Posted on 03/29/2018 4:17:17 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Speaking to the Washington Examiner, three former career CIA professionals explained why they energetically endorse President Trump's pick to become the next director of the CIA, Gina Haspel.
First up is Mark Kelton, a career CIA operations officer who retired from the agency in 2015. Kelton says he first met Haspel while working on Russia. She came across as a "tremendous professional," Kelton says, "very, very capable and of the highest integrity."
But what truly sets Haspel apart, Kelton says, is that she is "deeply steeped in the craft of intelligence. Very, very adept at working the intelligence bureaucracy." Because of the "multitude of challenges" now facing the nation, Kelton argues that "it’s important that someone with her background — someone with an operational background — is leading the CIA."
When I asked Kelton whether Haspel has the confidence to order officers to take risks, something that some critics of the agency say its directors are sometimes too reluctant to do, he responded with an interesting counterpoint. "The key question about [success in leadership at] CIA is not whether you’re a risk-taker but whether you can manage risk effectively. And that takes strategic and tactical awareness, and Gina has both."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
The only problem I ever have with CIA is methodology. Too many of them like to lie right off the bat with anyone they are talking to, then tell them the truth later, if ever.
The best agents never lie and never have to make up a story afterwards. There are many ways to protect yourself without lying.
However, in many of the third world countries, once you have lied, you are always a liar, no matter what. They might smile in your face while the money is flowing, but you are never their friend and you are never trusted.
Gina Haspel reveled as a very interesting lady. (I think you’d like her.)
Anyone would be an improvement over John Brennan.
The ultimate insider running CIA right now? Not sure about that.
“Gina Haspel reveled as a very interesting lady. (I think you’d like her.)”
Isn’t she not only the first woman, but the first person from the Operations part of the CIA to be nominated?
Thanks,
L
A Kentuckian.
This is an insight? I would say it is fundamental. There are always risks. You cannot avoid risks. It's just a fact: you will be taking risks in any endeavor. So the key skill is always managing the risks effectively. That's why they call it Risk Management and not Risk Avoidance.
Isn’t she not only the first woman, but the first person from the Operations part of the CIA to be nominated?>>>>
As far as we know....remember we are dealing with the CIA.Most have been paper pushers but you never really know.
John Brennan.
Yes, well he was apolitical animal, a linberal fascist who was so unamerican, in fact he was a dimmi, an Islamophile . Horrid man.
“As far as we know..”
That made me chuckle. I think she will do a fine job and make some real changes to the organization. That’s why they want so badly to stop her.
L
I’d go swimming with her.
If you are ever in a compromised situation, being able to reconstruct a lie is far, far more difficult than organically telling the truth.
I’d go swimming with her.>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are a brave man, LOL.
Memory is a very complex process. When a lie is made, the collateral senses are not linked to the lie and cannot be re-created or memorized.
So, when confronting a lie, interrogating on the then present sense impressions will usually reveal the lie.
I”m confused—don’t a lot of CIA agents work under cover—e.g., for a front organization or as a “diplomat” in an embassy somewhere?
I would think lying is integral to such positions.
I was always under the impression that Intelligence Operatives are referred to as “officers”, and that “agents” are their sources. . .
Brennan is more Muslim than human, period.
It all depends on what you mean by lying. A person can say a whole lot without ever revealing anything actually pertinent.
In addition, most people really want to talk about themselves, so diversionary tactics can be done which naturally adjust the conversation away from sensitive details.
There are many such maneuvers, tactics, leading statements, not-the-whole truth conversational strategies which will lead the person to THINK they know something, when in reality they do not.
But you have to practice, be capable of real sincerity, and work at them. It is much easier to wave a stack of money in someones face.
confused—don’t a lot of CIA agents work under cover—e.g., for a front organization or as a “diplomat” in an embassy somewhere?
I would think lying is Integral to such positions.””
It is and by necessity, must be. It is either naive or ignorant to think otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.