Hitchens' piece is the best thing to come down the pike in quite awhile. He writes: "It is out of the question -- plainly and absolutely out of the question -- that we should surrender the keystone state of the Middle East to a rotten, murderous alliance between Baathists and bin Ladenists." But watch now with the Sunnis' rejection of the Iraqi constitution how the Sheehanists will insist we're toast over there and ought to pull out. Bush has got to cut with the platitudes and talk straight to us! Thanks for the heads-up on the column, ACE!

In the late 1970'sMy wife and I visisted a college friend of my wife whose husband worked for the C.I.A. as a linguist in eastern Europe. She was a registered democrat as was her husband and she said at that time that the people working at the C.I.A. was way to the left of her and her husband (both grauated form the University of Oregon). I personally lost all respect and confidence in the C.I.A. when they smeared General Westmoreland in 1980-81. The C.I.A. is always in "cover your ass" mode. It would be simply amazing to me to find a C.I.A. carreer bureaucrat higher up that could be trusted to protect this nation and absolutely impossible to find one that was politically neutral.

The CIA did not know about India's nuke, but wanted us to trust them on Iraq. and now Iran.

That's very dangerous.

In Bush's defense, it's hard for him to speak "directly" to the public when almost everything he says is filtered by MSM.

The Brit intel services are full of reds too. Been that way for a while.

Angleton was right.

Remember the Defense Dept.'s 'Fox' chemical sniffer units (with onboard mass spectrographs) were turning up chemical weapon precursors...

... and the CIA's 'Iraq Survey Group' kept on saying 'well, we're not concerned about that, there _are_ peaceful uses'.

Its one thing when pesticide is in a squirt bottle at 5% concentration, and something else when it is buried in 55 gallon drums.

"There's no cure for that illusion..."

Sure there is. It's called Lithium. I kind of miss the old days of electroshock therapy though. ;^)

Don't forget: the dems threw a fit when Goss tried to clean house.

There is now, and has been for some time, a great disconnect between the Operations lads and the Intel guys. This makes it tremendously unfair to ascribe motives to the entire CIA, when the actions are only taken by one wing.
That being said, the Pickle Factory is currently hiring , and has been for the past forty years, people that lean leftish.
Since it's inception the CIA has enjoyed, and regretted, it's own independent status.
Unka' Bill Donovan would probably be upset by what has happened to his scion, but there are good odds that he foresaw this inevetable war within his own company. The Spookshow will , most likely, fix itself. I just hope it will do it quickly.

Let's also not forget that the CIA spent 2003 and 2004 trying desperately to undermine this Administration and its foreign policy with a deliberate camaign of leaks. Even the liberal Democrat trolls reading this post can't say that they approve of Central Intelligence attempting to override a policy placed by the White House and Congreess.

Hitch knocks it out of the park with bases loaded. A goldmine of quotes and logic.

Breathtaking. I wish I could argue a point 1/10 as well that. By the way, didn't Hitchens use to be a lefty?

Trust me, Hitchens is still very much a lefty. He just happens to be one of the few that understand how necessary this war was.

Hitchens just happens to be one of the few Lefties who isn't an irretrievable moron.

Later,
bbeck

THE AVERAGE "CONSERVATIVE" (AMERINAZI) IS PART OF GOG AND MAGOG TOO, AND WILL BE DESTROYED BY THE LORD ACCORDINGLY: http://www.mixposure.com/good-god.

Lets see who do I trust more the CIA or the President. All CIA employees go through insanely rigourous backround checks, lie detector test etc etc. They are highly inteligent people in areas such as economic analysis or cryptography or imagery analysis or linquists who could probably make 10 times what they are making in the private sector. However they choose to apply their skills in the service of their country.

Bush on the other hand probably couldn't qualify as a CIA employee given all the drugs he did as a young man. He can apparently qualify with the help of so many of our US citizens to be president.

Who do I trust more? The CIA hands down over the lying, selfserving, former drug using using, draft dodging Bush. Hey guess what Im a Republican but I have the balls to say when our party has made a mistake. I don't have to blindly support whoever my party puts in front of me.

