Author Topic: Intel Matters  (Read 321468 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #600 on: June 06, 2017, 06:51:47 AM »
"The left's long march through America's institutions is bearing fruit."

they need to make an example out of her.

The LEFT MSM will have their parade of defenders coming on making excused for her.  like 1 st amendment etc
I also want to know if there is anyway that the media can be found complicit.  They need to be held accountable.

She should use the Hillary defense.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Dicey Flynn stuff
« Reply #605 on: June 21, 2017, 06:18:43 AM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/us/politics/mike-pompeo-cia.html?emc=edit_na_20170620&nl=breaking-news&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0

I'm unpersuaded, can't get over a skepticism of sources.  So much else of what they've written has turned out to be false or misleading.  What I'm hearing is that the previous administration admits eavesdropping on the incoming administration and is trying to take them down one person at a time.

Flynn took fees he didn't disclose.  Probably a fraction of 'fees' that went to the Clinton machine over the decades.  Flynn lost his job.  Yates was a partisan.  What is the conspiracy?  What is the unnamed blackmail material?  Are these different anonymously sources close to the administrations that were wrong the last ten times?  Of course they discuss lifting sanctions; it's the issue of the day to the Russians and how we save face for letting them occupy sovereign countries without consequence.  Why is this a story in June?  NYT is concerned that a CIA director won't tell the press and the world what he tells the President, as CIA Directors never have.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #606 on: June 21, 2017, 08:41:02 AM »
Taking money from the Turks unannounced while advising President Elect Trump on the Turks is a serious breach of integrity IMHO.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Dicey Flynn stuff, Tom Cotton responds to NYT via twitter
« Reply #607 on: June 22, 2017, 04:48:00 PM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/us/politics/mike-pompeo-cia.html?emc=edit_na_20170620&nl=breaking-news&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0

Tom Cotton also not persuaded by NYT story.  His series of tweets:

1. Yet another @nytimes story that is "almost entirely wrong," to quote the former FBI Director about their past reporting... 1/? https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/877489037254295552

2. Implication is D/CIA Pompeo should've excluded Flynn from PDB because Flynn was "compromised." Let's consider that. 2/?

3. Democratic partisan Sally Yates claimed Flynn was "compromised" because he misstated to VP the nature of talks with Russian ambassador. 3/?

4. But this @nytimes story refutes itself, saying Yates told WH of misstatement on Jan. 26, thus eliminating risk of "compromise"! 4/?

5. Plus, Pompeo confirmed by Senate late on Jan. 23, so on own terms this @nytimes story talking AT MOST about two days! 5/?

6. Putting aside Democrat Yates's breathless, overwrought theories of potential "compromise." 6/?

7. Which probably were already undermined anyway by this @IgnatiusPost from Jan. 12: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-did-obama-dawdle-on-russias-hacking/2017/01/12/75f878a0-d90c-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.94930bcbca6f

8. And, by the way, if Democrat Yates so worried about Flynn, did she ever try to rescind his security clearance? Did John Brennan? 8/?

9. should spend more time on accurate, logical reporting than just regurgitating @RonWyden talking points. 9/?

10. Besides @AllMattNYT & @adamgoldmanNYT need time to explain to FBI investigators their revealing of highly classified info. 10/10

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/06/cotton-does-the-times-in-10-tweets.php

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
More on Flynn
« Reply #608 on: June 22, 2017, 05:33:25 PM »
Taking money from the Turks unannounced while advising President Elect Trump on the Turks is a serious breach of integrity IMHO.

Agree with you on that (after reading up).  But Flynn is gone.  This attack is on Trump.  

PolitiFact has a Flynn timeline:  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/may/23/timeline-michael-flynns-connections-russians-white/

It is very hard to find real coverage on the Flynn story.  A lot was based on a Politico story, but like the rest of this shameful period in 'professional journalism', much is based on unnamed sources, biased sources and innuendo.  Much of the other unnamed source material has proven to be wrong, see Tom Cotton's quote of Comey's testimony on the NYT.

Flynn changed his story after finding out the Obama administration was 'wiretapping' and eavesdropping on the Trump transition team.  There was a slight delay as facts came to light and then he (was forced to) resign.

Discussing sanctions is what a transition team or administration does with Russian ambassadors when sanctions are the policy and the issue between the countries.  Why he denied it, I do not know.  Media appearances I might guess, making Trump look soft on Russia, after Obama was soft on Putin for 8 years - and gave away part of Europe to him.  

The Politico story the rest of the media focused on goes past Flynn to say his Turkish contacts had prior ties to Russia.  So does everyone in that realm.

