Covert At The CIA

www.aim.org ^ | July 1, 2003 | Cliff Kincaid

[Tailgunner Joe]

There’s increasing speculation that CIA Director George Tenet’s job may be in jeopardy if the U.S. doesn’t find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Perhaps the CIA has been more preoccupied with other matters. The CIA web site has a section on "Diversity in the CIA" that emphasizes the agency’s involvement with ANGLE, which stands for the Agency Network for Gay and Lesbian Employees. This is "an outreach of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans-gendered employees providing internal networking support and education to the overall Agency regarding issues relating to sexual orientation and the workplace."

This year, however, there was no special event at the agency honoring Gay Pride Month. A CIA spokesman told us that the ANGLE group did not organize an event this year because it has been focusing on internal policies at the CIA that affect them. June 12 was celebrated by the group last year, and in 2000 it held an event featuring Congressman Barney Frank, who was reprimanded by the House years ago for his association with a gay prostitute.

Tenet has a statement on the CIA web site that declares, "I regard our diversity as a powerful tool that can help us meet the intelligence challenges of the coming century." Tenet has made advancing diversity an important part of his Strategic Direction planning. He is determined to increase the CIA’s diversity and "to use the many talents of the men and women who are already with us to optimum advantage."

That sounds rather strange in light of the fact that "diversity" is the concept that helped bring on the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times. When the Times put too much emphasis on diversity, its journalistic product suffered. Perhaps the CIA and other government agencies have suffered in their missions by emphasizing diversity over doing the jobs they are assigned to do, such as protecting the American people from terrorism and finding weapons of mass destruction.

Promoting diversity at the CIA has meant giving rights to the "transgendered." On that note, the Cinemax Cable channel celebrated Gay Pride Month by airing "No Dumb Questions," a film about "transgender pride" that features daughters ages 6, 9 and 11 learning why and how their Uncle Bill is becoming Aunt Barbara. Rep. Porter J. Goss, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a CIA operative in the 1960s, has said that he is ambivalent about openly homosexual intelligence officers. Goss said, "I'm not going to make a moral judgment whether it's a good thing or a bad thing."

But the transgender aspect to "gay pride" puts this whole push for diversity at the CIA into an even more ludicrous light. Can anybody imagine a man dressed like a woman making an effective CIA agent? This is all possible today because President Bill Clinton signed an executive order in August 1995 prohibiting the denial of security clearances "solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the employee." Hillary Clinton’s new book is full of references to how wonderful diversity is. The media – and George Tenet -- agree with her.

[Tailgunner Joe]

No, then we will be in league with the narco-terrorists and complicit in their crimes.

Destroy the narco-terrorists the drugs and the terrorism will go away.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Sure, now it's the Christian "Homophobe" who will be blackmailed and turn against the perverse sodomite government that God has condemned. Oh but we can run all those intolerant bigots out of the CIA to make room for more gays, right?

[gcruse]

Are we in league with bootleggers since Prohibition was lifted?

[thinktwice]

Homosexuals are not only sexually challenged, they are also -- unfortunately -- emotionally and socially challenged.

[gcruse]

Are you addled? I don't do addled.

[RJCogburn]

he kept FBI agents in New Orleans investigating whore houses. Then there's the hassling of medical marujuana users in states where it is legal. How did any of that help in the war on terrorism?

Why that is a government secret, silly. They will release the information in fifty years, or so. You must not have faith.

[gcruse]

Look, RJ, seriously. I'll be dead in a lot less than fifty years, so I hope you take real good notes when the time comes.

[Tailgunner Joe]

You're the one who wants to give free reign to narco-terrorists to enslave the minds of our children while entrusting our safety to people less concerned with gathering intelligence than with their right to perform unnatural acts.

You are the one who's addled.

[gcruse]

If you really believe what you said in #22, the post to which I was responding, then you are addled and beyond intellegent discussion.

[Tailgunner Joe]

So we have to be tolerant of homosexuals, but not of Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong?

[gcruse]

As long as the homophobic Christians do not act on or cause the state to act on their phobias, it, like racism, is perfectly fine. Your #22 goes way, way beyond that.

[Tailgunner Joe]

You admitted that gays were targets of blackmail.

By taking sides on this issue the government is threatening to compromise the loyalty of those "homophobes" (moral Christians) who can't comply with sodomy sensitivity training.

[gcruse]

By taking sides on this issue the government is threatening to compromise the loyalty of those "homophobes" (moral Christians) who can't comply with sodomy sensitivity training.

                What does compromising their loyalty mean?  If a CIA homophobe
                  has to work alongside a lesbian, is he going to go over the Osama or something?

[Tailgunner Joe]

Homosexuals have been a security threat in the past. By switching sides and endorsing homosexual behavior, the government is removing the onus from homosexuals and onto Christians.

I think as long as we have a government that endorses anti-Christian behavior and an anti-Christian political agenda, then they should consider Christians as a possible security threat.

[takenoprisoner]

I favor the philosophy of "don't ask don't tell." Private matters are afterall private matters.

Enlist/hire the candidate based on the qualifications sought and not based on any other mandated preference.

At the same time, to promote/advertise for hire people of color(specific) or people of perverted persuasion(specific) is biased and unfair to people of a different color and a different persuasion. Moreover despite recent supreme court assertions otherwise, the SC is currently making decisions based on "the better good of society" to the detriment of Constitutional Law.

Course they claim it's only a temporary remedy/violation for "the better good" of society.

[gcruse]

Homosexuals have been a security threat in the
past. By switching sides and endorsing homosexual behavior,...

                 ...then that threat goes away.

the government is removing the onus from homosexuals and onto Christians.

                         How does that work?  Onus on Christians to do what?
                         Can a person of religion not work for a secular employer?
                         Is the bar to treason so low that you would go over to the terrorists
                         rather than work with a lesbian?  Or even know that fags
                         lived together openly?  I guess what I'm asking is this.
                         "Is a common hatred all that holds Christians loyal to the US?"

                   

[Tailgunner Joe]

You are the one who thinks that condemning perversion is hatred. Those of us who believe in right and wrong know that it is nothing more than Christian love to expose the depravity of willful sin and exhort the sinner to repentance.

Is hatred of Christian values the only thing that hold sodomites loyal to the U.S.?

[gcruse]

Beats me. I don't see any more anti-Americanism in homosexuals than straights. It's the Christians in your scenario whose loyalty to their country could be compromised by the recognizing the lifestyle of others.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Sure, I don't expect you to object to considering intolerant homophobe fundie bigots a security threat. Let's just be sure to coddle the sodomites whose perversion has proven to be a security threat in the past.

This is just like your solution to the drug use epidemic.

"Let's just make it legal and the problem will go away."

[gcruse]

Maybe so. I have this thing for liberty and responsibility.
Thanks for the dialogue, Joe.