Bush in no Republican.

http://www.subpariq.blogspot.com/

Two words for you, anon: Joe Wilson

I think the Wilson debacle adequately shows the perfidy of the CIA...

What is the deal with all of you viewing everybody as left or right?. Hitchens is neither and is more libertarian than anything else. If you like 50% of the rights policies and 50% of the lefts what does that make you? Smart because liking 90% to 100% of either the right's or left's policies probably makes you an extremist moron.

Bush on the other hand probably couldn't qualify as a CIA employee given all the drugs he did as a young man.

This is just funny. You would have to actually know some CIA employees to know why, which the author of the quoted post clearly does not. I am usually a defender of the CIA as I feel they are an asset of the American people, but you should know that they are as political and human an organization as any other in DC.

Joe WIlson's activities need to peeled back

Anon,

You want an unelected CIA to run the country? And you claim - with what I believe is absolutely no credibility - to be a republican? You probably also support having judges make all the laws. Even if your idiotic rant about Bush is all true, the fact remains that he was elected, and the CIA is supposed to serve him. So, your wonderful support for a fascist dictatorship ruled by the secret police of the CIA notwithstanding, they have no moral, legal, or democratic right to do what they are doing in fighting the administration, and anyone involved in it should be charged, tried and convicted of treason. Or, do you not understand the difference between an elected government and one that you support - because it agrees with your beliefs - that was not elected?

If you like 50% of the rights policies and 50% of the lefts what does that make you?

It makes you irrelevant.

Later,
bbeck

Why do they always claim to be Republicans?

If you like 50% of the rights policies and 50% of the lefts what does that make you?

What if there are two people who adhere to the above but like the opposite 50% of the other. And if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around.......

Dumbass

Defense guy, I know a former CIA employee, Yale graduate, worked in the economic analysis area, squeaky clean. Yes they are human unlike the monster Bush. Do you know any CIA employees? Besdes his drug use I think the D average from college would probably exclude him as well. My friend had a 4.0 from Yale. I stand by my view that Bush couldnt qualify for much of anything given his low intelligence.

The dummy who asked me if I want an unelected CIA to run the country. Firstly moron, did you elect your MOM to be your MOM?? No but you trust her don't you? Second idiot, I didn't say I want the CIA to run the country. Where are you getting this from? All I said is that I trust the CIA more than Bush and now you are accusing me of being a facist and asking if I want Judges to make laws? No putz, I want ppl to do their jobs, something Bush isn't doing very well.

Hey, anon: for all their much-boasted intelligence and superiority, the CIA is batting near zero for the last two decades. I challenge anyone here to name a major issue since 1985 that the CIA got right. If I could have bet against the CIA at Vegas during that time, I wouldn't have to be working now.

For example, consider the CIA's inability to penetrate al-Qaeda. A surfer dude from California could sign up, fly to Afghanistan, and meet bin Laden; but somehow no one in the CIA could manage that trick. Sorry, anon, but I don't give a God damn what colleges the CIA recruitees went to or what their GPAs were: if they can't get the job done, they're worthless - and the CIA patently has failed to get the job done. You may retort with a "tu quoque" - that Bush is incompetent also, and perhaps you're right. But we elected him. Who the hell elected the CIA?

Mark Steyn hit the nail on the head when he said that today's situation eerily resembles those 1970s thrillers that used to give leftoids woodies - the ones in which a rogue CIA undermines its elected civilian superiors in order to preserve its power and cover up its blunders. The Agency is doing its undermining through leaks and interoffice backstabbing rather than car chases and gunplay; but unlike the thrillers, this happens to be real.

It's one thing to act as an independent, nonpartisan source of information - to tell the truth as best you can and let the chips fall where they may. It's quite another to see one's self as a "player" and to manipulate information to advance one's agenda. The former is invaluable; the latter is a menace. The time may well have come to abolish the CIA and start over.

Defense guy, I know a former CIA employee, Yale graduate

Did you meet him while being a janitor at Yale or Langley?