Obama warned Trump about Flynn.  And Obama warned America about Trump.  Obama made the Iran deal, Paris accord, Iraq surrender, lied about Benghazi etc.  Obama is not a trusted source on (anything) foreign policy.  Yates and Brennan are partisan hacks.  Sorry to say that about folks formerly in high places but it's a pretty obvious fact.  Even the intel sources saying they know what was discussed aren't to be trusted given the politization and weaponization of our intel agencies.  If a truth came through them, HOW WOULD WE KNOW?  

It is when Flynn changed his story that things changed with Pres. Trump.  He erred in trusting a person he trusted.  Upon discovery, Trump took swift and decisive action, in my judgement.

Tom Cotton is saying the delay of including Flynn where he perhaps shouldn't have was two days.  Flynn got briefed on national security matters in that time.  BFD.  HRC who took more money than that and kept her security clearance for an extra 4 years?? Two standards, always.  If Flynn sells that info now while under investigation he will go to prison.

Miami Herald story on this and others keep asking the Treason question.  They conclude, probably not.  

I don't know what to think about Turkey, today, under the elected Islamic dictator(?) but they are a NATO ally.  Treason law has to do with siding with our enemies.

The situation in Syria is complicated.  I wish I could find an article (I think it was VDH) where the irony of who is our ally on one front and allied with our enemy on another front goes on and on in the Middle East.  But the idea that we might want to take into account what Erdogan in Turkey thinks before we side with his enemy isn't far out of line.  I would take the Turkish Kurds over the government of Turkey anyday, but I don't have to deal with the aftermath as they do.  In the end, Trump took the Kurds over the NATO ally too.  Not exactly evidence he is in bed with Putin, Turkey or anyone else for the wrong reasons, as they keep trying to infer.

The media (IMHO) is AGAIN off chasing shiny objects and trying to delegitimize an administration that meets all the highest standards of its predecessor.  
« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 11:01:52 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile






ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
McMaster grants Susan Rice security clearance
« Reply #615 on: August 03, 2017, 05:49:40 PM »
Perhaps this is routine?   not sure why she needs this or is clued in to national security issues at this point. 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/03/h-r-mcmaster-promised-susan-rice-keep-security-clearance-secret-letter/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #616 on: August 03, 2017, 08:01:15 PM »
Common practice for her position, but given her history, this is more than a little generous.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: McMaster grants Susan Rice security clearance
« Reply #617 on: August 04, 2017, 05:41:48 AM »
Perhaps this is routine?   not sure why she needs this or is clued in to national security issues at this point. 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/03/h-r-mcmaster-promised-susan-rice-keep-security-clearance-secret-letter/

It sure smells, doesn't it.  The man has quite an impressive background:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._R._McMaster.

She doesn't have an impressive background at all, known for bad faith, motives and methods.  This either sets up some Sandy Burglar opportunities to steal more documents or it sets up a trap for the old administration perhaps to get out of her own unmasking vulnerability.  She was likely only unmasking wrongly at the instruction of others.  Maybe the IC needed McMaster to grant this access but I can't fathom why.

I can't conceive of how she is still relevant to national security - except to cooperate in an investigation where the target is higher up, which includes only the former President, VP and Sec State that I can think of.  Nor can I think of any conceivable conspiracy that would include Rice and McMaster.

Of course this could be a fake doc, no date or address info at the top, but the disclosure source seems reliable to me.

"National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has concluded that Rice did nothing wrong, according to two U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to me on condition of anonymity."  - Eli Lake (reliable reporter IMHO) 
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-03/you-can-thank-leakers-for-new-russia-sanctions

McMaster will be on Hugh Hewitt tomorrow, 8am (eastern?) MSNBC.

As Drudge would say, developing...

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #618 on: August 04, 2017, 07:18:26 AM »
In my opinion McMaster has some explaining to do.  WE all know Rice would do *anything* along with her mentor Obama who we know is kept in the loop about everything  to bring down Trump and the Republicans

national security my ass!

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Intel Matters, Unmasking Samantha Power
« Reply #619 on: August 14, 2017, 02:40:28 PM »
Why did the Obama administration need to know the identities of the Trump officials?  Why was Samantha Power, wife of Cass Sunstein, Ambassador to the United Nations the point person on that?

[Why was Susan Rice, fully removed from the situation, the point person on Benghazi?]

Oddly both were UN Ambassadors.

Who will write the definitive account of the Obama administration once all the failures and scandals are fully known?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/unmasking-samantha-power-1502492067

"...if high-level members of the Obama Administration were abusing intelligence to spy on Trump people during that same campaign, the American people deserve answers on that..."


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Intel Matters and Conspiracy Theories
« Reply #621 on: November 01, 2017, 09:50:08 AM »
By George Friedman

Fifty-four years after John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the U.S. intelligence community finally released its files on his death. Only it didn’t release all the files – it urgently appealed to the president to hold the release of some of them. The intelligence agencies claimed that the files contained highly sensitive material that would damage national security and that they needed time to review and remove this information. Given that they had known from the beginning that the files would be released someday, and that they had known for years when that day was coming, the request was doubly extraordinary: First, that more than half a century after the assassination there was still material so sensitive it had to be withheld, and second, that they hadn’t yet identified all the critical information.

