Jump to content

A long held Personal Opinion !


Recommended Posts

Peter, thanks for the compliment but I suspect it is a left-handed one. Makes sense that a left-winger pays a left-handed compliment, I guess. (Sorry I understand my attempts at humour go oft awry.)

But talk about mixing apples and oranges. What are you doing bring Gerald Posner in to this thread? You certainly must know I believe in a conspiracy as much as any one here, I just don't believe in a "vast government conspiracy" (to paraphrase a famous Hilary phrase).

I do not necessarily believe either Posner nor Bugliosi are disinformation agents and I am reluctant to judge anyone's motives whether he or she is pro or anti-conspiracy. And I'll go you one further: I don't think it necessarily invalidates one's opinions even if one is paid for those opinions, unless one is paid to propogate information he or she knows to be false.

Bugliosi takes several swipes at Posner, by the way, which in most cases seem to be well-deserved. And Bugliosi has some strong arguments that deserve consideration. On the other hand, I do think he often plays fast and loose with the facts. I have, for instance, pointed out that from omissions in his book it is clear that he did not read cover-to-cover at least three books cited in his bibliography. He also states, I am quite sure, that when he started writing the book he had an "open mind" on the conspiracy issue and yet he also says he started it after he successfully "prosecuted" LHO in that mock trial. I find it pretty hard to swallow that after he had spent thousands of hours preparing a case against Oswald he would start his book research with an "open mind"--unless I misread his sequence. Somehow I don't think he had it in him to find a conspiracy, write a pro-conspiracy book, and start it by saying I guess I represented the wrong side in that mock trial!

For those of you who have chosen not to shell out your hard-earned $$$ for VB or spend your precious time reading his "opus", let me tell you how he structures his book. He first tries to prove beyond a doubt that: (a) Oswald was a nut; and (B) Oswald shot Kennedy. Then almost the first argument he makes against the various conspiracy theories he attacks is: this group or that group would have had to have been nuts to use a nut like Oswald. For instance, the CIA would have been nuts to use a nut like Oswald; the Texas olimen would have been nuts to use a nut like Oswad, and on and on ad nauseum. Of course, if the premise he first tried to prove is false, i.e. that Oswald did not shoot JFK but was indeed a patsy then a substantial part of his anti-conspiracy argument collapses. Even if LHO was a "nut" as he tries to prove, well I guess it would make sense for a group to use Oswald if the group wanted the public to think the assassination was the work of a lone nut.

But to get back to my main point: how does Posner's book with which I disagree and which did not, I believe, have much effect on public opinion, demonstrate that the CIA is like that guy behind the curtains manipulating every all the munchkins and others in "The Wizard of Oz." "The Wizard of Oz" is a fairy tale, as is the proposition that the CIA is some secret sinister force that controls everything.

I mean if it is it must be politically schizophrenic because it first rigs an American election for Carter, then for Reagan, then for Bush, then for Clinton (twice) then for Bush II twice. So it either cannot make up its mind over which political party it prefers or it lacks the power to control an American election. And if lacks that pwer, well then it ain't too powerful.

Granted in the fiftties the CIA helped change regimes in Iran and Guatamela (although there is some argument how much credit the CIA deserves for the regime change) how many years has it spent trying unsuccessfully to kill or topple the head of a relatively tiny island almost within spittin' distance of where I am composing this?

So you guys can think the CIA, diabolically, paid Weiner to write about how it mistook a dog for a lesbian lover just to confuse us about how omniscient it us. Somehow I think the explanation is a little more simple than that.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.................." he knew he'd been hung out to dry by Bush and Cheney to hide the FACT that they knew the intelligence for WMDs was far from conclusive, and had used it as a precept to do what they'd already decided to do. This was a major factor in Tenet's decision to leave the agency.

Pardon my interjection on your argument, but I beg to disagree..........the FACT is/was, the worldwide "intelligence community" had agreed that there were WMDs, even France and Germany, despite the fact that they didn't want U.N. involvement because their under the table "food for oil" (read: illegal furnishing of weapons, ammo, etc.) might be discovered. How do you explain 17 resolutions (which of course were never intended to be enforced) passed the U.N.? You may even remember that Colin Powell agreed they were there and made his very forceful (albeit unfortunately erroneous) presentation to the U.N. Further, many Senate Dems agreed, and voted for invasion, who had access to the same intelligence that Bush et. al. had. Of course it was easy for them to change their minds after the fact, not so easy for the CIC.

Its also easy for armchair pontificators to make unsubstantiated comments as you have made, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.................." he knew he'd been hung out to dry by Bush and Cheney to hide the FACT that they knew the intelligence for WMDs was far from conclusive, and had used it as a precept to do what they'd already decided to do. This was a major factor in Tenet's decision to leave the agency.

