by robertdreed » Fri Oct 28, 2005 1:22 pm
Eric, I sympathize with your antipathy toward the CIA. I used to condemn everyone associated with the Agency and everything it involved itself with, as well.<br><br>But over time, I got a more detailed and nuanced view of the breadth of activities carried on by the CIA, and I found that many of them weren't malign in and of themselves. As for the purposes to which the agency has been employed- it's important to note that the CIA was a Cold War baby. There was a bipolar political and geopolitical struggle going on with another large nation whose size and power rivalled the USA, and which had been defined as hostile. That status of rivalry and competition served to justify a lot of bullshit. But even then, there were plenty of people in the analysis branch who were simply trying to assess information in order to do things like briefing the president, to help him make decisions. I think that's a legitimate function for government agencies, even these days. I think a lot of the blame/responsibility for problems associated with CIA activities ought to be laid at the feet of whichever presidential administration ordered them, including the president and multi-agency enclaves like the NSC, who set the policy agenda and give most of the orders. <br><br>I think much of the CIA's original purpose hasn't existed for a while, and the agency should be stripped down to essential functions. But even in the post-Cold War world, the agency has always been directed by leaders and advisors whose political agendas prefer a strong, activist CIA for parapolitical missions and covert operations. Now, more than ever.<br><br> I think that's bullshit. But that's no reason to demonize every last person employed by the CIA. Some of them think it's bullshit, too. And as the CIA is a uniquely powerful institution, I feel better about having some kindred souls on the inside than I would about being shut out completely. Here's an example of that: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2005/191005McGovern.htm">www.prisonplanet.com/arti...Govern.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>I know that many American dissidents extend there anti-CIA antipathy to the point of considering everyone and anyone with a history of employment there as a probable infiltrator. But I've heard and read Ray McGovern many times over the past few years, and I haven't found him acting like a Trojan Horse to infiltrate the American dissident movement. His critiques are very articulate, and he hasn't sought power. He doesn't grandstand, unlike some of the more well-known figures in the dissident and 9-11 openness movements. And when he's offered his CIA experience as perspective in service of his political insights, I haven't noticed him running down anything particularly phony. I mean, the article I just linked is difficult for me to formulate as a "limited hang-out" or "disinformation": <br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Former CIA Analyst: Government May Be Manufacturing Fake Terrorism<br>A Government openly promoting torture, A President acting like a King cannot be trusted, must be impeached<br><br><br><br>Prisonplanet.com | October 19 2005<br><br>Ray McGovern, former CIA Analyst during the Regan and Bush 41 regimes, joined Alex Jones on his daily radio show Monday 17th October as part of a round table discussion of issues surrounding the Iraq war and the "war on terror".<br><br>McGovern launched straight into the War in Iraq and suggested that over the last few months there has been a "sea change" in public opinion, and now over two thirds of Americans, according to major opinion polls, are against the war and can now see through the Neo-con Propaganda that so clouded their judgment in the lead up to the war.<br><br>McGovern went on to comment that there has built up an ignorant attitude amongst more well to do Americans that the troops dying everyday are expendable. There has been a shut down in the minds of people who cannot place themselves in the shoes of the families who's sons and fathers and brothers are being needlessly slaughtered for a corrupt elite agenda.<br><br>Mr McGovern stated that the war <br><br>"has nothing to do with democracy or freedom or defending "our way of life", it is to do with enriching the pockets of those who support this administration."<br><br>Alex then put it to Mr McGovern that Congressman Ron Paul had recently been on the show and said that The Bush Administration was openly trying to set up a martial law police state in America. McGovern responded in the affirmative:<br><br>"Well it does seem that those who have his (Bush's) ear are hell bent on giving away or providing wider responsibilities to our military. Witness what they are talking about now with giving the military primary responsibility for catastrophes, for hurricanes and so forth. Our military has been built up as an instrument of power but has never existed with this kind of potency before, and so we all need to look at this because there are laws against using the military in law enforcement capacities and we need to get to our Congressmen and Senators and say "look enough of this stuff."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br><br>I can't find the payoff for the Bush cabal in anything that McGovern said, there. Bringing up the idea that the Bush administration is capable of manipulating agencies like his old employer, the CIA, in resorting to Lodge P2-type provocateur terrorism is about as far from a cover-up as I can imagine. In fact, while McGovern doesn't say it explicitly, his comments imply the possibility that 9-11 may have been a MIHOP operation. Whoa. If he doesn't go that far, it's because prudent professionals leave surmises like that to the journalist community, and to the listening audience. <br><br>If McGovern had gone off on George Bush and his shadowy allies and outright accused them of complicity and involvement in the 9-11 attacks...well, THEN I'd be suspicious. Because unless they're revealing brand-new, front-page, irrefutable smoking gun evidence on that score in the course of making that accusation, any former CIA agent making such a dramatic statement is bound to split the antiwar movement and the dissident community. But McGovern chooses his words very carefully advisedly and pointedly, not at all like a weasel or someone laying down a smokescreen. And that leads me to consider that there is such a thing as an authentic whistleblower community drawn from present and former CIA employees and other intelligence agency/law enforcement professionals. Therefore, logically speaking, it follows that joining the CIA isn't the equivalent of joining the Black Lodge. <br><br>"...you don’t fix that by distancing yourself from the government, you fix that by diving into government..."<br><br>Sometimes that is a good idea. Under some circumstances, it may even by an imperative. But other times, not. Involving oneself with local government makes the most sense, I think. The Federal government is extremely problematic, in the USA at any rate...the country is too big for a single central government to deal with responsively and effectively, frankly. To say nothing of the hazards of centralized Federal power...central governments of large countries tend to emphasize military and police power- "uniform functions", as it were. Part of the reason is simply structural. <br><br> "WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT, if we only will be."<br><br>I prefer "we are the community." There's so much that can be done on that basis without resorting to government power. And- let's face it- in a lot of locations we ain't the government, and reasserting democratic advise and consent is an onerous process. In the meantime, we can be the community, which is something that a government must negotiate with, even if they're an old boy's club. All social and cultural interaction isn't suffused with politics, although it always partakes of it. More importantly, all politics isn't about the government. <br><br> "Their power struggles amongst themselves BRING tyranny, not destroy it."<br><br>Hmm...actually, I think there are political arenas where I'd just as soon not be around. "The fuckery of the shitstem", Peter Tosh would call it. Touch not the unclean thing, and all that. I think Peter Tosh tried to steer clear of touching it. But he still stayed in the vicinity too long, and one day he got in the line of fire...he should have headed for the hills. Hold those hills. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/28/05 1:08 pm<br></i>