Good colleges are hardly a recommendation for political reliability. Do the names Burgess, Maclean, and Philby ring a bell?

Julius Rosenberg got hooked up with the young communists at CCNY.

Pollard is a Stanford grad.

anon

Yes, I know a few. The level of drug abuse and alcoholism at the agency is not lower than the national average. In other words, it is possible that the former, pre-cleanup Bush, would fit right in. It is a highly stressful job, trying to divine information, and highly stressful jobs tend to lead to higher levels of alcoholism and drug abuse.

BTW - it was a former field agent who told me about this little secret, although that was over a decade ago when we were working together.

check out the link to "I Fucked Ann Coulter in the Ass Hard

http://subpariq.blogspot.com/

funniest thing i've every read.

The CIA Record:

Wrong on the economic strength (or lack thereof) of the USSR.

Didn't come close to predicting the collapse of the USSR.

Didn't have a clue about how far along Saddam's nuke program was until Israel bombed Osirak.

Almost totally missed Saddam's reconstituted program until inspections after the Gulf War showed how far along it was (and they say that Saddam is a rational actor - if he'd just waited a couple more years he could have KEPT Kuwait).

Missed the Indian nuke program.

Missed the Pakistani nuke program.

Consistently underestimated the NorK nuke program.

TOTALLY missed the Libyan nuke program.

Unable to supply actionable intelligence on Mohamad Farrah Adid.

Gave info that led to the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade (OK, not all bad)

Info led to the missiling of a harmless pharma factory in Sudan.

Yeah, these guys are awesome!

All that said, the CIA operations guys have done yeaomans work in Afghanistan and Iraq - and probably in a lot of countries that we don't know about. I'm sure that the place is filled with super-smart people who work hard and love their country, but as anyone who has spent time in business or the military knows, often the super-smart people arent very practical and often aren't good at actually getting things done.

Also, there seems to be a bad cae of NIH syndrome - ideas are only good if they originate in Langley - DIA and others not welcome.

The Int processing side does lean Dem - not Howlin' Howard Dem, but definitely to the left side of the aisle - which is really not surpring given that these guys are quasi-academic government beaurocrats. More dangerously however, is the amount of group-think and consensus building that goes around - nobody willing to make hard or risky calls. The ops side (which is like 5% or so of the Agency) has a lot of ex-mil types, and tends to swing to the right a lot more.

There was a group within the agency who knew exactly how dangerous Osama was to us, but seemingly could not convince anyone else. Mistakes have been made, but it is still a good agency, or it will be again once it fully extracts its head from its ass.

As an aside, I do love that the left is now a fan. It surely wasn't when it was putting all those restrictions in place on how information can be obtained.

Did anyone ever foresee the Left looking to the CIA for confirmation of its world view?

Talk about a disconnect...

Hey Anon,

Weren't you a little hard on the guy asking about the CIA running the country? I'm not sure you need to resort to name-calling in order to get your point accross.

BTW, does your Yalee 4 point buddy like you to tickle his balls when you're blowing him or do you just give him a rusty trombone when you're through?

As an aside, I do love that the left is now a fan. It surely wasn't when it was putting all those restrictions in place on how information can be obtained.

Umm, that's the point - they love it now that it's safely neutered. If something new came along, they wouldn't be able to control it nearly so well.

Did anyone ever foresee the Left looking to the CIA for confirmation of its world view?

Angleton - he believed the agency was thoroughly penetrated by the Soviets.

That would explain much of the "ineptness" if it is true.

Besdes his drug use I think the D average from college would probably exclude him as well.

Anon,

Sorry, but that's B.S. Dubya had a higher GPA than that, and higher than Kerry, for that matter. If that happens to be a leading criteria of yours for picking a leader.

Cordially...

Anon-

I'm the one who wrote that you seem to support a fascist dictatorship - which I still believe based upon your first post.

Let me try to help you understand why, though you understanding anything is likely a lost cause.

You wrote a post cheering for liberal CIA operatives to treasonously undermine the policies of the elected president of the U.S.

