Jump to content
The Education Forum

General Question on English language

Recommended Posts

"One thing I have trouble with, if George H.W. Bush was CIA in 1963 (which I have no reason to doubt), is that he was working undercover, his oil company being a front, and he was running for Congress the following year. I question whether Hoover would knowingly identify a CIA undercover agent by name in a memo, even to another (rival) intelligence agency. It's possible, but seems inappropriate to this outsider."


One has to consider the difference between being an employee of the CIA and an asset. IMO, it is indeed possible that GHWB can say he never "worked for" the CIA until he was appointed DCI. Let's remember that the CIA has assets by the thousands, controlled by a handful of case officers. A case officer is an actual employee, an asset is not. An asset can provide support, funds, weapons, information, etc, and be involved in clandestine operations, but is not officially employed by the agency. As an example, Howard Hunt was employed by the agency, Frank Sturgis was not. David Phillips was, Tosh Plumlee was not(I'm sure Tosh can confirm this, as he was an asset, not an employee). GHWB had the connections, the money, the power, but to say he was actually employed by the agency is speculative at best. I'm sure if you were able to peer into the personal files of the CIA, you wouldn't find the name George HW Bush as an employee of the agency prior to November 1975, when he was appointed DCI by Gerald Ford. This is not a coverup or a subversion by the CIA, it's simply because he wasn't officially employed by the CIA. And that's exactly why they do it that way. Plausible deniability.



Edited by Richard J. Smith
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
  • Create New...