Pardon my interjection on your argument, but I beg to disagree..........the FACT is/was, the worldwide "intelligence community" had agreed that there were WMDs, even France and Germany, despite the fact that they didn't want U.N. involvement because their under the table "food for oil" (read: illegal furnishing of weapons, ammo, etc.) might be discovered. How do you explain 17 resolutions (which of course were never intended to be enforced) passed the U.N.? You may even remember that Colin Powell agreed they were there and made his very forceful (albeit unfortunately erroneous) presentation to the U.N. Further, many Senate Dems agreed, and voted for invasion, who had access to the same intelligence that Bush et. al. had. Of course it was easy for them to change their minds after the fact, not so easy for the CIC.

Its also easy for armchair pontificators to make unsubstantiated comments as you have made, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight.

Phil, most of the West's intelligence agencies BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD's, but the evidence for this, as per Tenet and just about everyone else to comment on it's statements, was never considered conclusive. They always knew there was a real chance they were wrong.

Bush and particularly Cheney's decision to make it sound like the CIA had guaranteed them there were WMDs was a particularly weaselly-one, and led to Tenet's decision to leave. Powell is expected to confirm Tenet's version of events in his book.

Of course, it's 20-20 hindsight for some to say they either lied or made a clear mistake. But I was one of those protesting the war before it began. I'd been following the argument that Saddam had WMDs, and had been ardently following the actions of Hans Blix in Iraq. I'd noticed that the more progress he made, the less impressed was the Bush Administration. I'd been closely watching Bush's gestures towards Iraq since December 2001, when a captain in Special Forces warned me they were preparing for an invasion of Iraq. That they were planning to blame Iraq for 9/11 from 9/12 was later confirmed by men such as Gen. Wesley Clark and Richard Clarke, the Bush Administrations expert on terror.

If you honestly believe that history will be kind to Bush on this issue, I suggest you think again. A new film entitled No End in Sight details the incredible incompetence leading up to the current quagmire. Most of those interviewed in the film are soldiers and/or Republicans, including former Bush admirer Richard Armitage. You might want to check it out. You might also wish to check out a 1992 interview with Dick Cheney shown of late on The Daily Show. At that time Cheney said it would be foolish to invade Iraq because there was no one to replace Saddam, and the country would sink into a quagmire.

So what changed? Well, it appears that Cheney and his team of true-believers fell for a con-man named Chalabi, and destroyed both the American economy and the future of American-Arab relations to prove their dedication to "Iraqi Freedom." Pathetic.

P.S. whatever happened to that investigation of Chalabi as a possible Iranian asset? Did it run off with the investigation of Cheney's meetings with Enron?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Editorial from 8/23/2007 "National Review":

CIA director Michael Hayden strongly opposed the release of an executive summary of a classified inspector-general report on the CIA’s performance before 9/11 because it would “consume time and attention revisiting ground that is already well plowed.” His desire to keep CIA officers’ derelict performance a secret “is not about avoiding responsibility.” But it sure looks that way.

Following its examination of intelligence failures before the 9/11 attacks, a House-Senate panel in 2002 asked the CIA’s inspector general (IG) to review its findings and investigate the question of accountability. His classified report was given to congressional intelligence committees two years ago, and its redacted, 19-page summary has now been released because Congress demanded that it be made public.

The summary makes a convincing case for the creation of an accountability board that would, unlike the general findings of the IG, hold specific officials responsible and recommend appropriate action. Hayden — and no doubt his recalcitrant bureaucracy — is resisting this.

Somehow, multiple awards have been bestowed on CIA officials despite the agency’s failures. Most notorious was former CIA Director George Tenet’s Presidential Medal of Freedom in December 2004. Without the accountability board recommended by the IG, no one will be disciplined for failing to act “in accordance with a reasonable level of professionalism, skill, and diligence,” the standard applied by the IG in accordance with agency regulations.

The IG report, written by a 36-year CIA veteran, documents failures for which the responsible parties should clearly be held to account. It disagrees with some previous fault-finding on the grounds that agency employees sometimes faced a “difficult operating environment.” But it offers no such exculpatory explanations for the sorry performance of George Tenet and some other officials, including the former head of the agency’s counterterrorism center.

Tenet is faulted for failing to follow through on his December 1998 “We are at war” pronouncement about the terrorist threat. The report claims that there was no comprehensive strategic plan to counter the threat — no new resources, no additional personnel, and no leadership from Tenet to resolve crippling interagency disputes.