You obviously do not understand what you yourself wrote, or the implications of it. Your post basically supports a rogue CIA element that is attempting to make its own foriegn policy and fighting a "war" against the elected leader of the country - and you try to rationalize your support for this with your childish assertion that President Bush is stupid and a drug user, among other things.

Try understanding what you yourself wrote. My point is valid based upon your first post, and is still valid. You have failed to make any rational argument to support why it is good for an element of the CIA to act in a rogue manner and attempt to dictate the policy of the united states, defying the will of the american people as demonstrated through the presidential election.

So, basically, you are the moron, or idiot, or fascist supporting liberal. You are incapable of arguing a point, or even understanding a point. And, you lied about being a republican - how you think that stating that you are a republican lends support to the idea of supporting a rogue CIA is beyond me.

Good day sir.

I wrote the last post responding to Anon - who called me a moron, but failed to include my name. Don't want anyone to accuse me of being a "chickehawk", another one of the "intelligent" arguments routinely made by the left.

And, anon, no I did not elect my mom, but would given the opportunity, whereas your mom would chose to abort if she knew then what she knows now regarding the outcome of her labors.

I am somewhat surprised at the number of moonbats who are "pro choice", since so many of them are living advertisements for selective abortion.

Holdfast, your little abreviated history of the CIA is the result of right-wing lies. Most of what you list there just is not factually accurate. The CIA is filled with lifetime public servants who are extremely good at what they do. The right wing has been slurring the CIA because this is the way the right wing now responds to any criticism. Your list is so wrong that it would take much longer time than I have to go through it line by line, but at least you should know that it's all debatable. Just for starters, the CIA predicted the economic collapse of the USSR as early as 1978. And, the CIA never "missed" the Pakistani nuke program. Politicians chose to ignore the Pakistani nuke program.

Hey Thunderous Whitey,

How can you say that Anon's mom would have had him sucked out of the womb?

He knows a guy from Yale who had a 4 point. A 4 point from Yale! Do you know what that means?!?!

He knows a guy from Yale who had a 4 point. A 4 point from Yale! Do you know what that means?!?!

A great coke connection and a stack of incriminating faculty pictures?

Just for starters, the CIA predicted the economic collapse of the USSR as early as 1978.

Hell, I predicted it in 1975 and I was only in middle school.

Dumb ass I wrote a post saying I trust the CIA more than I do the President. Anything you want to infer beyond that is your run amouk mind putting words in my mouth. How you jump from me trusting the CIA more than Bush to being a Fascist is beyond me.

you wrote in your post Try understanding what you yourself wrote. My point is valid based upon your first post, and is still valid. You have failed to make any rational argument to support why it is good for an element of the CIA to act in a rogue manner and attempt to dictate the policy of the united states, defying the will of the american people as demonstrated through the presidential election.

Lets try this again because you seem to be fixated on something that didn't occur. I havent made any arguement rational or not supporting why it is good for an element of the CIA to act in a rouge manner. I do not believe this to be proper. I do not believe the CIA should dictate the policy of the US or defying the will of the american people.

Is this how you fucking slant peoples posts, arguements and beliefs? You are a tragic ass that wants to muck it up to sound like you know what the fuck you are talking about.

Go read what I said putz, I said I trust the CIA more than Bush thats it. Let me repeat I said I trust the CIA more than Bush. Wait let me make it clear..I only said I trust the CIA more than Bush.

I don't believe the CIA should have its own agenda, dictate policy, have rouge elements etc etc etc.

Oh wait should I repeat again you thick headed idiot.

Whats with that idiot foaming at the mouth about anon's post? The guy only said he trusts the CIA more than Bush and from there some jerk starts to infer his views on CIA policy and calls the guy a fascist. WTF is wrong wih you people?

Hey, I generally trust the CIA too. I trust them about as much as I trust any government agency or politician. Which is to say, little or not at all.

To be fair, I'm more of a Reaganite 'trust but verify' sort.

I do believe we have a lefty sock-puppeteer here.

So if I understand your last post Aon, you are an advocate of the CIA undermining our President? Why take such a facist position?

