The Washington Post, Dana Priest and Intelligence.

The Washington Post and Intelligence put together seem to be the unlikeliest of combinations. After all, The Washington Post is, like most media outlets, a nesting ground for those who would love to have worked for Pravda back in the day, and are a cross section of disgruntled socialists, university programmed liberals, power-seeking narcissists and the odd avaricious capitalist thrown in to make their output quasi-marketable.

They have decided to run an expose on the intelligence community and have articles with such titles as "A hidden world, growing beyond control" and "Top Secret America". In these pieces they reveal the huge growth in the intelligence industry since 2001 and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They take the tact that this is a BAD thing. Not ironically, The Washington Post was crying loudly about the failed intelligence prior to 9/11 as were the rest of the left-based media. Now the money has been spent, after thousands of lives were lost - and they are still unhappy. Why? Because security and a growing intelligence industry tends to lean conservative. The more people work in a tilted right workplace, the more those political views are likely to spread to the employees families, friends and the greater communities of America. The horror!

Redundancy.

When seeking intelligence, redundancy is never a bad thing. The more compartmentalized groups seeking actionable intelligence the more data is produced. Will some of it overlap? Certainly. Will some folks not know that others are repeating their labor? Certainly. An intelligent end-user of intelligence seeks as much as he can accumulate from as many sources as possible. A good reporter, likewise would seek a balanced piece by seeing more sides of any topic. However the nation, much less The Washington Post, is not filled with good reporters - merely propagandists whose literary skills are used to support or tear down some political structure and affiliated ideosophies.

So what's the goal of this hit piece? To rally more oversight? To redirect spending? No, The Washington Post knows none of this will occur. This is simply another in the tired old socialist agenda which presents an anti-security hit piece. Like any anti-Bush Administration hit piece from 2001-2009 it's about pretending to be for the people while it's really about trying to program the people to view the world the way The Washington Post and its team of "journalists" do - and to then vote accordingly, so that their paper and worldview still receive some slice of the media pie money in a world that is quickly evolving past the proletariat grade propaganda.

And besides, for those of us who know the way the land lies and the value in having 100 views of a situation versus 2, we will not soon seek to limit our choices any more than Google News users will return to ABC, CBS and NBC to disseminate what's going on in the world for them when they can have 1000s of views and create a more balanced and informed opinion.