Handy primer on CIA

by **Dreams End** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:38 am

In a post to Joe Hillhoist I mentioned the CIA shenanigans that led to the dismissal of Australian PM Whitlam in 1974. I found this long article that starts off with general background. I won't post all of it but I hope people will read it. It focuses on Australia but all sorts of other stuff comes in. Here's on snip: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Ralph Mcgehee: The Agency, of course, overthrew the Mossadegh government of Iran to establish the Sha; it overthrew the government of Guatemala in 54, remanents of it are still in control of that country; it overthrew two Uruguayan governments; the government of Brazil in 64, Chile 73. It tried to overthrow the government of Cuba in 61 with the Bay of Pigs; it conducted invasions of China; it was running guerrilla warfare operations in the Soviet Union, Nepal, Albania; it was involving itself in elections in Italy beginning in 48 up to the 70s, it spent a hundred million dollars in various Italian elections; it was involving itself in elections in Germany. In one country, Syria, I've counted so far that it has conducted at least seven attempts to overturn the governments there. I don't know how many were successful--I haven't got into that area. But the Middle East has been the sort of favourite playground of covert operations. In Africa, of course, the same thing. They are trying right now (this was aired in 1986 - DE) to overthrow the government of Angola. Recently, they tried to overthrow the government of Ethiopia. I'd say that I don't think there is a government in Latin America that has neither been overthrown or supported by the CIA. And probably I could say much the same for governments in the Middle East and, less to do, in Africa.<hr></blockquote> McGehee is former CIA so all caveats apply, but his generation of former CIA turned whistleblower at least revealed information about CIA dirty tricks, unlike the current crop who seem only to focus on neocons and how they distort the fine work that CIA does. <a href="http://www.cia.com.au/vic/cia.html">link</a> Joe or other Australians will hopefully let me know if this website or Jane Lanbrook who hosts the program this appeared on are not reliable. But for now, I think it's an interesting and important read. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 10/8/06 8:43 am

by **Dreams End** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:27 am

Here's another quote that talks specifically about Marshall Green, a particularly notorious CIA coup specialist. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Clyde Cameron: Well, his method of operation was to make close contact with the military of a particular country, those who own and control the media, and to generally infiltrate the sections of governments where policy or decision-making takes place. And if he is unsuccessful in giving the right decisions there, well, the next step would always be to get the army to organise a coup. That's what happened in Indonesia, a phoney uprising was organised by the CIA in order to give justification for the military coup that followed. And the same happened with the assassination of Deben in South Korea. Where a ruler is unable to bring about the kind of decisions that suits the CIA or where a ruler doesn't even try to do so, then, the next step is to organise some pretence for military action. The same sort of thing happened in Chile in 1973. And one of the first people he called on after visiting the Prime Minister and having already put in his credentials to the Governor- General was me. And as he was walking through the door of my office I saluted him in the normal way, `please to meet you your excellency, take a seat,' and before he could take a seat I said `what would you do if our government decided to nationalise the Australian subsidiaries of the various American multinational corporations?' and he'd been caught by surprise, he wasn't accustomed to a minister asking that sort of question whilst he was in the process of taking his seat, and he blurted out: `oh, we'll move in'. I said, `oh, move in? like bringing the marines in?. He said, `oh...' he looked a bit uncomfortable by now, although he's a senior man he didn't expect being caught off guard, he was very uncomfortable and he said, `oh, no, the days of sending the marines has passed but there are plenty of other things we could do'. I said, `for example?'. He said, `well, trade'. And I said, `do you realise that if you stop trading with Australia you would be the loser to the extent of 600 million dollars a year', that was the balance of trade figures at that time. He said, `oh, well, there are other things'. And he didn't elaborate but, of course, there are other things.<hr></blockquote>

by **Dreams End** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:40 am

Good Marchetti quote, basically saying that CIA works usually in cooperation with elements of local intel when plotting coups, etc. And who do THEY represent? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Victor Marchetti: I would say that this would be done, to my experience, particularly in friendly host countries is always done with the knowledge of the host country. I mean, the CIA did not take these actions upon itself. It's done in cooperation with the local intelligence services and they of course provided assistance and protection. The CIA has worked with other intelligence organisations in other friendly countries in England, Norway, Canada, Germany, in a whole variety of countries in a large range of joint projects. The only reason the CIA would get involved in supporting certain political parties or undercutting other parties would be because we had the money and the expertise and so forth to be able to do it and this would be viewed as a cooperative venture because the host country welcomes the US. What you in Australia must understand is that you are more to blame than the CIA is because you want this to happen, you want a certain administration in control and you don't want another administration in control. The first question I tell all foreign journalists when they bring out this point is...I ask them, `look, you find out where the loyalties of your intelligence services lies. Do they lie with your country as a whole, for better or worse, or to the establishment in your country?' and in most instances the answer you find is `to the establishment.' So in essence is like in the old days in Europe where the nobility of various countries had more in common with each other than they did with their own people. This is true of intelligence services. They tend to have more in common with each other and their establishments which they represent than they do with their own people.<hr></blockquote>

Handy primer on CIA

Handy primer on CIA

Re: Handy primer on CIA

Re: Handy primer on CIA

Who is online