Best
51 Comments
Post
  • #7
    !
    Historically... the CIA should never have been started in the first place. It was started on false premises and was politicized as part of the non-existent 'red scare'. Seems that not much has changed in 70+ years, people still cling to fears to make decisions for them, and the govt is still using those fears to infringe on citizen rights.
  • #1
    !
    An article by someone from the "New York Times"? You gotta be kidding.... how about someone from Sesame Street as they might actually have some credibility.

    We need to leave the CIA alone, there are plenty of other things Axlerod's Boy and his cabal have already started screwing up; let's let their limited capabilities focus on creating one disaster at a time.

    Any time public discussions regarding the mission of the CIA comes up I remember the Jimmah Carter debacle.... it's sorta like hogs discussing Sunday dinner... some basic background skills might be helpful.
  • #2
    !
    I was thinking the same thing. This one is kinda pointless to discuss. It is kind of obvious....but everyone remember to ignore the whore (Broadwell). Remember OJ? Glove don't fit you must acquit. Well if you see the whore...you must ignore. We must find out why and who in the Govt wanted Stevens dead. She is the distraction.
  • #21
    !
    @RobertJHarsh This judge awards a perfect 10 for loony conspiracy theroy of the year . Linking OJ to Petreus, to CIA to the government wanting Stevens dead.. WOW Fantastic job ( what do you take to trip like this, an overdose of Glen Beck?
    Who in your devious plot do you think did it?(don't get distracted). Was it Obama the master conspirator? Or maybe Hillary? or could McCain and Linsay Graham have done a reverse 180 and had Stevens killed to embarrass Obama... I hope you don't get distracted and keep us all posted
  • #32
    !
    @talkenhed Hey...mock all you want. But the facts are: 1) there was no mob outside, 2) the assassins entered through multiple locations and 3) knew the hiding places in the building because the teams split off and attacked them all. Add the whore to distract, a general falling on his own sword for probably lots of money, and a clueless UN ambassador and you have a murder and a cover up with a bogus "video" that allegedly incited a mob riot that never took place. As for who ordered it? Good question. Your guess is as good as mine.
  • #33
    !
    @RobertJHarsh May I ask where you gleaned this info documentation as to the lack of a mob, assassins mode of attack, who knew the hiding places ? You appear to have more info than the Senate Select Committee?
    What would be the motivation for any political figure in the US to have plotted this murder? Who gains by all this?The only winner I can come up with would be the GOP. If the UN Ambassador is has been totally discredited and declared clueless, next logical choice for SS would be Senator John Kerry of Ma which would then open his seat to a special election. Who would the Dem's run against Scott Brown, There is one Kenney, he took over Barney Frank's seat, but he hasn't even been sworn in yet. So I think we may have a winner. The GOP and Scott Brown rigged the murder they're the only one's to benefit from Stevens death right?
  • #36
    !
    @talkenhed "You appear to have more info than the Senate Select Committee?" Doesn't everybody inside the Axleshaft Cabal? Knowing more than the Senate Select Committee isn't much to brag about, they only know what they have been told by the most dishonest, evasive administration since the Tea Pot Dome Scandal.
  • R Load more replies

