[footnoteRef:5] the coordination required to produce a document also is problematic given the hostilities which exist between different agencies. This can result in gridlock or groupthink, depending on the parties involved. [5: Rosenbach, 2009]
A more serious allegation is the politicization of the intelligence-gathering process. This was particularly noteworthy during the debriefings after the Iraq War, in which Democrats accused the Bush Administration of deliberately fabricating a threat from Iraq to justify the invasion and divert attention away from the Administration's failures in Afghanistan and its mismanagement of the economy. However, both Democratic and Republicans alike have been accused of playing politics with the process. "IC accusation of politicization surfaced after the key judgments of NIEs on the ballistic missile threat to the United Sates changed between 1993 and 1995. Some Republicans claimed the IC politicized the findings to support President Clinton's policy against missile defense systems.[footnoteRef:6]"...
Old information was used to support unfounded assumptions which were not challenged. Suggested reforms include employing an outside entity to offer an alternative analysis to the predominant theory drawn up by the organization or doing away with the idea of consensus at all and instead offering multiple 'versions' to policy makers, allowing politicians to select which points-of-view seem most convincing and then letting policy-makers engage in a fertile debate. Too homogeneous and definitive an intelligence document can spread the malaise of 'groupthink' to those who are ostensibly supposed to make policy decisions using its input.
Bibliography
Rosenbach, Eric. "National Intelligence Estimates." Belfer Center. [12 May 2013]
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19150/national_intelligence_estimates.html
