Global War on Terror a fraud

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

The CIA has been incompetent and unable to do its job properly since Carter became President.

If that's true, 32 years seems like plenty of time to straighten it out. What happened?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

If that's true, 32 years seems like plenty of time to straighten it out. What happened?

Obviously nothing.

North Korea detonated a nuclear bomb a few years ago and the CIA never even knew about it until CNN showed it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Still doesn't change the fact that they adequately informed this administration of an impending terrorist attack.

They warned the Clinton administration too.

Obviously, he, just like Bush, didn't really think it was important.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

They warned the Clinton administration too.

Obviously, he, just like Bush, didn't really think it was important.

So then they are both guilty? And one of them just kept it up after 9/11.

What is your angle here? The CIA sucks and this Op-Ed piece is wrong and the current administration didn't and isn't still screwing with intelligence to further an agenda that is not based on reality?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So then they are both guilty? And one of them just kept it up after 9/11.

What is your angle here? The CIA sucks and this Op-Ed piece is wrong and the current administration didn't and isn't still screwing with intelligence to further an agenda that is not based on reality?

Yeah, they are both guilty. One of them wasn't President when 9/11 happened though, which is why so many people blame Bush, but ignore Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan and Carter.

I really don't know what to say about the article. The whole 'fraud'....goes back a lot longer than just the Bush administration. There were repeated warnings by field agents serving in Asia during the late 70's about a rise in Islamic fundamentalism. Warnings that the CIA just 'ignored'....and instead shut down numerous posts in the Middle East and throughout Asia, and got rid of the field agents who were warning them. Everything the CIA screwed up on came back to kick them in the ass on 9/11. If this guy has served in the CIA for 23 years, he knows exactly what happened in the late 80's....how the CIA and the US government completely ignored Afghanistan and basically GAVE Islamic terrorism a place to grow. And he knows EXACTLY how a bunch of incompetent fools have been running the place for the past 30 years. But of course, he won't mention that.

So do I believe him? Why should I believe someone who has been part of the problem for the past 23 years? We all know Saddam had nothing to do with Al Queda, and we all know that the intelligence regarding the Iraq War is anywhere from sketchy to blatantly misleading. But Afghanistan WAS a problem. Islamic terrorism IS a problem. And sitting around twiddling your thumbs and blaming Bush for the 'WOT' isn't exactly solving anything.

Personally, I think this guy has a obvious agenda, and obvious bias, and for some reason he ignores what happened in Afghanistan in years prior that directly led to the problem we're dealing with now. Everytime a Canadian soldier dies, you can thank the US government for completely screwing up in Afghanistan, when they ALREADY had won over the hearts and minds of the people, yet they still left. Or rather, they just ignored the place.

Sure helped a lot.

I wonder if the author and his sidekicks thought that Bin Laden was a "small, lethal, disjointed and miserable opponent" back in '89 when they ignored what he was doing.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

And sitting around twiddling your thumbs and blaming Bush for the 'WOT' isn't exactly solving anything.

The "War On Terror" was the current administration's idea. It may not solve anything to "blame" them for it or the gaffes they've made in the execution of this fraud, but I don't think it's much better to ignore it.

Originally Posted by Azure

Personally, I think this guy has a obvious agenda, and obvious bias,

What is the agenda? What is the bias? To defend the CIA? He's retired.

Every time one of these long-serving employees of the intelligence business or the military come out and say "the W Bush administration screwed it up", all we hear is "the guy has an agenda" or even better "he just wants to sell a few books".

Some of these guys have served their country for decades. My guess is they value their country over any flimsy "agenda", or money, or some petty political bias that they managed to quash their entire lives in order to serve, only to see any sense of duty vanish the minute they retire.

And just to clarify -- I don't blame Bush for 9/11. I can't blame anyone else for the monumental screwups and lying that has gone on since. You can't blame Iraq on anyone but these clowns, for example.

[Azure]

I'm not saying that the 'WOT' is a good idea. All I'm saying is that the CIA, or any 'retired' agent shouldn't be putting themselves on a pedestal and blaming Bush for all his screwups.

This guy should look in the mirror, and if he was actually assigned to 'Islamic terrorism'...which he sure as hell better have been considering what he is claiming, then he knows EXACTLY how many gaffes the CIA has had the past 30 years that have helped bring us to this point. He was part of that.

I don't blame Bush for 9/11, but I do blame him for ignoring the evidence. But then again, do we really know for certain that he was provided with evidence? Do we know for certain that Clinton was briefed about a possible 'WTC' attack? How do we even know that the CIA presented them with actual evidence, instead of a briefing that barely mentioned it?

