Indirect manipulation occurs when the insecure analysts generate intelligence with the purpose of supporting certain decisions. Embedded assumptions occur when social norms and common strategic assumptions hamper constructive analysis. The intelligence subverts policy is another type where the intelligence analysis dents policy decisions. For instance, the policy makers ignore intelligence due to their fear of subversion (George et al, 2008 pp 74-89). Finally is the intelligence parochialism whereby the analysts intentionally tailor findings for professional or personal gains. This leads to either subversion or intelligence to please which depends on the analysts personal goals.
William Casey and Richard Helms both served as DCI but had different ideologies. Both had different relations between policy and intelligence that they embodied. Therefore, their contrast led to the formulation of the Casey approach and the Helms approach (George et al, 2008 pp 100-102). Richard Helms had a sharp separation of his intelligence officers from policy. He believed his role was only intelligence such that when he briefed in senior policy meetings he left as soon as he was done with his briefing. The Casey approach on the other hand actively sought the status of the cabinet and he further behaved like a cabinet minister. His approach was largely aimed at mixing policy advocacy and intelligence