Current Article

One Reason for Intelligence Failures

By Larry Johnson on October 30, 2007 at 10:47 PM in Current Affairs

More than six years since the terrorist attacks on 9-11 the intelligence community continues to employ a substandard analytical practice that virtually guarantees shoddy and inaccurate analysis. What am I talking about? An analyst within the CIA (or DIA or INR) who writes an article for the Presidential Daily Brief or other community wide daily intelligence brief is not currently required to coordinate with analysts outside of their organization. What’s so bad about that? The failure to coordinate and obtain the clearance of other analysts prevents policymakers from getting the best analysis and information available. Perhaps this helps explain the mess we encountered with the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

Sorry to sound like an old guy, but I need to explain what I mean in talking about “coordination”. When I was an analyst I was required to coordinate any article I wrote for the National Intelligence Daily and the Presidential Daily Brief with my counterparts at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). For example, I was the Honduran analyst.

If I wrote about the threat of Cuban backed terrorism from Nicaragua, I first had to share what I wrote with the analysts at CIA who worked on Nicaragua, Cuba, or terrorism. That meant I took my draft to three different offices (remember, this was before email). Why? My bosses wanted to make sure that the CIA spoke with one voice. They did not want Larry Johnson’s personal views being shared with the President. My supervisors demanded that the information in my intelligence articles was accurate and reflected everything we knew about the current state of intelligence. This part of the coordination process covered only inside the CIA.

Once we had an agreed upon CIA version, I was then required to send the draft to the Honduran analyst at INR and the analyst at DIA who covered Honduras. (Both women by the way.) S ometimes they drove me nuts. They did not agree with how I worded a paragraph or with a particular conclusion. I had a choice. Either I accepted their changes or we escalated the dispute to a branch chief. If the INR or DIA analyst was not satisfied with our proposed fixes they were allowed to write a “dissent”.

A dissent is shorthand for a different point of view. For example, I could say “Iraq is trying to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger”. While INR would write, “No, Iraq is not trying to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger and cannot process the yellowcake currently in its possession”. This ensures the policymaker will understand there may be a dispute about particular matters. If there is not dispute then they have a reasonable expectation that they are reading a consensus view of the intelligence community.

More often than not I accepted the changes proposed by my counterparts. Sometimes I did not like it. We got into screaming matches. Sometimes these gals thought of something I had not considered and helped dramatically improve the quality of the article and the analysis. Despite the rough and tumble and frustration inherent in this process, the end result was a piece of good analysis that reflected the collective judgment of the analysts who were the substantive experts on the topic at hand.

That is not the case today and has not been the case for at least 8 years. I still have not been able to determine who instituted this change–was it Woolsey, Deustch, or Tenet? Don’t know, but it was a damn stupid change. Analysts at CIA, DIA, and INR are now free to write articles that are disseminated throughout the intelligence community without having to coordinate with each other and get clearance on their pieces. And you wonder why we have intelligence failures? This is a contributing factor.

So what does it take to fix this? Not much. We do not need more bureaucracy. We do not have to spend more money. We do not need to hire more analysts. The Director of National Intelligence simply needs to tell the intelligence community to get off of its lazy ass and ensure that every article that is circulated outside of an intelligence agency–especially the PDB–should be fully coordinated and cleared by the relevant analysts of CIA, DIA, INR, and FBI. This one is simple. What is amazing is that it is not being done.

http://neufneuf.blogspot.com 99

I don’t think it’s your age. It’s getting so bad out there that I can’t help thinking they’re spraying us with stupid dust. I think you managed to stay upwind of it today. I have days like that too.
Delia

Larry, the process you describe seems like simple common sense. You’re comparing notes with other people in the same field who also have expertise in your area. Two people can put a brake on one person who’s getting out into left field. It’s the same reason scientists and academics do peer review before they’ll publish a paper. The fact that this crew in charge now is going without it means that they don’t want the accuracy of their research vetted. They’ve ordered up the results and someone is producing them. No need to check and double-check the results.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

Geez, you mean PDBs receive less scrutiny than an article in a magazine?

Because I work in magazine publishing. Every article is reviewed and/or edited by the editor-in-chief, the story editor, the copy chief, the research editor, the fact checker, the writer, a proofreader, and then coordinated with the art, photo and production departments in terms of putting the article on page with art and then sending it to the printer. That process is repeated at least three times with everyone, then about 6 more times with the principles…for every story.

Considering the stakes, why would a PDB receive less scrutiny and coordination? That makes no sense.

Unbelievable.
jcricket

Larry, I love your blog and respect your experience absolutely. BUT, you are talking about memos that are directed to George W Bush.

You know, the most unqualified man to ever hold the Office of President of The United States.

The man who single-handedly devalued every MBA degree in America. There will never again be another MBA president, and every other American who currently holds an MBA is going to have to shore it up with additional professional credentials.

Whatever is going on with the PDB has nothing to do with the CIA (IMO), but has everything to do with the cretin receiving the briefing. He ordered how he wants information.

I bet the order was to ensure that “the intelligence was built around the policy”. (and all “sexed up” to use a Downing Street term ).

The last six + years prove that it really does matter how intelligent a president is, and that the D.C. Machinery really cannot run without someone at the top with a triple digit IQ.

Once the mental midget is gone, the PDB will change. You watch.

http://NoQuarterUSA.net Larry Johnson

No, this predated Bush. I’m told, and am awaiting confirmation, that this started while Clinton was President.

Delia

Then I’m afraid the conclusion still stands, and either Clinton or Tenet must have decided this was what they wanted. If you want accurate results, you institute a vetting process. If you want the results you want, well, you might as well just sit in the office and make it all up.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

How much say does the preznit have over CIA operations decisions? If the CIA director decides the PDB should be written by one analyst without review?

ybnormal

Larry, your comments remind me, by way of analogy, of what those in the science community complain about as a trend. In their case, for accuracy they depend on peer review, and also on the ability to have others produce the same results from similar experiments. Their complaint these days is that the science advise for public policy is taking a hit; compromised by non-science such as “intelligent design”, and also good old fashioned secular greed.

In other words, some drink from the fountain of knowledge, and others just gargle.

Don’t know if the science world is a meaningful analogy to intel analysis, or just coincidence, but it’s something that just struck me reading your post.

If there is a parallel, it might be along the lines of deferring to authoritarian political pressure to dictate the most desirable conclusions, which is more likely to lead to the practice of starting with a conclusion and working backwards to cherry pick the evidence; instead of using all the best evidence to find the most logical conclusion. It amounts to creating a demand for a specific result, as opposed to demanding that the best evidence determine the conclusion.

Since you wondered if maybe this started under Tenet, maybe Tenet should wonder, what does it profit a man if he gains the Medal Of Freedom and a book publishing contract, but loses his own soul.

http://cujo359.blogspot.com Cujoo359

To me, intelligence is an attempt to do science without the most important part of the scientific process. Publishing a scientific paper is an invitation for all the experts in the field to review it and criticize it. The reasoning, the method of gathering data, and the possibility of introducing errors are all discussed. To the extent that this goes on in intelligence, it’s going to be done by people who are cleared to see that information. That’s usually a very select group of people.

If what Larry’s saying is true, that circle has gotten much smaller lately.

David Habakkuk

Larry Johnson:

Absolutely fascinating.

If what is so obviously bad practice started under Clinton, who started it and why?

chris

I’m always fascinated at how different bureaucracies resemble each other, whether they be government (something I have no working experience in but relate to as an active citizen) and corporate bureaucracy (something I have couple decades with). The methods Larry described are indeed logical and based in what I appreciate in common world as the dialectic I guess.

But to his main point is this shift to very self-serving and disconnected system described where these types have decided they don’t like to be checked in on. And it reminds me so much of bosses and ceo types I’ve worked under or been negatively influenced by thru ripple effects. Seems that is based in some real narcissus complex stuff.

I used to watch higher ups come around and say the stupidest shit and then expect all of us underlings to just nod and agree. I wasn’t so good at this which is why I either got crap or promoted. Seems I hold the rare distinction of quitting a job 2 times only to be promoted in those companies. Good news is I got out and set up my own shop, but I’ll never forget the lessons of those “titles” and “pay grades”.

Larry, what do you think, did the CIA in effect follow the Enron model of fantasy land and then BOOM, catastrophic failure in early Sept 2001. Lots of patting on the back, then reality check?