[Paul Baxter #4]

CalgaryBorn said "It's been well documented that the CIA were at odds with the administration from the first day Bush was in office."

It has been well documented that the "odds" in question were the facts getting in the way of the war and propaganda effort being dreamed up by the likes of Cheney and Wolfowitz. The facts clearly did not support any of the claims put forth by the White House, so half-truths were manufactured to present a position of plausible deniability. The list of excuses to go into Iraq are long and all erroneous in their foundation. The CIA analysts that let their training and their conscience guide them were replaced with less competant and more cooperative analysts, and it has cost the United States her soul. The bald faced lies of the Cheney/Wolfowitz cabal have cost America its integrity and the right to the moral high ground, which it once embraced and consider as sacred the constitution. Both of those ideals have been shredded by the members of the George W. Bush administration. The CIA had little to do with this. The descent into the abyss America finds itself was a guided by those charged with protecting her and holding the constitution as the highest of all ideals. The blames falls squarely at the feet of the administration from the past eight years.

"When 9/11 occurred there was also a lot of finger pointing both ways."

Finger pointing at the inaction and ignorance of the intelligence presented to the administration you mean. This is well documented by not only CIA analysts, but also by people who were working inside the administration before and shortly after the attacks.

"Bush has since slowly purged the CIA of what he perceives as hostiles who would put political affiliation above country."

Who would put political affiliation above country? Did you really just type that in defense of George W. Bush? We are talking about an administration who committed an act of treason by exposing Valerie Plame. These same fellows were responsible for firing a whole series of state attorneys based on nothing more than political affiliation. These are the same guys who went out of their way to send an Alabama governor to prison on trumped up politically motivated charges, which so far have proven to be false. Political affiliation is the most important facet to the Bush administration, and their actions prove it time and time again; country comes second.

"Was Carle one of the agents eventually forced to retire by the Bush administration?"

Doesn't seem that way. The guy just retired and is coming out right now. Bush purged lots of qualified and capable analysts to go to war, but it appears Carle was not one of them. It could be he held his tongue until he hit is retirement window and then said to hell with it. Can't blame a guy that is that close to hitting his 80 points.

"Was Carle part of the CIA brain trust who underestimated the rumblings heard before 9/11?"

The only ones that underestimated the rumblings heard prior to 9/11 were those in the Bush administration. All the revisionist history in the world will not wash away the fact that when Clinton left office one of his last acts was to brief the new administration on the existing threat of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, and that the Bush folks ignored the information. It also will not eliminate the fact that Bush ignored the daily briefings and that Rice refused to meet on the issue as well. The intelligence had been out there for almost four years, and it was mentioned in brief after brief, but ignored by the new executive. The only ones who underestimated those rumblings were the ones who were on the receiving end of the briefs created and given by the intelligence community.

"I can't be sure of the answer to the first question but, the second answer appears to be a "Yes"."

Carle was part of the cabinet? Negative. So the answer on the second question is a resounding "No".

[Paul Baxter #4]

Originally Posted by Azure

The CIA has been incompetent and unable to do its job properly since Carter became President.

What leads you to believe that? Is there anything that could be construed as proof of that claim?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

If that's true, 32 years seems like plenty of time to straighten it out. What happened?

LMAO! The United States government can't fix ANY problem in 32 years! WTF is wrong with you man?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Do you guys really believe that the CIA needs 'permission' from the White House to investigate threats it believes are worthy of memos?

Seriously. You guys keep saying the CIA warned the administration....what the hell does that have to do with anything? What did the CIA do to follow up?

Unless you can show that the White House told them to back off any blame should fall squarely on the CIA, FBI and associated agencies for dropping the freaking ball.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Paul Baxter #4

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071102710.html

Why are these views so starkly at odds with what the Bush administration has said since the beginning of the "Global War on Terror"? This administration has heard what it has wished to hear, pressured the intelligence community to verify preconceptions, undermined or sidetracked opposing voices, and both instituted and been victim of procedures that guaranteed that the slightest terrorist threat reporting would receive disproportionate weight -- thereby comforting the administration's preconceptions and policy inclinations.

We must not delude ourselves about the nature of the terrorist threat to our country. We must not take fright at the specter our leaders have exaggerated. In fact, we must see jihadists for the small, lethal, disjointed and miserable opponents that they are.


This is the second senior analyst, considered the expert in this subject matter, to come forward upon retirement and spill the beans. When you add in Imperial Hubris, written by CIA analyst Michael Scheuer under the pseudonym Anonymous, it exposes a very dirty little secret about the Global War on Terror; it is a disinformation campaign used domestically to curb our personal freedoms and allow the pillage of our treasuries.

