Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What is the CIA for, anyway?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
RoadRunner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 02:35 PM
Original message
What is the CIA for, anyway?
Gathering intelligence? Making sure U.S. leaders know the full facts about those pesky weapons of mass destruction? Helping our president make solid decisions based on the best information possible? I always thought so, but apparently its none of the above.

I just picked up Chalmers Johnsons The Sorrows of Empire this morning. In the preface to the book, Johnson tells about a brief period during a consulting gig he had with the CIA in which he was given full access to the CIA library during the night. Johnsons sentences that follow this account are stunningly revealing: In the course of this enlightening nocturnal activity, I slowly realized that, at the CIA, the tail wagged the dog, that Americans real business was covert activities, not intelligence collecting and analysis. During World War II, William J. Donovan founded the Office of Strategic Services, the CIAs predecessor. Only later did I learn that an internal CIA history of Donovans imprint on the Agency says he saw intelligence analysis as a convenient cover for subversive operations abroad.

No wonder so many people think the CIA botched the intelligence on Iraq -- the CIA is not concerned with intelligence in the first place and never have been. They didnt care; it wasnt their job as they saw it. As Johnson says, Interestingly enough, in September 2002, as the Bush administration was daily terrifying the world with statements about Saddam Husseins clandestine weapons and the need for a preventive invasion of Iraq, the CIA revealed that there was no national intelligence estimate on Iraq and that it had not thought to prepare one for over two years.

It occurred to me that Johnsons insight also explains why George Tenet fell on the sword for the team. He was not in a position to refute the intelligence W quoted because the CIA didnt have much in the way of its own intelligence on Iraq, nor were they interested in acquiring any. The CIA's "real" job, as they see it, is covert ops; intelligence gathering is just the cover they use to keep it all secret.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. I can tell you what "CIA" stands for:


"Crack the CIA" (with a link to streaming video)
http://www.filmfestivals.com/htm/tv_shorts/crack/index....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wadestock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. This is an obvious and valid point.....
But most people have been dupped into believing that there is some grizzly signficance to the CIA....and therefore we could even BLAME THEM for the war.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Actually CIA involvement in the decision to go to war was a non-issue from my vantage point right from the start.

1. we knew they had no nukes
2. the concept that they could someone quickly develop a nuke capability was pure BS.
3. during the years of inspections...we have hard evidence that more weapons were destroyed than during DESERT STORM!! In particular, SADDAM's capability to DELIVER WMD was taken away.

So why the issue of CIA intelligence?
There was an "unknown" about what he was doing after the inspections were discontinued....but this uncertainty had significance only in the context of "inpections"....in terms of the value of doing them or not.

The fact that they were DISCONTINUED in the first place can not be assumed to be as defacto proof that SADDAM was up to something horrendous.

Has anyone considered the basic point that we had effectively taken away his army and warfighting ability ....so perhaps he thought....he isn't that enough?

Truth is...we knew he had no army, no airforce, and no real fighting capability...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'm sorry, that information is classified. - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 29th 2014, 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC