Found this paragraph in an article in my local paper. It would appear to me that the statement about punishing in-house critics runs counter to all those commissions that say there wasn't any attempt to coerce the intelligence community. So, is it irresponsible of the writer and the paper to state something as fact despite there being a lot of contradictory evidence and debate about the veracity of the claim?



"At the Central Intelligence Agency, senior officials embraced Curveball's claims even though they could not verify them or interview him until a year after the invasion. They ignored multiple warnings about his reliability, punished in-house critics who provided proof that he had lied and refused to admit error until May 2004, 14 months after invasion."

---

_____________________________________
You're not stuck in traffic. You ARE traffic.