This is the point at which a reasonable person would assume that there is something amiss. The intelligence community wants the public to believe that the material is highly sensitive and that the complexity of removing said information is beyond the public’s grasp. The public takes this to a logical conclusion: that the intelligence community is hiding something important. Speculation grows about what that something is. And why not? This is called a conspiracy theory, and anyone who subscribes to conspiracy theories is ordinarily described as being “nuts.”

Reasonable Questions

Yet there are reasonable questions to be asked about the Kennedy assassination – the mystery that started it all – but also in other cases. Let me give two examples.
Lee Harvey Oswald defected to the Soviet Union. The Soviets sent him to Minsk to work in a radio factory. While there he met Marina, who lived with her uncle, a colonel in the MVD, the security arm of the Soviet Interior Ministry. He married her after knowing her for six weeks, then applied for an exit visa from the Soviet Union and received it for Marina and himself. This was at a time when exit visas from the Soviet Union were as rare as hen’s teeth. Yet the niece of an MVD colonel was permitted to marry an American defector and leave with him because he was dissatisfied with life in the Soviet Union. Upon returning to the U.S., the Oswalds were apparently not subjected to extensive debriefing.
 
On Oct. 26, the National Archives released a trove of classified files on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images
James Earl Ray, who shot Martin Luther King Jr., was an escaped convict who had spent much of his life in prison. Between his escape and the shooting, he acquired a car and traveled about. After the assassination, he went to Canada, where, in addition to obtaining a U.S. passport, he obtained a Canadian passport. According to many reports, he was found with about $10,000 on him. By all accounts, Ray was not the brightest bulb, and getting forged passports under other names took some savvy. I would also doubt that he had ever in his entire life had $10,000 on him prior to his capture.

If these facts are true – and they seem to be, according to the Warren Commission report and published reports on Ray – then they raise questions that ought to be answered by the intelligence community half a century after the fact. Perhaps the investigations couldn’t find answers, or perhaps the official stories – strange as they seem – are the truth. What is clear is that the intelligence community’s handling of the conspiracy theories – dismissed with contempt but not answered in any way – does not build the community’s credibility.

I find the lone gunman explanation in both cases insufficient, but for the most part the intelligence community does not appear to me to be engaged in a vast conspiracy – they merely look clueless. It is only when I consider that the people in that position are not clueless that I fill the blanks with speculation. Let me emphatically state that I might have no idea what I’m talking about. But given what I think I know, these are not unreasonable things to question.

National Security

Starting with the handling of the Kennedy assassination, the intelligence community has done substantial damage to the stability of the United States. It has systematically created the sense that it knows more than it is telling about the assassination, one of the most traumatic events in American history. There’s a contradiction between telling the public that Oswald was a lone gunman but that sharing all the facts would be dangerous. If he operated alone, then there can’t be anything very important to reveal: He shot the president and that’s that. But then why the secrets?

The sense of mystery that the intelligence community generated about Kennedy’s death spread to other assassinations. If there is a hidden truth to the Kennedy assassination, why not to King’s killing four years later? If we can’t trust what we are told about those deaths, should we trust what we are told about 9/11? And if we are in doubt about those things, then perhaps Donald Trump is a Russian spy or Hillary Clinton was working for the Saudis. Kennedy’s assassination became the foundation of a worldview in which the truth is hidden and “reality” is an illusion. The belief that we are being lied to has gone from the margins of society to the mainstream. And the intelligence community, intentionally or not, has fueled this movement.

It’s the job of the intelligence community to find secrets and to protect how it collected them. But the need to protect secrets and sources can easily appear to be an attempt to keep the truth about how the world works away from the public, or even to lead the public to believe that the real secret is that the intelligence community is using its secrets to accumulate power for itself. This can be dismissed as crazy talk for only so long before the view legitimizes itself. “The CIA does not comment on its operations” frequently translates to “mind your own business” and can lead the public to assume that the business of governance is no longer the province of the people. And that, in the end, will destabilize the country.

The belief that there is a hidden world that governs the one we see, a world that is out of our control, is fatal to democracy. The intelligence community has as its primary duty “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic.” At this point in history, the main threat to the Constitution is the growing conviction that the government can’t be trusted because it conceals the truth: that democracy has been supplanted by secret powers.

