to avoid public accountability

In the post re the possible release of the CIAs 911 report, Noise writes:

"Gen. Hayden was Director of the NSA from 1999 to 2005. IMO, that suggests a huge conflict of interest in his position as CIA Director. For example, we have no idea how much he really knew about al Qaeda intercepts in the lead up to 9/11. Perhaps keeping the report classified is a quid pro quo.

Tenet's book wouldn't be public without Gen. Hayden's approval. Why is it that Tenet's book rehashing pre-9/11 performance was ok but IG Helgerson's report isn't? Sure sounds like a double standard.

IG Helgerson recommended disciplinary reviews which means the job failures by specific officials were not excusable. Goss said these review panels were not necessary. Of course he made this claim knowing the public couldn't read the IG report.

Too bad someone doesn't leak the report. The misuse of classification procedures to avoid public accountability is bullshit.

I'm reading yet another investigative journalist account of the 2000-2001 period (Bamford, Pretext for War). Some very questionable things happened in Alec Station at this time. That was when Black ran the CTC and a guy named Rich ran Alec Station. After 9/11, Tenet approved torture and Gen. Hayden approved the domestic spying program. They both claim such policies are necessary. It would have been nice to know what happened at the CIA before resorting to illegal policies based on the word of politicians and intelligence officials unwilling to account for their actions."

good points all.
thnx Noise.