17-02-2011, 01:51 AM
I take anything and everything that an "ex CIA" "ex FBI" and so forth says with a huge grain of salt. This, of course presents a problem for those who want to know about how these national security alphabet spook agencies work because they are not going to reveal what they do or their trade secrets.... Are they?
So they represent a bit of a black box and we mostly get to see the results of their "programs". And even then, they don't claim credit or deny it either. The recent uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt were supposed to be something that these agencies knew about and even knew what the results would be... the strength of the forces, loyalties and so forth. As usual we were told, they were caught off guard. One wonders what all those agents are actually doing about "intel gathering"?
And then you have the handful of "whistle blowers" who come out from the dark side and spill a few beans. They include, Agee, McGovern, Michon, Rowley, Edmonds, Larry Johnson, Plame and this Trowbridge fella who now surfaces with his connect the dots explanations.
You have to realize that all of the agencies are engaged in heavy disinformation and PR and have plants in all the media and so forth... and the CIA has so much as admitted it. I suppose the purpose being to suss out leads and leaks and so forth which "real journalists" might dig up, while at the same time planting lies such as Judith Miller and Michael Gordon and so forth. Look at the work of Fetzer and his colleagues... pure chaffe and distraction.
What we do know is that they are operating outside the law, have enormous budgets and black budgets and effectively drive the policy decisions with their covert programs with no oversight.
They are all rogue as far as democracy is concerned. But no one seems to want to change that.
I've always wanted to understand the mind of these ex's who entered the service presumably understanding their mission and agreeing with it. And then they decide something ain't kosher and decide to "tell all". One wonders if they were naive? Or perhaps have a guilty conscience?
Can anyone enlist in these agencies not knowing how vile and illegal their activities are?
So they represent a bit of a black box and we mostly get to see the results of their "programs". And even then, they don't claim credit or deny it either. The recent uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt were supposed to be something that these agencies knew about and even knew what the results would be... the strength of the forces, loyalties and so forth. As usual we were told, they were caught off guard. One wonders what all those agents are actually doing about "intel gathering"?
And then you have the handful of "whistle blowers" who come out from the dark side and spill a few beans. They include, Agee, McGovern, Michon, Rowley, Edmonds, Larry Johnson, Plame and this Trowbridge fella who now surfaces with his connect the dots explanations.
You have to realize that all of the agencies are engaged in heavy disinformation and PR and have plants in all the media and so forth... and the CIA has so much as admitted it. I suppose the purpose being to suss out leads and leaks and so forth which "real journalists" might dig up, while at the same time planting lies such as Judith Miller and Michael Gordon and so forth. Look at the work of Fetzer and his colleagues... pure chaffe and distraction.
What we do know is that they are operating outside the law, have enormous budgets and black budgets and effectively drive the policy decisions with their covert programs with no oversight.
They are all rogue as far as democracy is concerned. But no one seems to want to change that.
I've always wanted to understand the mind of these ex's who entered the service presumably understanding their mission and agreeing with it. And then they decide something ain't kosher and decide to "tell all". One wonders if they were naive? Or perhaps have a guilty conscience?
Can anyone enlist in these agencies not knowing how vile and illegal their activities are?