I know in my limited political experience, groups I would meet and discuss positions with were often concerned about opposing groups knowing what they might want to early and yet could never quit broadcasting their every move to failure. If they advocated position A one day, inevitably one of two people I knew and didn’t trust very well at first would almost run to the counter side to tell them what was happening…not as a mole, but as a bragadoccio! It got so stupid I started to set informaton in play with those people to figure out how fast and how accurate they’d do the job. It became a very effective tool to disrupt the opposing positions ability to read us and disrupt us. Further, we’d know what they were up to because these same bragadoccios would tell us how they outsmarted the opposition and fooled into something.

So, if on the microlevel of pretty inconsequential bullshit it seems to be a human trait in some to be that way, why wouldn’t that happen at the CIA or Enron or the White House Vice Presidential Office?

and ybnormal, what does it profit a man to get a cheap “medal of freedom” and become a traitor to get it?

ybnormal

chris, (btw my own first name also) ‘what does it profit…’

Considering the cost of the soul that is lost, false profit. Soul in this case, can be any secular or religious definition one cares to apply.

IntelVet

It is a convenient tactic to have a highly respected institution like the CIA produce a buffet of opinions about a specific topic, allowing the “decision-maker” to choose the “analysis” that enhances his desired policies, all with the apparent backing of the highly respected institution.

It is a favored tactic in “think tanks”, providing a smorgasbord of “analysis” so that the politician can “pick and choose” in order bolster his “case” to Congress, media and/or the public.

So, assuming a relative “bell curve” of analysis at the CIA, most any policy can be “justified” by saying the CIA supports this policy.

On the other hand, as Larry implies, if the CIA wishes to be used as a “source”, then the CIA (or any other relevant institution), needs to ensure their output speaks as one source, the CIA. Stop providing a buffet of analysis so that unscrupulous dealers like Cheney can misrepresent CIA resources to bolster his desired policies.

And that is only one issue that has rotted our government.

ybnormal

Interesting take. The ‘smorgasbord’ approach then, would seem to ‘dis’ the purpose of the analyst; in effect, bypassing the analyst’s function of vetting within a group, to then supply intel as a smorgasbord of wholesale raw material. Then, it’s left up to the end user to do their own analysis, which of course, they’re more than happy to cherry-pick.

Taters

Thanks Larry, great piece and excellent comments, too.
mudkitty

Cafeteria style intel is all the rage.
Trace

Having written my share of PDB and NID items in the 1970s and 1980s, I am horrified to learn that they no longer receive inter-agency coordination. As Larry describes, the process is at best laborious and can be quite contentious — which is the point, and the way it should be.
oldtree

better an old guy than an old tree. I find it difficult moving.

your summation seems to be the goal that this group had. You can’t out Valerie unless you want to destroy intelligence gathering. I can’t believe Joe was the target, just the annoyance.
they have destroyed anything that they can’t control. that is the important part of this equation. they do not care about what came before, only about what they can get now. Carpetbaggers, looters, terrorists, thieves. This is how it started, how will it end?

mudkitty

With a wimper.
ybnormal

“…can’t out Valerie unless you want to destroy intelligence gathering. I can’t believe Joe was the target, just the annoyance.”

Who knows, maybe it was viewed as a win-win two-fer. Step on the annoyance, and a source of verification for the annoyance in one easy blow. Then WH could move on to making life imitate lunacy.

Ken

Would it work to have the heads of CIA, DIA, INR, NSA and the rest of the intelligence operations be deputy directors of DNI?

How else can DNI run the show? If the heads of these agencies were all subordinate to DNI, would things work better?…yes, I know, problems, DIA and other groups are military, but it could be put together.

The Director of Central Intelligence was supposed to be central. That was allowed to slip away. We’ve tried to recreate that with the Director of National Intelligence, but does he have the tools to do what needs to be done, including the support from top government leadership?

mudkitty

All of it’s meant to be obfuscating. And no, we won’t get the heads of the Agencies. That’s naive. Justice is blind for a good reason, but the GOP know how to take advantage of that.

sheerahkahn

The phrase you’re looking for Larry is called, “peer review.”
Of course, the break-down to peer review is not the analyst, nor is it the immediate supervisor’s fault, but rather the breakdown comes in the “appointee’s” decision making.
If the “appointee” harbors…oh, just for kicks and giggles, lets call it a “personal bias”, then all reports will fit the “appointee’s” bias despite the predecessors protocols or any other form of “restraint.”
And it goes without saying that the appointee’s biases will match his masters biases…like a glove.

