the lawsuit. I spoke to him on the phone and his name and signature are all over the court records.
There was a basic analytical error involved in this. Iraq was alleged to have a weapons of an ass destruction program. Weapons programs proceed through milestones. Milestone one is for a requirement. Usually a program proceeds through several milestones, a preliminary design field, testing, implementation, and training. A program in the early stages is not a threat, especially since most programs take about 10 years to complete conclusive evidence said Iraq actually had a WMD program, but only prove that it might be a threat once a program was completed based on even on what curveball is alleged to say an Iraqi WMD program was years away from implementation and therefore could not have been a current threat
Can someone let dumb fool know the real reason for invading Iraq was not for WMD. That was the justification to mobilize median IQ masses toward supporting war. We are too stupid to stomach harsh realities even when it is for our own good. Iraq was invaded to stop Saddam's oil bourse, protect the petrodollar, nullify Iraqi oil contracts with China, and try to reconnect the Kirkuk–Haifa oil pipeline for countering Russian energy hegemony over Europe. It wasn't a misjudgement. Stop beating the dead horse.
Hey Colin, thanks for the comment. I won't speak for Jerry Watson here but I think the PCRB put him in an untenable position by demanding he remove all classified material, and everything stemming from it, without telling him what that might be. I spoke to other authors who got their manuscripts back with clearly identified pages or passages for deletion or rewriting, so that they could then negotiate, as you suggest. How is Watson supposed to negotiate on this? Mark Zaid clearly knows how the system is supposed to work. I don't believe he would take the case, and press the lawsuit, unless he felt there was grounds for getting the PCRB to take another look at this.
A very senior CIA operations officer from days long past, and a personal friend and mentor, had a favorite saying: There's more than one way to skin a cat. Mr. Watson apparently paid this folksy advice no mind. Too bad because he might have saved himself much grief and perhaps money had he not decided to stick with the battering-ram approach, head first into a steel door. The PCRB exists to protect the CIA and its secrets. This office's decisions sometimes seem short on common sense or just plain wrong, but it also must adhere to rules and dictates from above. The PCRB does negotiate, however, and has some flexibility, leading to compromise and solutions. Some former CIA officers with tales to tell insist, by gosh and by golly, that every word they write is sacred and refuse to bend when the PCRB dictates. The result? An unpublished story. Maybe even a trip to court to force the CIA to cave. Good luck on that. Mark Zaid knows all this. Perhaps other lawyers do as well. Mr. Watson is not brave, I fear, just stubborn.
He's a brave man. I look forward to reading his testimony.