Dman Im laughing so hard now:)

Anon,
Are you a waiter at a French bistro by any chance?

The Rouge Elephant perhaps?

Rouge Elephant funny. No sir I'm not. Like most anything in life, nothing is perfect and no one organization can day in and out do things well and have good leaders all the time. Sadly this is true for both parties. To say the Democrats never had a good president or the Republicans never had one for that matter is folly. Though I can't remember a good president from either side of the isle in the past 20 years. I guess its the way they are elected today and what type of person you have to be to actually get elected. We will never see the likes of a George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln or the greatest man who was never president Alexander Hamilton, in politics the process is to flawed.

I personally think that the President in modern American has too much power. He is the Chief Executive...what does that mean? He should execute the duties of his office. Administrate. Not make policy. The legislative body known as Congress and the Sentate should be making policy not Bush or any president.

I dub thee "Hamilton Groupie".

Not one "dumbass" or "putz" in that whole post. Now was that so hard?

Take courage though, we don't need another Washington, Jefferson or Lincoln. We need someone who - when he grabs the rat by the neck, he will not let go until the rat is dead.

I will happily accept that name with pride.

The book on the Gulf War, 'Crusade' by 'liberal' Rick Atkinson is actually pretty good...

In it he points out that the Department of Defense gave up on the pessimistic CIA bomb damage assessment and basically blew them off just before the war was won in 100 hours.

The CIA, pronounced CYA, was trying to have it both ways... and in doing so demonstrated how useless they had become reading SigInt.

Well, it's not just the CIA that's trying to undermine President Bush; the entire State Dept. itself is filled with career liberal apparatchiks who are doing precisely that. This is why the MSM and other leftoids squealed like stuck pigs when Bush ousted Powell and appointed Rice as Sec'y of State, as if it were a crime for him to expect the State Dept. to implement Executive Branch policies.

Anon,

Bush and Kerry both have taken college aptitude tests and military aptitude tests. These test scores can be correlated to I.Q test scores. The mean I.Q test score is 100, sigma one is 115 and sigma two is 130.

John Kerry's I.Q is at about 120 and President Bush's I.Q is at about 126, just a handful of points short of qualifying for Mensa.

According to records released a few months ago by Kerry, his grades at Yale were equivilent or less than those of President Bush.

As to your charges of Bush being a draft dodger. Yeah, Bush dodged the draft, Kerry dodged the draft, and I dodged the draft. I enlisted in the Navy for four years in 1969. I extended for 3 more, got out and joined the USNR for 2 1/2 more years.

A roommate of mine was a two year reservist, just like Kerry. You see, Kerry was in the USNR, not the USN. The requirements at that time for the two year program, was 4 years additional Active Reserve.

The funny thing is that what with joining the anti-war movement, hanging with Hanoi Jane, lying about the military to Congress, meeting with the enemy twice in Paris, representing the the North Vietnamese peace plan to Congress, being present at the meeting of Winter Soldiers where serious discussion was made of a proposed assasination of six pro-war Senators, and throwing his medals over the fence, or someone elses medals, this must have kept him busy.

I don't recall any mention of Kerry doing his drills. Do you? Did he do any of his two-week ACDUTRA's?

Kerry would have recieved his honorable discharge eight years after his entering into the USNR. Lets see, he got out in summer of 1968, that's two years. Add six more and that would bring you to 1974.

But Kerry did not get his honorable discharge until Carter was sworn in and there was an immediate amnesty given for draft evaders. In fact, it is in Kerry's own released files that show his honorable discharge was granted by a special military review board after Carter was sworn in.

I never needed a military review board to give me an honorable discharge. It just arrived in the mail after my eight years were up. I don't even know anyone who needed a military review board to give them an honorable discharge.

I suspect that the reason Kerry has not released all of his records, as he has many times promised and failed, is that he failed to complete his obligated drills and recieved a less than honorable discharge. Maybe some disciplinary action was taken for his aiding and abetting the enemy.

President Bush did however, exceed his drilling requirements and recieved an honorable discharge in the usual manner.