Guest Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 (edited) On 1/15/2023 at 6:59 PM, Benjamin Cole said: Seriously, I cannot fathom your way of thinking---IMHO, you raised regard for intel agencies into a type of cult worship, with a blind spot towards the near inevitability of every federal bureaucracy (civilian or military) towards aggrandizement, calculated perfidy and self-preservation. Hi Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 1 hour ago, Lance Payette said: Hardly. My position has essentially nothing to do with faith in the intelligence agencies and pretty much everything to do with the cast of characters who manage to get elected President. Having worked in municipal, county, state and federal government at least 80% of my working life, I do have some perspective, both good and bad, on how agencies operate. The popular CTer perspective on the intelligence agencies is, like most conspiracy theories themselves, cartoonish. Undoubtedly there could be (and have been) improvements in structure, oversight and accountability, but "unfettered access to everything" by the people who have managed to get elected President during my lifetime is a fightening thought, at least to me. I tend to agree. We saw what was unleashed when Trump gave the Russians secret info provided by the Israelis. It's hard enough to get sources without having them worrying about being outed by the President of the United States. If you hide things from the prez or other elected officials charged with oversight, however, there is the question of accountability. I think the best solution is to make top intel available to top officials through non-specific briefings, that only become detailed when specifically requested, in writing, including the purpose behind the inquiry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 6 hours ago, Gil Jesus said: I never said he was the source. I was asked where did I get the audio link from. I said, "This was a link in an e-mail sent to me by Robert Morrow." Here's a copy of that e-mail including the audio link ( #2, The Tape ) : From: "Robert Morrow" <xxxxxx> To: "xxxxxx" <xxxxxxx> Sent: Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 4:10 PM Subject: Richard Nixon to CIA Richard Helms on 10/10/1971 telling he he will LIE to cover up the JFK assassination Richard Nixon to Richard Helms – Oct 10, 1971, 11;15 AM – referencing the JFK assassination and saying he would be more than willing to LIE to cover up the ugly truth Richard Nixon: “The whole ‘who shot John’ [JFK] thing, […] may become a very, very vigorous issue. If it does, I need to know what’s necessary to protect our inquiries, the intelligence gathering and the ‘Dirty Tricks Department.’ And I will protect it. Hey listen, I’ve done more than my share of lying to protect it. I will go …I believe it was totally right to do it … David J. Reilly January 9, 2023 Tweet on this topic: https://twitter.com/realDaveReilly/status/1612321610048106503 1) http://nixontapeaudio.org/rmh/587-007.pdf 2) The tape http://nixontapeaudio.org/rmh/587-007a.mp3 3) Directory of Nixon Tapes http://nixontapes.org/rmh.html 4) https://valiantnews.com/2023/01/roger-stone-nixon-tapes-reveal-he-knew-cia-involved-in-the-murder-of-jfk/ - article by Andrew White of Valiant News on 1-10-2023. 5) Roger Stone on Richard Nixon’s comments regarding the JFK assassination to CIA chief Richard Helms on October 10, 1971: Nixon Threatened to Reveal the CIA's Involvement in the Kennedy Assassination (substack.com) Sincerely, Robert Morrow I regret there is a misunderstanding here. Please accept my apology. The really important thing is that what Robert Morrow sent me yesterday was a duplicate of what he sent you with the exception that the one he sent me above contains the additional sentence at the bottom: "Read the full conversation on Twitter." Once you click on this a nine-page outline appears showing when Nixon was speaking to Ehrlichman in the beginning segment and then Richard Helms enters the room and joins in the conversation. The outline gives the date and time of the Oval Office tape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 5 hours ago, Pat Speer said: I tend to agree. We saw what was unleashed when Trump gave the Russians secret info provided by the Israelis. It's hard enough to get sources without having them worrying about being outed by the President of the United States. If you hide things from the prez or other elected officials charged with oversight, however, there is the question of accountability. I think the best solution is to make top intel available to top officials through non-specific briefings, that only become detailed when specifically requested, in writing, including the purpose behind the inquiry. Lance/Pat: We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Both Congress, through relevant committees, and the President must have access to every document in the federal government; otherwise oversight in impossible. Once there is no oversight, especially in the intel arena...well, anything can (and has) happened. Even, possibly, the JFKA.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 7 hours ago, Lance Payette said: Having worked in municipal, county, state and federal government at least 80% of my working life, I do have some perspective, both good and bad, on how agencies operate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said: Lance/Pat: We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Both Congress, through relevant committees, and the President must have access to every document in the federal government; otherwise oversight in impossible. Once there is no oversight, especially in the intel arena...well, anything can (and has) happened. Even, possibly, the JFKA.... I agree there must be oversight. But I don't think members of congress, for example, should be given access to the names of informants, or even to how intelligence was gathered, unless there is a pressing reason for their needing this information. I think a certain amount of compartmentalization is in order, even in regards the President. I don't know but I would hope the President's daily brief is generalized i.e. "Our sources tell us blah blah blah" as opposed to going into specifics. In