Question about the true powers of our POTUS

[sadoldgirl]

and I don't even mean our present one.

Considering the power of the MIC, NSA, CIA, and even the FBI
do you really believe that our presidents still have the power
to control even one of those agencies?

Possibly the FBI, although I doubt it. All of these agencies
seem to control "any possible problems" via internal
investigations, i.e. they actually are able to protect themselves
to the fullest without any serious public disclosure.

I don't believe that Hoover was the only one to use his power
during that rather more simple time (regarding tech advances).

I just wonder how many people feel the same kind of worry
as I do. BTW the Congressional oversight did not seem to
work either, considering that we were only allowed to get a
few pages of the CIA report concerning torture.

[RKP5637]

1. My thought on this is presidents come and go, congress comes and goes, but these agencies

have a lot of staying power, they don't come and go, so, IMO, they often have considerable power and IMO sometimes unknown to congress or the president, "exactly" what is going on.

[leveymg]

2. Here's another cheery thought - few politicians get anywhere near positions of power

unless they are already compromised or reliably under the control of those who really control government agencies. I suspect the same is true just about everywhere.

[RKP5637]

12. So true! Many politicians are tools and/or a facade to make the masses feel good. n/t

[sadoldgirl]

3. Yes,and we have seen that this

POTUS has not fired anyone, including Klapper, who lied to
/congress under oath.

I don't believe that Obama trusts him, rather that he had a hold
over him, which would never be disclosed.

[MrScorpio]

4. I spent over seven years working at the Pentagon.

I was there during the span of three separate administrations. The only constant in Washington DC is the federal bureaucracy. Which is nothing more than a collection of smaller ones.

Its first objective of any bureaucracy is to both perpetuate and expand itself and the only way that one can fight any bureaucracy is with an even bigger one.

Presidents know that they only have a short time in office. However, once starting out, most of them think that they can fight the existing bureaucracies in DC. It's nothing more than foolishness. Even the smallest of these bureaucracies are more powerful and persistent than they look.

Presidents are more like custodians when it comes to Washington bureaucracies. They're there to clear up the messes, nothing more. Any effort to oppose them usually makes these bureaucracies more formidable than they already are, because once they are under attack, they have a way of drawing invested parties to their defense. Most of them are obscure and small, doing their business without a lot of attention and fanfare, and they'd rather stay that way.

Oversite is the biggest joke in Washington, because its the interests which the bureaucracies govern who actually control the committees, not the other way around. Control of Congress is done through an arcane network of campaign contributions and investment within key districts. Basically, if you're in Congress, you're bought and paid for and the bureaucracies are the conduit for the entire arrangement.

America, my friend, is not a democracy, it's an oligarchy.

[sadoldgirl]

5. Thank you for your insight

I don't know, but somehow I wished that most people/voters
would realize this.
The real question is then can it be changed , even in a small
way, by investigation groups unrelated to DC?

[MrScorpio]

7. I suggest that more people actually take the time and effort to see DC at work

People look at the political circus and think that that's all there is. Underneath the circus of changing faces and loud voices is the real Washington DC.

It's the faceless bureaucracy, going about its business, shifting funding to people who know how to profit from it all. It's set up to render the least benefit for all as possible. Basically, every public assistance program is woefully underfunded. Helping people is the last thing that Washington wants to do.

Intelligence, military and law enforcement bureaucracies are designed to be self-perpetuating. Targets are shifted because there's always supposed and enemy to attack. If you don't have one to justify your budget, you need to find one. If you exist and you can't find a reason to get your budget expanded, you're not doing your job.

This is where the real "culture of dependency" lies, in the massive infrastructure of weaponry and intrusiveness.

[sadoldgirl]

8. Okay, that is Orwell, and I believe it

to be true. The problem that raises then:

No matter how much you hope for it any kind of
revolution by the populous will be useless.

The real power lies in especially those 4 departments, possibly
even other ones.

FDR had his people taking over several departments.
Forgetting that he himself was not against interfering
in the war, how could he achieve the changes in other
departments?

In other words, what you are saying is, no matter if
a peace favoring and a supporter of at least the
4th amendment would be elected, he/she would be
unable to keep any promises made on the campaign.

[MrScorpio]

10. People forget that the permanent military/intelligence war state was built in 1947

Later, the permanent drug and terrorism war states were added to them. These things were built to last, rather than the old process of retiring the massive spending apparatus of the old War Department between wars.

The new thinking posited that threats and targets are both persistent and ubiquitous. Rights slowly regarded as obstacles to security and the power of state, rather than treasures to be protected.

You're not going to see anyone get elected to office who has the intention and ability to change any of this. The system is set up to co-opt anyone who gets involved in it. Sure, if there were some peaceful revolution where folks try to resist, that's where agencies like the FBI and local and state police come in to destroy those movements. COINTELPRO by another name.

[CanSocDem]

13. It makes me wonder, then....

...why Democrats are so quick to put their best people up for POTUS. Surely they are beginning to realize that despite the best intentions of a liberal campaign, the POTUS is virtually powerless.




.

[MrScorpio]

14. Despite the limits of the office, being President carries with it tremendous responsibility

So, if you want a person in that office, you'd want your best and brightest, rather than some dimwit like Bush.

However, no matter how well intentioned a person you send to the Oval Office, because of the way that the system is set up, that person will be forced to commit "necessary" evils.

No one ever leaves it without some blood on their hands.

[TwilightGardener]

6. The Deep State will always win.

[sadoldgirl]

9. Okay then, if that is the state of

affairs in our country, I should stop thinking about
possible changes and hopes. Instead I should follow
Voltaire's advice:
Go home, and attend to your garden.

[CK_John]

11. Each of those agencies report to the executive branch, so it up to the POTUS to

manage them or sit back and be managed.

It is totally up to the person in the office. They have to be a decision maker, a tough ass boss, and anything but a wimp.