“The IG is flat wrong,” Tenet declared in a statement responding to the release of the summary. He complains that the review team failed to interview him. (He would, of course, have the opportunity to make his case to an accountability board, if one is established.) He also protests that he implored the Clinton administration in vain for additional intelligence resources and got only a small portion of what he was requesting, thanks to the help of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Although congressional Democrats wanted to make the IG’s summary public in the hope of embarrassing President Bush, the CIA’s management failings and inexcusable complacency came on Clinton’s watch. Democrats are unlikely to press for the creation of an accountability board, since it could be expected to pin the blame for the CIA’s pre-9/11 failures squarely on Clinton’s subordinates.

But it is the Bush administration that has failed to hold officials responsible for their inadequate performance. It bears repeating: George Tenet should have been fired. Instead, he has his medal and his lucrative book deal.

Congressional Republicans should insist on the creation of an accountability board “made up of individuals who are not employees of the agency,” as the IG recommended. Americans deserve to have their public officials held to account; capable, dedicated CIA employees should be pleased to know that performance matters.

The ridiculous Valerie Plame affair, manufactured and promoted by CIA officials, was a disgraceful waste of time and attention. Demanding a first-rate effort on counterterrorism from the CIA, in contrast, is worth whatever it takes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.................." he knew he'd been hung out to dry by Bush and Cheney to hide the FACT that they knew the intelligence for WMDs was far from conclusive, and had used it as a precept to do what they'd already decided to do. This was a major factor in Tenet's decision to leave the agency.

Pardon my interjection on your argument, but I beg to disagree..........the FACT is/was, the worldwide "intelligence community" had agreed that there were WMDs, even France and Germany, despite the fact that they didn't want U.N. involvement because their under the table "food for oil" (read: illegal furnishing of weapons, ammo, etc.) might be discovered. How do you explain 17 resolutions (which of course were never intended to be enforced) passed the U.N.? You may even remember that Colin Powell agreed they were there and made his very forceful (albeit unfortunately erroneous) presentation to the U.N. Further, many Senate Dems agreed, and voted for invasion, who had access to the same intelligence that Bush et. al. had. Of course it was easy for them to change their minds after the fact, not so easy for the CIC.

Its also easy for armchair pontificators to make unsubstantiated comments as you have made, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight.

From a recent article by former CIA analyst Ray McGovern:

Consider, for example, the daring recruitment in mid-2002 of Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister, Naji Sabri, who was successfully “turned” into working for the CIA and quickly established his credibility. Sabri told us there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

My former colleagues, perhaps a bit naively, were quite sure this would come as a welcome relief to President George W. Bush and his advisers. Instead, they were told that the White House had no further interest in reporting from Sabri; rather, that the issue was not really WMD, it was “regime change.” (Don’t feel embarrassed if you did not know this; although it is publicly available, our corporate- owned, war profiteering media has largely suppressed this key story.)

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/22/3330/

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our VIPS colleague Phil Geraldi, writing in The American Conservative , earlier noted that in the past Karl Rove has served as a counterweight to Vice President Dick Cheney, and may have tried to put the brakes on Cheney’s death wish to expand the Middle East quagmire to Iran. And former Pentagon officer, retired Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked shoulder-to-shoulder with some of the most devoted neo-cons just before the attack on Iraq, has put into words (on LewRockwell.com) speculation several of us have been indulging in with respect to Rove’s departure.

In short, it seems possible that Rove, who is no one’s dummy and would not want to be required to “spin” an unnecessary war on Iran, may have lost the battle with Cheney over the merits of a military strike on Iran, and only then decided-or was urged-to spend more time with his family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, it seems possible that Rove, who is no one’s dummy and would not want to be required to “spin” an unnecessary war on Iran, may have lost the battle with Cheney over the merits of a military strike on Iran, and only then decided-or was urged-to spend more time with his family.

There are, of course, other possible motives, with perhaps the most peculiar among them being the one floated here:

http://talonnews.com/news/2007/august/0813...e_resigns.shtml

To wit:

"August 13, 2007

WASHINGTON: Karl Rove, long-time advisor to President Bush, announced his resignation today amidst rumors that a new book by a male homosexual prostitute would finger Rove as secretly gay.

Jim Gannon, former reporter for Talon News and rent boy, is publishing a "tell all" book in September tentatively titled "Behind Enemy Lines". Karl Rove apparently fears being exposed as a former customer of Gannon's or his military pron websites like www.hotmilitarystud.com

It has long been rumored that Jim Gannon gained White House briefing room credentials and day passes by offering his services to Karl Rove, including several overnight stays in the White House Buchanan bedroom."