I sh*t you not.
brat

Larry:

A bit Off-Topic. Seems the highly touted Pretreus Counter-Insurgency manual is largely a fraud. Please see:

http://www.counterpunch.org/price10302007.html

And the worms turn faster and faster…..
oldtree

don’t think peer review is a part of evaluation of numerous pieces of data. that would more than likely diminish the chances of one piece of data from being considered by someone’s opinion alone. subjecting the objective? that would be counterproductive
but very likely
scott

Hi Larry.

I have to disagree with you on this. I was a DIA analyst at the J2 in the Pentagon until 1996 and contributed pieces to the daily J2 publication of the time, served on many J2 working groups and was intimately familier with the processes you relate.

I was not required to run my stuff by analysts in other agencies, clearly the point of your piece. However, I knew what the other agencies typically thought on certain items in my area(s) of expertise and typically factored those into my subsequent writing.

But not always. To be honest, there were several, how can I put this delicately, fucking nutjobs, at CIA who clearly wanted nothing more than war with North Korea. Their “analysis” of things pertaining to that differed greatly from ours, thus, we felt no qualms about publishing something that clearly came to different conclusions.

I felt, and still do, that a lot of the “seperatism” of the intel agencies was a good thing. Instead of some large group-grope-consensus piece, decision makers had the benefit of different viewpoints presented in different environments.

Now, obviously on certain higher level documents that were going to the President and represented a “community wide” opinion, yeah, what you describe was required with dissents included.

I had my fair share of screaming matches with mainly CIA analysts. Fond memories.
mudkitty

Peer review flew out the window after the first tragedy…Florida 2000.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

No, Larry says this started under Clinton? Who started it and why? How is the preznit supposed to judge intel when it’s one analyst’s opinion?

http://sterno74.livejournal.com Steve

If you wanted to insure that the President was getting the most accurate information possible, you’d clearly do exactly what you just described. This administration has always, and will continue to, operate using information from their people. Their entire system of governance is based on relying solely on their loyal trusted people, and the system be damned.

What scares me though is not so much the problem this poses for our intelligence analysis today, but for the future. If you’re an intelligence analyst working there today and you find that only putting forward information that fits a higher up’s narrow view of the world, odds are good you’ll eventually get frustrated and leave. How many good analysts have we lost since 2000 because of this? How many mindless sycophants have been put in place in their absence?
ybnormal

Credibility of Information for the Public
The Score

Condi Rice
-Thought, or at least said she thought, the Iraq smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud, which was false.
-Thinks likewise on Iran that “the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge to American security interests in the Middle East and around the world”.
Condi credibility in evaluating Iranian nuclear threat = ZERO

Mohammed ElBaradei, head of IAEA
-Insisted there was no evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq, which was true.
-Currently insists there is no evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iran.
ElBaradei credibility in evaluating Iranian nuclear threat = quite reasonable, thank you

Likelyhood of disaster resulting from bombing Iran, based on recent history of Iraq = 99.9%

The current White House is a bad pony, and I ain’t bettin’ on ‘em. As for Congress, fool them twice, shame on them.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

All you need to know about Condi: She’s an expert on a country that no longer exists. But I’ve heard she makes up the difference by being an excellent flatterer.

http://www.food4humanity.org HoosierHoops

ybnormal:
Likelyhood of disaster resulting from bombing Iran, based on recent history of Iraq = 99.9%

giving .1% to Bush succeeding? You are too generous.
Let’s fudge alittle..how about 100%?
regards,
Taters

From Col. Pat Lang’s “Drinking the Kool-Aid”
From the Middle East Policy Council, Summer Issue, 2004

What does drinking the Kool-Aid mean today? It signifies that the person in question has given up personal integrity and has succumbed to the prevailing group-think that typifies policymaking today. This person has become “part of the problem, not part of the solution.”

What was the “problem”? The sincerely held beliefs of a small group of people who think they are the “bearers” of a uniquely correct view of the world, sought to dominate the foreign policy of the United States in the Bush 43 administration, and succeeded in doing so through a practice of excluding all who disagreed with them. Those they could not drive from government they bullied and undermined until they, too, had drunk from the vat.

