I agree, it would help if there is a point to it all. Your errant conclusion was that "intelligence gathering is, sifting through data... to try to paint an overall picture."

 Eight year old monkey is actually a good idea.

I imagine a president without the ability to speak would be a massive improvement. 

Well, given that people describe Bush as a monkey who can't speak, what are you complaining about?

Poor fkusumot. It's tough for you to link it all together, isn't it? My conclusion was that intellgence gathering is imperfect. Does your observation, assuming it even valid, challenge that conclusion at all (is this the 2nd or 3rd time I've asked this)? It would seem you're stuck on a rail. Each of your posts repeats incessantly about how I misrepresented the intelligence gathering process. Very impressive. But what would be even more impressive is you could correct it. Surely it would be easy for someone of your mental acuity.

But you know what I think? Maybe, just maybe, you are the one spewing meaningless nonesense. Maybe you don't have a clue what it is you're talking about. Maybe you disagree with what I had to say, but find it difficult to develop a cogent arguement to counter it. Instead you take the path of least resistance and nitpik an otherwise irrelevant point to discredit an entire line of reasoning.

Oh what the heck. You're on a roll. Just post another comment about how I don't understand how real intelligence gathering works. Wouldn't want you to break a sweat explaining yourself.

 The problem with bush is that he has the ability to string random words together and end up with things like 'Lets invade Iraq'. We need a truly mute monkey.

Some monkey's can sign. However remote it might be, your strategy does have a hole in it.