the case of Trump, providing him with specifics would have been akin to sending an email to Putin, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Pat Speer said: I agree there must be oversight. But I don't think members of congress, for example, should be given access to the names of informants, or even to how intelligence was gathered, unless there is a pressing reason for their needing this information. I think a certain amount of compartmentalization is in order, even in regards the President. I don't know but I would hope the President's daily brief is generalized i.e. "Our sources tell us blah blah blah" as opposed to going into specifics. In the case of Trump, providing him with specifics would have been akin to sending an email to Putin, IMO. Pat-- IMHO, the recipe you provide could easily cook up excessive and unjustified intel secrecy---and shift power to the unelected and self-serving intel state away from elected reps (even more than now, I mean). OK, so the intel agencies unilaterally determine which US presidents are trustworthy? You mean, like not JFK, Nixon, or Carter or Trump? But the Bushes are OK, Reagan maybe, and Obama sort of? You realize info was not given to JFK pre-BoP that may have contributed to that debacle? We nearly got into a nuke war as the intel guys were running unapproved ops. When a president says, "I want to know everything that is going on, and no secrets," that has to be the final word. Info was handed out to JFK and LBJ in a dubious manner regarding Vietnam, possible leading to the fantastically expensive and counterproductive Vietnam War. We are polar opposites on this one, but hey, just IMHO. (Add on: Serious students of Washington regard Russiagate as "an elaborate hoax"--Bret Stephens, NYT. Taibbi, Greenwald, Mate and many others also. There is no there, there. OK, so the intel state creates a Russiagate hoax, and then says, "You know, we don't trust Trump with info as he is a Russian stooge.") Welcome to the long knives of DC..... PS: Was the CIA justified in withholding documents and evidence from LBJ's WC? They may think so very strongly, and they can unilaterally decide what President's see? You have proposed a slippery slope...or maybe an icy precipice.... Edited January 17, 2023 by Benjamin Cole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 (edited) On 1/16/2023 at 5:28 PM, Benjamin Cole said: Lance/Pat: We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Both Congress, through relevant committees, and the President must have access to every document in the federal government; otherwise oversight in impossible. Once there is no oversight, especially in the intel arena...well, anything can (and has) happened. Even, possibly, the JFKA.... Bye Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 (edited) Well certainly with citizen Ben we see where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and the presumption of knowledge is a greater danger yet. Ben has no problem getting up on a soapbox and demanding immediate disclosure when there are ongoing investigations and trials for example. Fortunately for us, the results are only a cacophony of noise. heh heh heh joke! Edited January 17, 2023 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 14 hours ago, Pat Speer said: I agree there must be oversight. But I don't think members of congress, for example, should be given access to the names of informants, or even to how intelligence was gathered, unless there is a pressing reason for their needing this information. I think a certain amount of compartmentalization is in order, even in regards the President. I don't know but I would hope the President's daily brief is generalized i.e. "Our sources tell us blah blah blah" as opposed to going into specifics. In the case of Trump, providing him with specifics would have been akin to sending an email to Putin, IMO. The balance between having modern day intelligence agencies with massive dark budget monies funding them and keeping them under control as far as constitutional law adhering is probably one of the top three challenges of our federal government and has been since Truman and Ike times. How this balance is maintained is beyond me. Has this balance been compromised in the most major ways in favor of these agencies versus our democratic 3 branch government power and control? Obviously yes. Otherwise why have the Church committee? Why have Eisenhower's MIC warning speech? Why have JFK firing the heads of the CIA back in the early 1960's...etc, etc. It's a very serious problem for us all and the integrity of our constitutional democracy foundation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Odisio Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 On 1/15/2023 at 11:00 AM, Lance Payette said: There has to be a real-world balance. Over the past 125 years, U.S. Presidents have ranged from political hacks to someone with the qualifications of George H. W. Bush. Compare the qualifications of Bush to those of Warren G. Harding and, more recently, Bill Clinton, Dubya, Barack Obama, The Donald and Joe Biden. I would say that within just that list there are distinct differences in perceived loyalty to the United States, trustworthiness, intellect and mental fitness. Much the same can be said about Presidential appointees within the intelligence agencies, who may be here today and gone tomorrow. Presidents are required to have precisely none of the intense background checks and close oversight required for other individuals to obtain and retain high-level security clearances. Some intelligence careers and operations span decades. Some operations are so highly compartmentalized that no more than a handful of people ever have the full picture. Is it realistic that some newly elected President, who is often a largely unknown quantity and isn’t going to be around for more than four or eight years, should be able to gain full access to everything that all the departments and agencies comprising the Executive Branch (see https://www.loc.gov/rr/news/fedgov.html) know and are doing? Clinton famously charged Webb Hubbell with finding the truth about UFOs and the JFKA for no reason other than personal curiosity. If there were some long-guarded Alien Secret of