The CIA 'old guard' goes to war with Bush

Telegraph ^ | 10-10-04 | Phillip Sherwell

[Cacique]

Well, that explains a lot. Doesn't it? Especially about France.

FREEPER (PARodrig) PAUL RODRIGUEZ FOR CONGRESS

[aculeus]

Rats in the house!

[wildbill]

You know what? In several years of posting here on FR, I must've run a hundred searches using the words from various headlines.

I've very rarely had a match--but I've been called for duplicate posting. I don't think the search program here is worth a damn.

[swilhelm73]

A simple solution - make any intelligence leak a felony with a mandatory punishment of life in prison. The job of the CIA is to protect the country, not try to influence the elections.

One does wonder what the media's take on this would be if the CIA tried to sabotage Clinton's re-election. I'm guessing it would be a tad more negative.

[swilhelm73]

Sorry - I just buy that think leftists have ever worked at the CIA. Disgruntled bureaucrats, sure. The occasional Aldrich Ames, sure. But liberals just don't join the CIA, nor are they wanted at Langley.

Keep in mind that it would not take many hardcore leftists to cause a problem.

Suppose for a moment that the breakdown of the CIA is slightly more conservative then the country as a whole say 50% conservative, 25% moderate, 25% liberal.

With the current radicalization of the left, how many of those liberals are within the Moore-ite fever swamps? 1 in 5? That still gives 5% of the organization believing that Bush must be removed by any means necessary...

Remember how the BBC almost brought down Blair with one member of the British intelligence community (even though they exaggerated his importance and put words in his mouth)?

[Prime Choice]

Polygraphs prove nothing. That's why they're inadmisable in court.

Polygraph results are grounds for suspension and/or dismissal in intelligence circles.

Get a Secret or Top Secret clearance and fail a polygraph, then you'll learn how polygraphs "prove nothing" in the real world, kid.

[Commie Basher]

Well, that explains a lot. Doesn't it? Especially about France.

What does it explain? Maybe my post wasn't clear. France and Britain have the same system as the US. Both have professional civil services.

[Commie Basher]

Polygraph results are grounds for suspension and/or dismissal in intelligence circles. Get a Secret or Top Secret clearance and fail a polygraph, then you'll learn how polygraphs "prove nothing" in the real world, kid.

Sorry, all that proves is that "intellence circles" are so paranoid, they won't take any chances.

However, an honest but nervous man will fail a polygraph that a sociopath will ace. So I guess intelligence circles are a haven for cool-headed sociopaths.

[Prime Choice]

Sorry, all that proves is that "intellence circles" are so paranoid, they won't take any chances.

And that was the jist of my original message. What part of it did you not understand?

However, an honest but nervous man will fail a polygraph that a sociopath will ace.

It's true that a sociopath will ace a polygraph, but the claim that a nervous man will fail one is pure Bravo Sierra.

[hosepipe]

[ Relations between the White House and the agency are widely regarded as being at their lowest ebb since the hopelessly botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by CIA-sponsored exiles under President John F Kennedy in 1961.]

The Bay of Pigs was NOT botched.. Kennedy just pulled all support for the troops(he trained and equiped) that he landed there.. on the next day... NO ammo, NO food, No tanks, No air support, NOTHING..They were abandoned to Castro..

The ships just sailed home and stranded them... John Kennedy was a coward just like John Kerry. It was as Khruchev said about him.. he was a weakling.. The missle crisis was no crisis.. Russia could do nothing...

[Commie Basher]

Sorry, all that proves is that "intellence circles" are so paranoid, they won't take any chances.

And that was the jist of my original message. What part of it did you not understand?

My point is that polygraphs don't prove anything, though a paranoid mind may imagine otherwise.

[Prime Choice]

My point is that polygraphs don't prove anything, though a paranoid mind may imagine otherwise.

That was not your original point. You were rambling about how courts of law won't allow them as evidence...which, curiously enough, had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. So, in essence, you were just talking to hear your own head roar.

[Commie Basher]

That was not your original point. You were rambling about how courts of law won't allow them as evidence...

My original point was that polygraphs don't prove anything. They don't. Courts agree with me.

You responded by rambling about intelligence agencies, as though their use of polygraphs scientifically proves that they work.

It's courts that grapple with the rules of evidence, a rational means of seeking truth, not intelligence agencies.

[F16Fighter]

"All the Clinton era puppets just have to go."

Absolutely....

And would anyone with half a brain really believe the Clintonites actually had America's best interests and security at heart??

For eight years Bubba and Hitlery dropped the military/intelligence equivolent of a sack of sand in the gas tank.

[Prime Choice]

It's courts that grapple with the rules of evidence, a rational means of seeking truth, not intelligence agencies.

And it's intelligence agencies that handle politically-motivated leaks in intelligence agencies, not the courts.

Like, DUH? Sheesh...

[Prime Choice]

You responded by rambling about intelligence agencies, as though their use of polygraphs scientifically proves that they work.

Dude, you're tripping. Show me the message where I made any claim that the intelligence community's use of polygraphs "scientifically proved" anything. Go ahead. Put up or shut up, punk.

[prometheus]

Glad to help.