Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The bottom line is that the CIA enjoys a great deal of leeway and very little real accountability. They like Narcs tend to be dirty by job description. That said they make a lot of mistakes and not only are they well paid for their mistakes they aren't held accountable for them. 911 CIA made some huge mistakes, in fact they seem to be an international Keystone cops act.
Benghazi was another CIA debacle. According to Edward Klein, only 7 of 40 Americans stationed in Benghazi were State Dept. The rest were all CIA. Stevens and the other Dept of State people were providing cover for the CIA.
According to Seymour Hersh, the CIA was running a 'rat line' (i.e. weapons smuggling operation) out of Benghazi. According to Klein, Hillary had assumed that the CIA would take care of security for Stevens and the other State people, but of course that proved to be a wrong assumption. But she was complicit; the CIA op was probably illegal and was done without the knowledge or consent of Congress..
Since she was complicit, she had no choice but to go along with the absurd youtube video meme concocted by Obama for political purposes. The election was only a couple months away, and Pres. Obama did not want any 'Al Qaeda resurgent' narrative or headlines.
In essence Pres Obama had put Hillary Clinton into a box. But the real root of the problem was the CIA.
But the massaging of that poor Intel by the Bush Administration to make it read what they wanted it to read was the REAL problem.
What is your evidence?
According to Paul Pillar, who was CIA national intel officer for the mid east, there was kind of a mutual self-deception at work between the CIA and White House:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra II
Looking back on the intelligence reports, Pillar noted that there had been a subtle but significant tendency by analysts to give the White House what it wanted...."For any analyst, favorable attention to policymakers is a benchmark of success. There was a natural bias in favor of intelligence production that supported, rather than undermined, policies already set."
According to Paul Pillar, who was CIA national intel officer for the mid east, there was kind of a mutual self-deception at work between the CIA and White House:
You just posted it.
BTW...read Stovepipe by Seymour Hersch. It's a piece he wrote in the New Yorker if I'm not mistaken. I can't link it because I'm using my phone.
He lays it all out in detail...and it's irrefutable.
BTW...read Stovepipe by Seymour Hersch. It's a piece he wrote in the New Yorker if I'm not mistaken. I can't link it because I'm using my phone.
He lays it all out in detail...and it's irrefutable.
Here is what you posted:
Quote:
But the massaging of that poor Intel by the Bush Administration to make it read what they wanted it to read was the REAL problem.
In no way does that comport with the quote that I posted. I propose that we let other posters weigh in on whether your version is congruent with the reality. Other posters...what do you all think?
In no way does that comport with the quote that I posted. I propose that we let other posters weigh in on whether your version is congruent with the reality. Other posters...what do you all think?
Should we keep and reform what we have, or should we scrap it the way we did the OSS and start over...with a fresh mandate?
OSS was never really scraped although on paper it was "disbanded." In reality all files and two divisions were saved and moved to CIG and within two years the NSA of 1947 changed the CIG to the CIA. As time went on four OSS agents became Directors of Central Intillegence.
You don't hear about the successes of the CIA but you definitely hear of the failures. Sometimes too much credit for the failures is given to the CIA as congress people and presidents refuse to take any responsibility for their own actions.
I do think we need the CIA. They go undercover and assimilate themselves into another culture in order to gain information to help us and others other countries. It's a horrible and grueling job and that person pays a high price for their country.
I do think we need the CIA. They go undercover and assimilate themselves into another culture in order to gain information to help us and others other countries. It's a horrible and grueling job and that person pays a high price for their country.
Sounds like they got to you
No we don't need them, they operate in secret, their budget is off the books and they specialize in creating global instability.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