What was the result? The war in Iraq.

http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol11/0406_lang.asp
SirScud

Larry,
This has the feel of a discussion that is struggling to be born amongst some seriously concerned laypersons and a few IC professionals. It is long overdue, and should not be corrupted by revisionism in any of its ugly incarnations, on either side of the divide.
First, truth and wisdom have no age. The suggestion that the analytical departments of the IC were first compromised by the Clinton administration is a historical farce, and does not even deserve a comment. Fashioning the work product of the IC according to the whims and goals of political appointees has been a carefully managed, admittedly secret, function of IC administration from its inception. The change in procedure occurred when the skills and power of the IC’s mission was turned on the very people they were sworn to protect, specifically, the United States public. That these IC political administrators not only failed to defend Mrs. Wilson and her husband, but enlisted their underlings to further damage them both on a personal level, harkens back much further than Goss, Tenet, Deustch, or Woolsey. Granted, these four recent charlatans were ill chosen at best, but they pale in the face of Necroponte as DNI, and we all know it. It is time for all of us that know and understand the the “secret” truths that have led our country to this precipice, to be open and honest with our people, the ones we all swore an oath to protect from all enemies, “foreign or domestic!” If our personal loyalties are in conflict with this oath, than we should at least cease to be a part of the problems that such a corrupt conflict create and/or aggravate.

I commend this article by Robert Parry to you and your readers. We would all do well to model our behavior after this journalist, and trust our fellow citizens with the unvarnished and uncompromised truth.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2007/103107.html

Patrick Henry

SirScud..

Thanks for the comments and link..Parrys article is right On…and a good read..

Mr.Murder

The low standard applied to dissent opinions is what allowed the facts to be fixed around the policy.

Downing Minutes underscore the heart of the IC failures leading to 9-11.

Ditto the Energy Task Force.

If they have nothing to be scared of, why hide the INTEL past its normal procedural clearance status?

Bushco. shaped the facts around the policy, that is why we had no urgency in his record vacation month before 9-11.

Perhaps additional views were asked for by Clinton, after things like WACO and Ok City, paired with WTC One it became evident that new ways of getting INTEL reviews were needed. The problem was that expediency diminished results and effectiveness. Paired alongside the new boss it was like giving the car keys to a drunk.

The incompetency of Bushco. still remains the heart of the matter. We didn’t want the ‘Smurking’ gun to become a mushed-room cloud.

Only one question to answer:

wtf brain farted?

Condi knows she who smelt it delt it. At least that’s what Putin’s translator told her, in English, so she could understand it, without the info perhaps going over her head.

So tell me, did Clinton play classical music in office and ignore his duty to fumble dire INTEL warnings?

Did Condi fumble and stumble before enacting the original requests Clinton’s people(Clarke) had drafted to address the new millennium?
readerOfTeaLeaves

This is depressing, but enlightening. I find it difficult to believe the CIA hasn’t brought in a few Ed. Psych researchers to explain the serious implications of failing to ‘work in groups’ these days.

In an era when some companies put a premium on spending dollars to ‘cross train’ employees so that each has a larger perspective of the organization’s needs and constraints, this post is a stunner.

Sounds like some of my regional business leaders are way ahead of the federal government with respect to the emphasis they place on obtaining the best quality information they can gather; much of it from employees who are fluent in at least two languages.

Any interested observer can assume that people in the upper echelons of the BushCheney administration are almost incapable of cognitively processing information that conflicts with their own assumptions.

Nevertheless, it’s sad — and alarming — to read that entire government agencies operate in such narrow, restricted processes. It sounds soul-killing.

There are limits to the amount of information that people can process; that’s clearly a problem for many in the current administration, whose ‘cognitive styles’ appear to be strikingly rigid. Their cognitive limitations appear too limited to deal with the amount of complexity they’re expected to process each day.

I remember being irritated in 2000 when I heard people say that ‘it didn’t matter’ who won the presidential election. I don’t think that GW Bush is as stupid as many claim; nevertheless, as someone above noted, we need more IQ points in leadership. And in addition to IQ points, we need leaders who exhibit curiosity and a kind of intellectual fluidity that can absorb new information and adapt.

