CIA's Haq cover-up is part of a pattern

CHICAGO SUN-TIMES ^ | November 1, 2001 | ROBERT NOVAK

[horsewhispersc]

Yes, disinformation and put it to a persons train of thought, I understand, however, "Facts" don't lie when you have it on paper or now discs right from the horses mouth!

PS: not screaming here for it isn't my nature, just love debating this stuff! Keep Safe

[justshutupandtakeit]

Don't try to run with the Big Dogs too soon newby it can destroy your reputation before it is even existent.

[horsewhispersc]

The only difference between you and me is I laugh alot! Lighten up. lol.....if we were sittin across a table instead of a keyboard could ya grin and forgive me. ; )

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

Bump for tomorrow AM read.

[185JHP]

I don't know about that - a guy who once worked with Ollie said "the problem with him is, he'll bring you twelve plans - six of them will be brilliant and six will be loony - but unless you know as much about the areas as him, you won't be able to tell the difference!

[hchutch]

True. But the thing is, we have to take risks. I'm not saying he'd be perfect, but Ollie would change the atmosphere at CIA. We're at war, and this calls for a CIA that is a little less restrained and arguably acting a little roguish in terms of dealing with terrorist scumbags.

[MarkWar]

>Congragulations on joining Free Republic last week. The problem with conspiracy theories is you only have to make one decision --that there is a conspiracy. Then you fit anything and everything into your theory. Anyone who disagrees with your conspiracy is then suspect. Finally, no one can really prove you wrong because it is logically impossible to disprove a negative.

First of all, I didn't join last week. I'm hardly new here.

Secondly, your dismissal of "conspiracy theories" is interesting. And, if you're interested in "important psychological functions," I'd say your post speaks volumes.

Thirdly, for what it's worth, to your eyes, people who make up conspiracy theories are, kind of, conspirators. But since you don't believe conspiracy theories can be real, then there can't be any such things as conspirators. Then there can't be any conspiracy theories. This is what's going on inside your brain! You're denying that something exists, but your denial is predicated on the belief that such a thing exists to prove itself wrong...

Did you watch a lot of Star Trek episodes when you were growing up? Did you take them a little TOO seriously?

lol.

Mark W.

[185JHP]

I see your point - I don't have a problem with a warrior ethos at the CIA, I just don't want them starting wars or overthrowing legally elected governments. I also don't have a problem with buying HUMINT from some of the "mugs, pugs, thugs" who have it - we just have to resist the temptation to hire them to run ops. FReegards

[hchutch]

Well, let's just say I want CIA to help protect American interests. I do not doubt that a lot of wat we wll have to do will be stuff that is not discussed in pleasant company. Furthermore, I think we may also have to ditch all the Church Committee "reforms" that were in place.

It's an ugly world, and it took cutting a deal with Gravano to get Gotti.

[185JHP]

I agree - Church did a lot of damage, and some of it was based on ideological bile. There are people who don't want the CIA to succeed in doing the things it outta be doing - the "hate what's good about America" left. OTOH, I don't want an arrogant bunch of thugs hiding behind the flag either. The CIA has to be taught to heel and wait for commands - they shouldn't defy Congress or the WH. Re Gotti - a lot of LEOs have gotten lazy and too comfortable letting criminal scum do work they could/should do themselves - problem is getting "outside audits" that aren't biased, pro or con. FReegards

[justshutupandtakeit]

In order to read posts like this you have to be ready to become almost hysterical.

[justshutupandtakeit]

That description of events makes it very clear that there was no official sponsorship, coordination or even communication between this loose cannon and the CIA. This is one blunder which began and ended with the recently deceased. Too bad he couldn't have had some patience for his goal could have been easily attained.

WRT the press speculation about mission goals and actions: it is also clear that the administration isn't telling the press anything so it then begins wild specualations which get picked up and accepted as truth.

There will be no Taliban component in existence in a new afgan government. YOu can bet on it, I don't care what CNN or Reuters says.

[justshutupandtakeit]

This was obviously a private initiative in which McFarlane was called for assistence. He then called the CIA which understandably was not interested in getting involved in a goofy affair particularly since there was little or nothing they could do. They are not in charge of this operation.

Can't you read what the quotation says? It is clear that CIA was contacted after events had become critical and gotten out of hand.

There will be no Taliban elements in a new government. It has not been announced.

Can't you find some other straw to grasp at to justify your lack of faith in our leadership? This one is finished.