It would be easier to dismiss this as spurious speculation were it not for recent revelations about Rove's peculiar family background, which can be found here:

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2007/08/kar...ig-gay-dad.html

WARNING: Clicking on the above link is DEFINITELY UNSAFE FOR WORK, may prove disturbing to the faint of heart, and contains an image which, once seen, cannot be easily erased from the memory banks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Re the theory of the omnipotent & omniscent CIA, in the "ZR Rifle" video recently posted on YouTube by Gil Jesus, a leader in the Cuban intelligence states Cuban intelligence had INFILTRATED every single one (if I heard him right) of the numerous CIA assassination plots against Castro--obviously explaining in large part his longevity.

As someone whose opinion I respect once commented, the CIA could not assassinate my dog!

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim

Just to reply quickly and still continue the point that I attempted to make....

Neither you, I, the book publishers nor anyone else can even atempt to pretend to understand what is truly happening within the confines of not only the CIA but any of the "many" intelligence organizations....some of which we would not even recognize by name.

No amount of reading of the works of ANY author will ever change that. To think otherwise proves your gullibility to what they wish perceived!

Many say that "intelligence" had no inkling that the Berlin wall was going to come down. BUT...it came down !

The "cold war" was won (if there is such a thing as a permanent "win" in these matters) as a result of the USSR's response to imagined perceptions followed by unecessary attempted reactions.

This Tim is what intelligence and counter intelligence is all about. It is about winning,

without being observed and acknowledged as a "winner".

American fotball players are "credited" with their teams wins over theoretically superior opponents. Most of these wins are the result of superior "scouting" of the other teams and the correct analyzation of their "Tendencies"....from which a "game plan" is formulated by the coaching staff...."the strategists". But who gets credit for the victory ? This is not a childish comparison of what occurs in real political conflict. It is very similar !

Have you ever thought that there were elements within the U.S. government that did not want Castro to be "in fact killed" ? Despite all that you "have read" ! An alive Castro may have been bait and "fodder" for a much more expansive action against the dreaded "communist menace".

Holding a high security clearance myself during this time period, I personally know that the Bay of Pigs had virtualy no effect on our defcon situation. However, the Cuban Missile Crisis brought us much closer to the Brink than many even today realize. What were the "true desires" of the joint chiefs and their various supporting intelligence sources ?

You talk of Castro's beard falling out and exploding clam shells. This is child's play designed to impress "idiots" with intelligence incompetency.

They have done their jobs quite well if you and others feel that they are a group of bumbling idiots.

These "bumbling idiots" were primarily responsible for a successful Coup d' Etat in the worlds image of THE truly successful "free and democratic" government.

Since you mentioned it...9 / 11 may have been the most important intelligence coup ever !

Successful intelligence operation has nothing to do with the "wishes" of you, I, or the masses.

To think so indicates the height of naivete !

I am condoning "Nothing" that they have done. I am merely "Realizing It ".

Many need to awaken to reality ! Reality is often "very ugly" !

Charles Black

*********************************************************************

"Many need to awaken to reality ! Reality is often "very ugly" !"

But, I think you may be overlooking one other "ugly reality" in this case, and that's "money."

You don't necessarily need to be, nor for that matter claim to be, the "brightest and the best," when you've got the monetary resources to pay for it. Consider, for instance, that people such as, G.W. were able to secure their Ivy League degrees in their name, on their grandfather and great-grandfather's alumni support of Yale University. Another case in point is Ronald Reagan, who wouldn't have gotten as far as he did without the support of the Walter Annendales. And, where does the C.I.A. send their recruiters during the final semesters of these graduate and post-graduate universities? Only to the supposedly, "brightest and the best," of the ivy leaguers, where you have to be "from" money in order to attend, that is, if you haven't been blessed with the "real" intelligence needed to secure a scholarship.

Bottom line, those who stood to lose the most were the one's holding the most. The bankers and the oil corporations. They're eternally intertwined with the MIC, the Brown & Roots, nee Halliburtons, their Blackwater subsidiary spin-offs, and the construction companies, such as Webb and Knapp, and Mandeville, to name a couple who profited during the Vietnam debacle. And, a multitude of other, reorganized, or now defunct, companies, who thrive on war-related industries. And, what source of energy drives the war machine? OIL. And, where are all those government contracts secured, along with the collateral obtained, in order to purchase the equipment, which runs on this commodity, as well as the manpower to steer it. BANKS.

As the saying on Wall Street goes, "Money talks, bullxxxx walks." And, guess under which category Operation Mockingbird lumps most researchers? "Intelligence" has next to nothing to do with it. It's merely an intimidating iconoclastic moniker employed to cow the insecure, or the low self-esteemed, of an ever-diminishing and shrinking "middle-class."

The "dumbing-down" of American, in the interim, has been an unprecedented success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...