This is a fairly straight forward story about the contents of a legal filing by a former CIA agent and comments made by his lawyer alleging that he was ordered to change his reports that Iran had dropped its nuclear weapons program. It also includes the obligatory denial by a CIA representative. These types of reports are valuable since the filing is news but there is no attempt to add depth here.

This is not what I would consider great investigative journalism. The story does not (indeed, cannot) reveal the name of the CIA operative, so some trustworthiness is lost right from the start. A named "CIA spokesman" is quoted saying the same things that CIA spokespeople often say, that the CIA doesn't falsify or suppress intelligence. At the end of the article, I'm left wondering whether I should beleve this unnamed ex-CIA person or not. Clearly he has an axe to grind; he no longer works for the CIA. I'm about as liberal as they come, but even I have a problem taking this entire story at face value. This isn't investigative journalism. This is just reporting what the guy's lawyer said, and what the CIA spokesman says.

Anothe rinteresting story about this administration managing information by ignoring and even muzzling those whose reports did not fit the answers the sought

Another informative article providing an additional indication that the administration is planning to invade Iran. A 22-year CIA agent was fired who would not go along with the company story that Iran has nuclear weapons because the evidence was not there to support the claim. The CIA is trying to discredit the agent which sounds familiar to the Plame incident. Good story that deserves follow up on the agent's case including comparisons on the similarities with the lies that were told on Iraq.