CIA to Air Decades of Its Dirty Laundry

Washington Post ^ | June 22, 2007 | Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus

[supremedoctrine]

“after seeing the film “Breach” (know about it didn’t see it)
“I don’t know how accurate those “reports” are.”
——I think I get your point. But I can’t imagine
the Company divulging anything fictitious, made-up by adversaries, or unsubstantiated by “more than one witness”
Unless the CIA has been taken over BY ITS ENEMIES, that is.
It may just be “changing”, once again. I have seen this process before with both the CIA and the FBI. It’s purely political, CYA, putting-an-end-to=the-rumor-mill, “coming clean before someone else forces us to “ -type of stuff.
I accept it as the way they operate. They’ve made some big mistakes, and IF they are “BIG” enough to admit them, that’s how they give themselves credibility and manage to continue on as an Agency of government.

[SamuraiScot]

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said yesterday

Hayden is trying to promote a Democratic victory in 2008 by destroying the war against Islamic terrorism under Bush. Yes, he's that political, and yes, that means I think he's a traitor in need of a trial.

It was Hayden who had his people give Congressman "Nostrils" Waxman anything he wanted at the Valerie Plame Wilson/Mata Hari hearing in March. Hayden said in a letter to Waxman, to be read at the hearing, that Val was "covert." But he didn't specify what he meant by that, and he didn't address whether secret-agent Val was covert under the law—which has a particular definition, and which was supposedly the subject of the hearing. It's like saying she was a "fast typist." Okay, how fast?

And curiously, Hayden said this, but wouldn't appear at the hearing in person to testify under oath. And to be cross-examined and asked if she meant Val was "covert" by the legal definition. He would have had to help the Bush Administration by acknowledging that she wasn't "covert" under relevant law by any stretch (not stationed abroad within the past five years), or to claim she was legally covert, and perjure himself. So he sent a letter.

This is unsurprising, because Hayden was the guy John Negroponte (Intel Czar) appointed as DCI after convincing the Bush Admin. to get rid of Porter Goss.

If you remember, Goss was firing the CIA's Democrat time-servers and desk pilots, replacing them with folks who wanted to fight a war against America's enemies, instead of the ongoing CIA war against the White House.

So the point of this document release is to bring up past CIA dirty tricks at exactly the moment when Democrat-liberal nutjobs are complaining about supposed dirty tricks in today's WOT. In short, because I surmise he's trying to compromise intelligence operations against our enemies, I believe Hayden to be at war with our country. I wish he would prove me wrong, but anyone who plays footsie with Henry "Mr. Partisan" Waxman is not trying to win one for the Gipper.

[3AngelaD]

Oh, please. Shall we all sing Kumbaya for the new State Department, less reckless world view? There, now, feel better? If they had followed the course you advocate, Chile would be a big, fat Cuba in the middle of South America. I think the CIA should keep it secrets to itself, STFU and do something about Hugo Chavez. And I don’t want to know the details.

[TChris]

This is a spectacularly bad idea. Why give America-haters more fodder?

Because the CIA is full of America-haters. There's no other reason for them to do this. It's a blatant blast of political influence.

[3AngelaD]

You got it.

[supremedoctrine]

I think you misunderstood my post.I was not advocating any “course” for anyone, and no, I never would’ve wanted Chile to become like a giant Cuba. (That destiny looks for the time being like it may be reserved as you pointed out for Venezuela and their Lider Maximo Chavez, who will likely be toppled some day.) I said that if the CIA is in the grip of a less “reckless” State Department worldview, THAT would be the thing to worry about, not the “usual enemies” and America haters who are always going to smear and distort the mission and history of Agencies like the CIA/ Get it, I do NOT LIKE the STATE DEPT/ REPEAT, I do NOT like them! I have no prescriptions for internal policies of any agencies, I am just observing this report as posted here and trying to make sense of it with what I know. Everything I put in quotes like the word “reckless” above should be considered,uh, ironic. See my post 21 and also misinterpret that, while you’re at it.

[Calpernia]

Ping to records being declassified. Direct links to files has been added to the thread.

[Calpernia]

Actually, I pinged you to the wrong thread. See link at post 14.

Sorry.

[logician2u]

Plus, many people seem to believe that the CIA is a conservative-leaning organization, when it actually tends to be quite liberal.

Such terms as "conservative" and "liberal" have little meaning when applied to such things as clandestine operations against foreign targets.

What separates the men from the boys in this, I would aver, is whether one applauds or abhors the idea that a branch of our federal government, without Congressional oversight or approval, should have the wherewithall to overthrow governments, conduct "wet operations" against perceived enemies anywhere in the world, and involve itself in political activities prohibited to other agencies.

Protection against government intrusions against our civil liberties are neither conservative nor liberal, but rather constitutional. To date, I don't see many politicians from either of the major parties acknowledging that as being the case.