Posted on 03/10/2005 4:04:55 PM PST by Alexander Nevsky
Those who get their news from Big Media probably have no idea why President Bush initiated a major shakeup in the State Department and CIA. Here's a little background.
Two years ago, a long-simmering bureaucratic feud escalated into open warfare between the Defense Department, which is loyal to Bush, and powerful factions within the CIA and State Department whose loyalties lie elsewhere. Some of these disloyal elements may be under the influence of George Soros' Shadow Party, according to an article in the GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily of June 30, 2003. DFAD editor Gregory R. Copley writes:
"Senior bureaucrats in the US Department of State and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have begun bringing their "war" with the Department of Defense into the open, strenuously advising foreign leaders to avoid meetings with key US Defense officials. … Many State and CIA officials retain their loyalty to the former US Administration of Democratic Pres. William Clinton and some still owed their positions to the even earlier Administration of (Democrat) Pres. Jimmy Carter. As a result, these officials have been attempting at all levels to block what they perceive to be incentives from the Pentagon or the White House of Pres. George W. Bush. …
"One African official commented on June 27, 2003, to GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily: `We don't know what is going on in Washington any more. Who do we believe? The US Ambassador? The State Department officials in Washington? The CIA? The Pentagon?' He added: `Some of the State Department officials we speak to seem to have more against President Bush than they do against Osama bin Laden.' …
"Several leaders in the Balkans and Africa have told GIS in June 2003 that they now felt that if they showed any support for the US Bush Administration they would, in effect, be `punished' by the US missions with which they had to deal in their home countries. One Balkan official said: `It's as though they [the US embassy officials] are waiting for the Clinton Administration to come back. And these [embassy] people seem to be very friendly with the people from the [leftist US-based, Hungarian-born businessman] George Soros NGOs. So when we see George Soros attacking Pres. Bush, it becomes very confusing. Is Washington aware of what is going on, here on the ground?'
"Washington sources also told GIS that the State Dept., and Secretary of State [Colin] Powell, were determined to thwart any movement of US forces worldwide, or to revisit and correct the history `written during the Clinton Administration.' One source said that any attempt to demonstrate that the Clinton Administration had manipulated intelligence in the Balkans, for example, in order to attack Yugoslavia would open some US officials up to legal attacks. In this regard, the US broadcasting network Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) also perpetuated what officials in the Balkans called `the Clinton/Soros line,' in attempting to legitimize the actions of the former Clinton Administration."
The "Clinton/Soros line" – what a provocative turn of phrase. We at Moonbat Central extend our best wishes to Ambassador John D. Negroponte in his new role as National Director of Intelligence (NDI), as well as to CIA Director Porter J. Goss and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. It sounds as if the three of you face a much tougher job than most Americans realize. Oh, and… do watch your backs. We need you.
"Some of the State Department officials we speak to seem to have more against President Bush than they do against Osama bin Laden.' …"
Isn't THAT the truth?!
Thanks for posting this. That's why a shake up was long overdue and I am glad it's happening.
Ping.
I've seen you post quite a few things about the shake-up at the CIA and State Dept.
I don't know a lot about Richard Poe except that I read his book "Hillary's Secret War" for which Jim Robinsons wrote the foreward.
....and there's a lot of gutting left to be done.
Bookmarking
bump--I thought I had caught all of today's Horowitz!
ping
Bump To The Top
The link to Gregory R. Copley's remarks are from a post you made personally with no link.
Do you have a link to Gregory R. Copley's remarks?
Ping right back to me.
I have a personal interest in taking down Soros.
But this poster is offline and is sourcing himself from an original post here at FR that was never sourced.
Please see the link for: Gregory R. Copley, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1309815/posts?page=35
And look at the source, not there.
Dear Calpernia:
You have made a misleading, groundless and frivolous accusation against me to the moderator. Please be good enough to retract it at once.
Anyone who goes to the page you cite above will find this explanation, posted by me, as to the source of the article in question - an extremely reputable online database which can be accessed by anyone at any public library, but which cannot be accessed from a hyperlink at FreeRepublic. It is a subscriber-only service.
Both posts of which you complain explain that the original article was published in GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs Weekly. However, if you proceed to their Web site, you will find no link to the article in question, but only a solicitation to subscribe to the publication.
In short, I have provided you with every link that can possibly be provided in reference to this article.
Calpernia, I find it troubling that both times I posted this extremely important information to FreeRepublic, the discussion was quickly killed by people casting doubts on the article's veracity. This article is the only one I have so far encountered which lays out plainly and authoritatively the destructive nature of Soros' meddling in State Department and CIA affairs. Are you seriously suggesting that this topic must remain off limits for Freeper discussion until such time as the good folks at GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs Weekly decide to change their business model and begin posting their articles online?
The first time I posted on this subject, a Freeper named Lancer effectively killed the discussion by questioning the article's veracity. This was disappointing, but I wrote it off as a random spasm of overzealousness on Lancer's part. Now the same thing has happened a second time, and I am no longer willing to just shrug it off.
Three months have passed since I posted not one but two simple suggestions as to how any curious Freeper could authenticate this article (1. Retrieve it from the Lexis database at your public library, 2) Freepmail Darko, who has also posted articles from the same publication, and ask him to retrieve the article for you).
Has anyone bothered taking either of these two steps? Have you? And, if not, why not?
Calpernia, I am not well-versed in every rule and regulation governing Freepdom, but your implication that every post here must be accompanied by a link to the original source strikes me as unreasonable and counterproductive. If enforced, such a requirement would deprive Freepers of one of the most important resources this Web site provides – access to texts which have not been published online.
Inasmuch as you have seen fit to report me to the moderator, I am left with no choice but to insist that you respond to me at once, on this thread, either justifying your accusation or publicly retracting it.
FRegards
My post is not misleading, groundless or a frivolous accusation.
If you can't cite the article with a link, then scan it in or something. I'm in the Defense and Foreign Affairs files at an online library with the publication information you cited and still can't find the article. We do not know you to trust you as a source.
And if you are going to attack me for pointing out there is no source, well, that leaves you with less credibility.
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.