Let the free-for-all begin!

Well after reading the article OVERSTATING OUR FEARS. I have to agree with his point that the threat from terrorists is no larger than before 9/11. Thanks to the fact that we took their operating base away from them and have disrupted their funding (until the NYT stepped in) terrorists haven't been able to successfully complete an operation like 9/11 again. Instead they have tended to stick to blowing up Jews and other Muslims.

As for his case for.....The threat from Islamic terrorism is no larger now than it was before Sept. 11, 2001. Islamic societies the world over are in turmoil and will continue for years to produce small numbers of dedicated killers, whom we must stop. U.S. and allied intelligence do a good job at that; these efforts, however, will never succeed in neutralizing every terrorist, everywhere.

They sure did a bang up job prior to 9/11!

Anybody want to guess what would have happened had the UN/NATO/US not invaded Afghanistan?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

LMAO! The United States government can't fix ANY problem in 32 years! WTF is wrong with you man?

Ha ha. Fair enough.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Paul Baxter #4

What leads you to believe that? Is there anything that could be construed as proof of that claim?

Go read a bit what John Weisman has written in regards to intelligence gathering the past 30 years.

Most people are surprised at all the screwups.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Do you guys really believe that the CIA needs 'permission' from the White House to investigate threats it believes are worthy of memos?

Seriously. You guys keep saying the CIA warned the administration....what the hell does that have to do with anything? What did the CIA do to follow up?

Unless you can show that the White House told them to back off any blame should fall squarely on the CIA, FBI and associated agencies for dropping the freaking ball.

Heh, I never thought of that.

I think you're bang on. One would assume that such a massive organizations would automatically follow up on any intelligence pertaining to terrorist attacks. One would ALSO assume that the CIA didn't need to ask the POTUS for permission to 'stop' those attacks.

What would Bush do? Stop them from doing their job?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Unless you can show that the White House told them to back off any blame should fall squarely on the CIA, FBI and associated agencies for dropping the freaking ball.

Oh I think there's enough blame to go around and plenty of freaking balls dropped.

But in this case a CIA veteran is saying "the administration did X, Y and Z, none of it good" and his lengthy, and apparently satisfactory service to several Presidents of both parties (including 7 years under George W) is dismissed. His opinion is thrown out the window because it doesn't gibe with the current administration's line of, err, thinking.

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Seriously. You guys keep saying the CIA warned the administration....what the hell does that have to do with anything? What did the CIA do to follow up?

What do you mean "what does it have to do with anything"? Isn't warning them a rather important part of their job? Doesn't it have everything to do with everything?

If someone tells me something bad is coming and I do nothing and that thing happens, do I blame the person who warned me?

Kind of a silly and pointless argument since I don't know what the CIA told them or didn't tell them, but that point of yours doesn't make sense to me.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Anybody want to guess what would have happened had the UN/NATO/US not invaded Afghanistan?

Probably the same thing that has happened in Afghanistan everytime we have turned our backs to it.

An even bigger support of terrorism.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What do you mean "what does it have to do with anything"? Isn't warning them a rather important part of their job? Doesn't it have everything to do with everything?

Again, I think the point is that they may have warned Bush. Or Clinton.

What happened then? Did they follow up on it?

You do realize that the POTUS is not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the intelligence community. He gets a briefing in the morning of all the important events, and as far as I know, he doesn't hear anything else, unless it is serious, until the next day.

The CIA was responsible for following up on the threat, if there was even one.

At least, that is how I read it.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What do you mean "what does it have to do with anything"? Isn't warning them a rather important part of their job? Doesn't it have everything to do with everything?

If someone tells me something bad is coming and I do nothing and that thing happens, do I blame the person who warned me?

Kind of a silly and pointless argument since I don't know what the CIA told them or didn't tell them, but that point of yours doesn't make sense to me.

I'm pretty sure the President isn't charged with physically neutralizing terrorist plots.

That's why it has nothing to do with anything.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Paul Baxter #4

Doesn't seem that way. The guy just retired and is coming out right now. Bush purged lots of qualified and capable analysts to go to war, but it appears Carle was not one of them. It could be he held his tongue until he hit is retirement window and then said to hell with it. Can't blame a guy that is that close to hitting his 80 points.

Meh. I don't blame him. I'm sure there are lots of intelligence people who get pissed off at the inaction and ignorance of the President. Bush isn't the first one to do this.

There were intelligence people during the Clinton years who who accused ol' Bill of ignoring the CIA too. And I'm sure many others in the Presidency's before.