>Apparently the CIA got wise to his attempts and shut him off.
Maybe the CIA sent him. It happened in the USSR (that intelligence services NKVD, KGB, GRU, etc, competed fiercely with each other).
>The NSA wasn't so lucky.
Good.
>But we would be foolish to discount the possibility that all of this is a huge smokescreen for a concerted and consistent attempt to weaken or expose US intelligence operations.
I agree. You make a good case for having a clearly defined separation of intelligence services, and lots of checks.
>The fact that an impingement of our sources and methods helps our adversaries cannot be understated.
It can be overstated, and it has been. Also, what adversaries?
Maybe the CIA sent him. It happened in the USSR (that intelligence services NKVD, KGB, GRU, etc, competed fiercely with each other).
>The NSA wasn't so lucky.
Good.
>But we would be foolish to discount the possibility that all of this is a huge smokescreen for a concerted and consistent attempt to weaken or expose US intelligence operations.
I agree. You make a good case for having a clearly defined separation of intelligence services, and lots of checks.
>The fact that an impingement of our sources and methods helps our adversaries cannot be understated.
It can be overstated, and it has been. Also, what adversaries?