  • #29
    !
    Nah, they're doing just fine.
    They have a reach and a grasp that should frighten our enemies even while it gives us pause. Amazing how they pull the strings that dictate what is or is no longer news.
    Want to get off Benghazi...offer up a Petraeus scandal, then prod Israel to help turn that page with a troop mobilization, now that you're looking over here....bam.
    Nice job.....exactly the kind of guys you want to have your back.
  • #50
    !
    Foreign intelligence service involves breaching the security of another nation or external group. The nation or body under surveillance usually considers it a violation of law. It is done without consent of the enemy or adversary. It therefore sometimes involves violence. That is why participants in hostile areas are armed and given some level of appropriate training. It always has and always will involve a paramilitary element. The question is absurd.
  • #46
    !
    Yea. It should be altered to its supposed original purpose: collecting intel. It should be stripped of all covert op capabilites. The cia's covert op to put the shah in power in the 50's is what made Iran an enemy of the u.s. and led to the embassy hostage crisis of the 70's. The cia's financing and teaining of al quada gave bin laden his private army and military expertise that he later used to launch the 9/11 attacks, for two examples. The cia failed to predict the collapse of the u.s.s.r., basically it's reason for being to collect intel on them, they failed to predict the collapse of iran. They have made millions hate the u.s. throughout the world...
  • #39
    !
    There are many reasons why the actions of civilian intelligence agencies overlap with military actions both in and out of wartime. A basic reading of the history of US or any other intelligence services during and since WW2 will probably lead to the understanding that a paramilitary component is an intrinsic and necessary part of an overall structure that inextricably links the product of clandestine human operations to its final analysis for dissemination. To argue for the elimination of the paramilitary component from civilian intelligence is to argue that a streamlined relationship between military and civilian intelligence is superior to having a civilian agency with its own capacity to collect, analyze and disseminate intelligence under the direction of those who have an intimate understanding of, interest in and control of the methods used. The question has been asked before and for centuries if not millenia and the answer is always the same.
  • #34
    !
    If the CIA did assassinate anybody before 9/11 would they admit it? Are they above lying? I thought that 9/11 taught us that there needed to be more interaction between intelligence agencies, not less.
  • #19
    !
    Given that we will now have the Defense Intelligence Agency that is supposed to be the military "arm" of the CIA, I should think the CIA could return to being a tool for gathering information world-wide. They should certainly not be launching drone strikes, ever, without congressional and executive authorization and oversight.
  • #16
    !
    Sort of an odd question. It like asking if the police have too many bullet proof vest. Exactly where are you going to get military trained operatives without the military?
  • #5
    !
    It really doesn't matter who is the head of the CIA,. They are a rouge organization that doesn't answer to the President, Congress or an appointed head. They are simply a rouge organization.l
  • #11
    !
    @Sharpshooter Oh I don't know. How about them claiming Iran would have a nuclear weapon within two years when it's not been 10 years? And what about that "spotty" information on Iraq? And maybe the disinformation concerning the Bay of Pigs? Or maybe the lack of any reliable information concerning Viet Nam? Maybe you can help me out and tell me about four times the CIA has been on top of things?
  • #12
    !
    @jessejaymes correction: How about them claiming Iran would have a nuclear weapon within two years when it's NOW been 10 years?
  • #18
    !
    @jessejaymes maybe we need to define a rogue organization. The English Language I speak has Rogue defined as unpredictable as in an elephant gone rogue reeking havoc.

    As for your response... you don't figure action taken to slow the development of a nuke would have an effect on the timeline?

    The CIA is charged with providing intelligence services outside the borders of the country. Intel changes on a daily if not hourly basis. They aren't Vegas Bookmakers, nor are they charged with predicting the future. The information they gather is SUPPOSED to be used to protect the interests of the country.
  • #23
    !
    @Sharpshooter The point remains that the CIA within the past 3- years never responded to the direction of this country. They fail time and time again in their mission. Their information is generally wrong, illegal obtained or late. They are an albatross to this nation,. Have been as long as I can remember.
  • R Load more replies

  • #4
    !
    Since there is no way for us to know exactly the CIA is doing, the best we can do is offer guidelines. One of big reasons we were not prepared for 9/11 is poor inter-agency communication. Each agency has a scope of work and should stick to it. All the intelligence agencies are supposed to share information for the good of the country. The military works together, as individual units, but on one mission. Often, teamwork at it's best. The intelligence community still has a lot to learn.

    The CIA needs to work with other agencies and allow each to concentrate on what they do best. There are many intelligence gathering agencies, with different views and understanding of the same problem. I am not sure how one organization, with just one set of facts, can work in the interest of the country. Also, having different agencies work together provides some checks and balances on the actions we as a country take. Lastly, if the military is in charge of ALL military actions, they can coordinate the action to use people and resources efficiently. One agency cannot do that.
  • #9
    !
    @dances-weebles btw... that changed somewhat when bush sr. was their head and allowed them to get involved with tampering with the election which allowed reagan to oust mr. carter from the oval office.
  • #13
    !
    @dances-weebles They came from the OSS, which was not an assassination squad, but it sounds good! They an intelligence gathering agency that has gotten too much power and too secret. If they had to work with the other agencies as the system is designed, they might not be able to do the things you think they do.(but do we really know?)

    We have assassination squads. I am not sure how much you know about our special forces...you might want to look into it.

    The key is a coordinated effort, with input from numerous points of view, to make the best choices for our country.

    Do you personally know anyone who works there or at the very least, read books written by former operatives? There are numerous books and movies based on FACT.
  • #15
    !
    @dances-weebles FACT CHECK TIME...... Carter became President on January 20,1977, the same day as George H W Bush handed over the CIA reins to Stansfield Turner. So.... George H. W. Bush setup an election tampering operation in the CIA that ran for FOUR YEARS unnoticed by the guy Jimmah PICKED to do the job.

    If only the President's Bush were as capable as the conspiracy wackjobs think they were.

    Jimmah Carter lost the election because he was almost as big a failure as the current POTUS. I predict in 100 years it'll be a toss up as to which was worse with the nod likely going to the current guy because he will have had EIGHT years to commit his carnage.
  • R Load more replies

  • #3
    !
    Blurring the lines between military and civilian agencies is a poor move. It changes the dynamic between the intelligence gathering services and the action-oriented military in a way that erodes accountability and restraint.
Post