I guess that depends how much credence you give to anonymous intelligence leakers. The fact that a couple of disgruntled people leaked (apparently) misleading, incomplete, and some (again, apparently) flat out incorrect intelligence doesn't mean that CSIS is incapable of analyzing the veracity of its own information through the proper channels. Unless there's evidence that CSIS leadership is somehow complicit in a cover up, I'm not sure why they wouldn't be providing Johnston with the proper information.
As the report says, there are clearly issues with how CSIS and the current government are handling information flow which resulted in the failures seen regarding Michael Chong. But unless there's other evidence, most of the reported claims don't seem to stand up to a whole lot of scrutiny.
Which wouldn't be all that surprising, to be honest. This whole thing reminds me of the Russian interference into the US election. It happened to some extent, but its effect, its importance, and the degree to which anyone benefited and was complicit in it was vastly overblown by media hype.
|