The phrase "accountable for intelligence" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when discussing responsibility or liability regarding intelligence, whether in a personal, organizational, or governmental context.
Example: "The director is accountable for intelligence operations and must ensure that all actions comply with legal standards."
Alternatives: "responsible for intelligence" or "liable for intelligence".
But his remarks were clearly aimed at her performance and reflected a widespread view among intelligence specialists that Ms. Rice, perhaps Mr. Bush's most trusted aide, and the National Security Council have never been held sufficiently accountable for intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the Iraq war.
A spokesman for Senator Graham, Paul Anderson, said on Tuesday that the senator still believed that Mr. Tenet should be replaced, and that he had complained that Mr. Bush had yet to hold anyone accountable for intelligence failures either on Iraq or the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
It also urged a full review to determine whether anyone should be held accountable for the intelligence failures of Sept. 11.
But Senator Shelby has made it clear that he believes Mr. Tenet's tenure at the C.I.A. should be scrutinized to determine if he should be held accountable for the intelligence failure before Sept. 11.
Voters have to decide whether to hold Mr. Bush accountable for the skewed intelligence cooked up by his administration to justify the war.
The director of central intelligence alone would be held accountable for his decisions to the intelligence committees and armed services committees of Congress.
Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, said that someone was at last being held accountable for the "campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics".
It doesn't help, either, that the Obama Administration, in deference to the wishes of the C.I.A., declined to hold anyone in the intelligence community accountable for the Bush-era torture program.
As a result, their conclusion that the Sept. 11th attack was the result of a "failure of imagination," meant that not a single U.S. intelligence official was held accountable for the greatest intel failure since Pearl Harbor which killed 2,996 people.
"Some people involved in this have been concerned for quite a while that eventually there would be a new president, or the mood in the country would change, and they would be held accountable," one intelligence source said.
In an interview last month, Mr. Roberts also said he believed that intelligence agencies should be held accountable for putting American troops in harm's way in Iraq without providing them with accurate information on the postwar threat from Iraqi insurgents.