There’s no way the organization that you describe is going to hang on to ‘the best and the brightest’. Particularly if they’re in their 20s or 30s.
Pingback: What do you say? « folo
timbshoe

Ugg Boots,also called Ug or Ugg boots,are nowadays one of the most popular boots.They existed already in 1930′s and became popular in 1960′s when Australian surfers found out,that they can warm their feet after coming out from cold water.They have everything you need-comfort and warmth.You will never be cold in those boots because 100% sheepskin will warm you even in the coldest days.The natural thermal properties of sheepskin make possible that Ugg Boots will warm you in the winter but in the summer your feet will not be wet.It is true that Ugg is shorter from ugly,but if you know even little bit about fashion you will know that Ugg boots are not ugly.We can see famous people like Pamela Anderson or Kate Hudson wearing Ugg Boots.
Nowadays we have new improved Ugg boots for sale.You can get them for anybody.We have women boots,children boots,slippers and casuals.

Our UGG Australia Boots are all authentic.Their properties and features as below:

*In cold temperatures,the fleece works as an insulating layer of warmth and keeps the warmth of body heat inside of the boot.
*In the heat,the wool fibers keep the air circulating; thus keeping your fee dry and pulling the perspiration away from your skin.Sheepskin also contains lanolin,which moisturizes your feet when worn barefoot.
*ugg boots have reinforced toes,which are double stitched and extra durable heels.
*feature a natural,thick fleece on a removable in-sole for arch support.
*The sole is usually durable in most terrain,lightweight and provides traction as well.-http://www.timbshoe.com
timbshoe

We have been exporter of UGG Australia Boots for many years,our product are all authentic.Welcome to buy any boots of them in our website,we charge the shipping fee.
We just take 7 days to deliver the products to your door.
As everyone knows,UGG Australia Boots in australia, and many other countries as well, ugg boots also ug or uggs are a style of footwear that has been used generically for well over a hundred years.Everywhere you go now you find that the ugg boot has become the latest fashion trend.

Our UGG Australia Boots are all with top quality:

*100% authentic sheepskin for unrivalled comfort
*flexible molded EVA outsole
*Insole features a genuine sheepskin sockliner that naturally wicks away moisture and keeps feet dry
*Wool blend knit uppers with suede heel guards
*Approximate Shaft Height (Uncuffed): 14.5″
*By UGG Australia;Imported.-http://www.nikediy.com/
timbshoe

The original ugg boots is not a brand name but an age old sheepskin boots generic term for this style of australian-made sheepskin boot. in Aussie slang, the ug name is short for “ugly.” in terms of comfort, however, the ug boot is a thing of beauty.Ugg boots are a popular brand of boot for women,and children.just as the chairman of australian ugg said, australian ugg is a good choice. once wearing it, you will be reluctant to take it off and be fascinated by its originality, reliability and extremely luxurious comfort. this is the art brought by boots. ugg boots make young beautiful girls and handsome boys very confident.addugg.com

Our website have many fashion styels of UGG Boots for women and children.

We provide many advantages as below:
*free shipping
*hidden costs
*professional customers service
*secure processing,plus
*we dont hassle you on returns.if you dont like what youve received, simply return it!

UGG Boots must be you best choice!-http://www.addugg.com/
timbshoe

When heard of winter, cold may come in your mind at once.if you are ready for the coming of winter,you should never be afraid of it.it is not difficult for us that if you protect your feet well,you will fell warm and comfortable.so you should get several shoes help you spend the cold winter.UGG Boots can be done.for many individuals,ugg boots provide the perfect insulation and comfort for the winter months.ugg boots are both warm and comfortable.these two factors are extremely important,no matter what amount of time you are going to be spending out in the weather.ugg boots are made out of a material that is water resistant, meaning that no water,and no cold air,can get into your boots.they will keep in the warmth of your feet,because of their outer shell and their inner linings. once you slip your feet into a pair of these boots,they will be warm and toasty until it is time to take them off.you will be able to take advantage of the great warmth that ugg boots offer.e-uggs.com

Welcome to buy UGG Boots in our website,we offer the UGG Australia boots are with top quality:
*features genuine twin-face sheepskin for refreshing comfort
*feature a soft foam insole covered with genuine sheepskin
*have a molded EVA light and flexible outsole designed for amazing comfort with every step.
*you can enjoy free shipping worldwide in our website.
*1 week delivery to your door
*sometimes you can get a special discount from our company by email
Our customers are always satisfied with such kind of UGG Boots and our high service!-http://www.footwearmbt.com/
timbshoe