staggering sensitivity, do you think it should have been cheerfully disclosed to Clinton just because he was President and curious about it? Would some 60-year-old Dark Truth about the JFKA have any particular relevance to the performance of a President today? Like the most gung-ho CTer, it's difficult for me to see what aspect of the JFKA could possibly require nondisclosure today, yet some materials relating to World War II are still classified. Indeed, some documents relating to troop movements in World War I are still classified in the interests of national security. The CIA declassified the last of its World War I documents in 2011. My guess is that if and when full JFKA disclosure occurs, we will see that the reasoning for nondisclosure strikes us as almost paranoid and has nothing directly to do with the JFKA. As I suggested in another thread, it's inconceivable to me that 60 years of diverse CIA Directors and employees have deemed some Dark Truth about the JFKA as "The Secret That Must Be Protected At All Costs" when so many other dark and embarrassing truths have seen the light of day. Yes, in law and theory the President has almost unfettered access to anything he wants to see within the Executive Branch. In the real world, this makes no sense and is largely honored in the breach. I have no problem with those who actually do have the requisite security clearances making professional judgments as to what a President actually needs to know to carry out his office and how loyal, trustworthy and sane a particular President is. On reading again this message and others in this thread, my jaw keeps hitting the floor. This is what Allen Dulles meant when in 1965 he said to the writer Willie Morris, "That little Kennedy...he thought he was a god." (Talbott) IOW, why did Kennedy think because he won some election against Nixon it automatically entitled him to be involved in, or even know about, certain major government policies. Like whether to preemptively nuke the Soviet Union, overthrow Castro, murder Lamumba and then Hammarskjold when he tried to interfere with the Congo, or start a full out war in Vietnam. These were too important and their effects too long lasting to allow a voice to someone who would be gone in a few years. The determination of "what a President needs to know to carry out his duties" is too important to be left to him, but should be made by others "with security clearances making professional judgements", including whether the President is "loyal, trustworthy" (to whom or what?) The ability to decide what an elected official can see, and not see, is the ability to make or change policy. Specifically, where does this ability come from? What is its source? We know what the constitution and its legal framework says about setting up a government run by people elected to do so. Where does the power to override them come from? No, that power doesn't somehow reside with "professional experts" or those with longevity in Washington. Politicians have access to such advice on staff and in the bureaucracy when they need it to make decisions. But it's just advice; it carries with it no decisionmaking authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 (edited) 9 hours ago, Lance Payette said: You seem to think intelligence communities comprise nothing but rogues who operate in utter disregard of the law. There is oversight - within the intelligence agencies themselves and by appropriate other authorities in appropriate circumstances. There is a reason the intelligence agencies of every country operate with a high level of autonomy and within a shroud of highly compartmentalized secrecy. There is a reason the employees and officials of those agencies are subjected to intense background checks and constant close scrutiny. Some sensitive intelligence operations continue for years and would be destroyed by inadvertent or intentional disclosures. Abuses certainly can and have occurred, but the solution is not to make "every document" available to potentially short-term elected officials. Are the Hillary/Trump/Biden classified document fiascos relevant here? Yeah, I think so. Your views strike me as naively idealistic and the sort of thing I might've heard at a Jerry Rubin rally in the hippie era. Jerry Rubin...or James Madison? Or maybe Benjamin Franklin? Thomas Jefferson? I will not trade insults, but will say we have to agree to disagree on this one. Edited January 18, 2023 by Benjamin Cole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 (edited) On 1/17/2023 at 5:43 PM, Benjamin Cole said: Jerry Rubin...or James Madison? Or maybe Benjamin Franklin? Thomas Jefferson? I will not trade insults, but will say we have to agree to disagree on this one. Bye Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 5 minutes ago, Lance Payette said: My reference to Jerry Rubin wasn't intended as an insult. The point was simply that there is an idealistic, only-in-theory perspective on every political and economic system that simply doesn't mesh with reality. Well, it was fun to hear the name "Jerry Rubin" after a few decades... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph McBride Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 Four US presidents were in Dallas on November 22, 1963: Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Poppy Bush. Six presidents attended the opening of the Nixon library: Nixon, Carter, Ford, Reagan, Poppy, and Clinton. Five attended the Nixon funeral: All of the above but Nixon (though he was sort of there too). I went with my son to see that event from the periphery and scouted a place to watch the presidents leaving. There were several exit roads. I saw a cute young woman asking a Secret Service agent where they would be exiting and went up to eavesdrop. He told her where (a big breach of security), so we stood there, and Clinton, the sitting president, jumped out at that spot to shake hands with the small crowd. I took a step forward with my son on my shoulders, but the Secret Service were aleady moving in balletic fashion to make a circle around Clinton. We could see all the other presidents as they went past except Bush, because he had dark windows on his SUV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now