Reading the BBC online report, I have excerpted this comment:

"Because the US lacked an official presence inside Iraq, the IC depended
too heavily on defectors and foreign government services to obtain...
information of Iraq's WMD activities... these sources... had a limited
ability to provide the kind of detailed intelligence about current Iraqi
WMD sought by US policymakers...

Their credibility was difficult to assess and was often left to the
foreign government services to judge."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3881953.stm

The Miami Herald headlines are inflammatory:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/6269252.htm?1c

While I do not want this to degenerate into a political or blame-placing
discussion, I would like to hear your thoughts on gathering information
outside traditional structures. Geographic security in a physically
connected world where so many organizations exist unrelated to national
identity...the role and conduct of information collection and
dissemination become increasingly more complex. I'm not sure it changes
how information is evaluated.

For example, one of the best sources I've found for "watching" the big
picture of the US war on terrorism is:

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/usterror.html#chronologies

The links are updated fairly often, but having the background and context
available at a click helps me evaluate and understand the new information
better. And, it's built and maintained by a government documents
librarian.

In 1998 when I was researching Osama bin Laden, a member of this list
provided me information that I was unable to locate anywhere else.

How will the intelligence profession evolve in the emerging contexts? How
do we educate and train future professionals?

Ann Rosenthal