Legend has it that “ugg” is short for “ugly” – so, “ugg boots” apparently meant “ugly boots.” For decades, “ugg” was generic term used for sheepskin boots made in Australia.The word was so commonplace that it was found in Australian dictionaries, and ugg boots were also known as “ug” or “ugh” boots. But in the United States, when people refer to “UGG boots,” they’re usually talking about the boots made by Deckers Outdoor Corporation, the parent company of “UGG Australia.”So if you’re traveling the world and talking about footwear, it’s good to know that when the term “ugg boot” is used, it could be referring to an Australian-made sheepskin boot, or a popular brand name boot.
We sell authentic UGG Boots in our website for many year.We offer the best service and favourable price.People all aound the world buy our products do not pay for the shipping,we charge it!

Our UGG Boots have the advantages below:
      * 100% authentic sheepskin for unrivalled comfort
      * genuine twin-face sheepskin for refreshing comfort
      * have a molded EVA light and flexible outsole designed for amazing comfort with every step.
      *You can wear them up or style them folded down

Welcome to buy UGG Boots in our website,we offer the UGG Australia boots are all
with top quality!site:mbt4sale.com
timbshoe

what’s the main point of the boots?the answer is to keep your feet warm.If you by one pair of boots put them on,especially in winter,you’ll feel very tenderness and comfortable.they can make your feet warm.and youll find its really fashionable.you can tie-in each kind of clothes with them and still looks beautifull.

The ugg boots will definitely make you noticeable in a fashion-conscious crowd,and more importantly,is the fact that these boots are indeed quite comfortable to wear. these boots have been popular with swimmers and surfers since the 1970s and are regularly worn by surfers in california.the design of the boot with its sheepskin results in considerable thermostatic benefits.
We sell real UGG Australia Boots in our website.You must be satisfied with our UGG Boots when you receive your order.The UGG Boots you get will have these advatages:
      *100% authentic sheepskin for unrivalled comfort
      *a durable molded rubber outsole.
      *The wrap around lace feature adds a fashionable touch with wooden beads at the end
      *A removable and replaceable sheepskin insole gives extra comfort and warmth.
      *Insole is made of sheepskin,latex. site:shoeuggs.com
timbshoe

Sheepskin and ugg boots are a casual type of boot. Ugg boots are exceptionally warm and are great for cold weather (up to -30 degrees Fahrenheit)If you are looking for warmth while trudging around the house or the city, a sheepskin or ugg boot will be ideal.For girls and women, ugg boots look fantastic with tight-legged jeans tucked into them, or with short skirts paired with opaque tights or bare legs. For guys, ugg boots work great with jeans, and give a very casual, or rugged look, depending on the jeans or the shirt you wear with your ugg boots.site：uggsmax.com

Do you have a pair of UGG Boots?If not,you must will buy a piar in our website.As we offer the best sevice and favourable price.what’s more,we charge the shipping fee.So,you just need to pay the fee of boots,and will receive our UGG boots in one week.It is very easy to have your own UGG Boots.Come on!

Our UGG Boots are all with top quality:
      *features genuine twin-face sheepskin
      *our signature UGG woven label
      *feature a soft foam insole covered with genuine sheepskin
      *have a molded EVA light and flexible outsole designed for refreshing comfort with
every step.site:ugghappy.com
timbshoe

Everywhere you go now you find that the ugg boot has become the latest fashion new arrival cheap trend. now days it seems that you can not walk pass any window display of any shoe or fashion clothing store with seeing a pair of these trendy boots in them. it does not matter where ever you are in the world you will find ugg boots. these boots are both hot and trendy and certainly do not need to be worn in cold weather only. many people have found, that one pair of ugg boots is not enough.

We have been seller of UGG Boots for many years.Our customers are satisfied with our products as we offer the real UGG Australia Boots:
       *100% authentic sheepskin for unrivalled comfort
       *soft genuine sheepskin heel padding
       *cushioning insole,flexible fabric-trimmed midsole.
       *Lightweight molded EVA traction outsole
       *Free shipping
       *One week to your door
       *If you dont like what youve received, simply return it! site:uggmax.com