The intelligence community is far more concerned with the security of its foreign operations than with the state of American democracy. So it perpetuates the belief that there’s a frightening reality behind Kennedy’s assassination by insisting that revealing all the files would hurt American security. But national security is also about the Constitution, and the republic can’t stand if the public doesn’t trust the government. Right now, protecting clandestine operations overseas may not be as important as healing the breach between the American public and its government. The intelligence community needs to look around its own country and recognize that “trust me” at this moment in history only increases distrust and further rattles the country.

This is obviously not something the intelligence community will solve itself. Elected officials must do that, which means the public must elect trustworthy leaders. But with half the electorate believing that the president is linked to Russia and the other half believing that the “deep state” is trying to destroy him, this is unlikely to happen. The trail of distrust that began in 1963 and mushroomed into a political culture of fear and loathing is at the root of the problem. The intelligence community’s demand that the Kennedy files not be fully released is another small step down a dangerous path.




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
kid with a dangerous attidute
« Reply #624 on: January 21, 2018, 02:36:57 PM »
He is in Britain.

Probably will get a plea deal and a job working for British Intelligence as the part of the deal.

As far as I am concerned he belongs in Gitmo for life:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5385422/brit-teen-hacker-kane-gamble-cia-boss-secret-military-files-rape-threats/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #625 on: January 21, 2018, 05:32:26 PM »
Yes , , , and there is a special degree of chutzpah to hacking the director of the CIA and getting sexually rude with his wife , , ,




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
FISA Wiretaps
« Reply #629 on: February 09, 2018, 03:32:05 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters, While our agencies were chasing Trump
« Reply #630 on: February 15, 2018, 09:09:54 AM »
Nikolas Cruz Was Reported to FBI As Potential School Shooter in September (Screenshot of Threat)
February 15, 2018
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02/nikolas-cruz-reported-fbi-potential-school-shooter-september-screenshot-threat/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Stratfor: The Looming Tow: Retreading the Road to 9/11
« Reply #631 on: February 27, 2018, 10:18:00 AM »
The Looming Tower: Retreading the Road to 9/11
By Jay Ogilvy
Contributor Perspectives offer insight, analysis and commentary from Stratfor’s Board of Contributors and guest contributors who are distinguished leaders in their fields of expertise.


We know both the story's climax and its end. Yet the 9/11 attacks, their lead-up and their aftermath are the subject of the new Hulu original series "The Looming Tower," based on Lawrence Wright's Pulitzer Prize-winning book of the same title. Creating suspense won't be that hard, even without the mystery of what happens next. As Wright told me, there's the viewer's perspective on the events unfolding, and then there's the characters' perspective. While the viewer knows the outcome — the horror of 9/11 and the raid that killed Osama bin Laden nearly 10 years later — the people in the story don't. And it is their stories that the series will follow.

It is Stratfor's general proclivity in making sense of the world to look past individuals to examine the fundamental geopolitical forces they express rather than drive. In this case, however, it's hard not to see the hatred between John O'Neill (played by Jeff Daniels), the FBI's top investigator, and then-CIA Director George Tenet (portrayed by Alec Baldwin) as essential to the institutional rivalry underlying the agencies' catastrophic intelligence failure.

We all know that there was a failure to "connect the dots" and prevent the tragedy of 9/11. The CIA knew that al Qaeda operatives were alive and well in the United States in the months leading up to the attacks. But on repeated occasions, when analysts were explicitly asked and could have shared crucial intelligence with the FBI, they failed to do so. And the reticence went both ways. We all know this.

So how will the writers and director and actors of "The Looming Tower" keep us glued to our screens for the 10-part series that kicks off with a three-episode pilot Feb. 28?

The Rollicking Role of John O'Neill

For sheer dramatic effect, the story has to center around O'Neill, the garrulous, glad-handing, sharply dressed Irishman who headed the FBI's quest to find bin Laden. He had multiple girlfriends, a fast lifestyle and a swaggering band of followers known as the Sons of John to do his bidding. But in his brash and incessant search for the al Qaeda leader, he made enemies.

Herein lies the kind of dramatic destiny that pervades great tragedies. Partly because of his monomaniacal insistence on the danger bin Laden presented and, absurdly, because of a temporarily lost briefcase that contained some classified information, O'Neill had to face the fact that his upward mobility in the FBI had come to an end. On the 20th anniversary of his enrollment in the bureau, the day his pension fully vested and mere weeks before 9/11, he left the agency he loved and took a job heading up security at the World Trade Center in New York. There he was literally crushed by agents of the man who had been his nemesis during his time at the FBI. How's that for tragic irony?

It shouldn't be hard to make a gripping story out of this drama even if we know the outcome. The essence of the story is not about its conclusion — already well told in several books and the hit movie "Zero Dark Thirty." It's surely not just about the horror of 9/11. It's about the lead up: the long years of festering Islamic rage; the rise of al Qaeda; the roles of figures such as current al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abdullah Anas, a former mujahid. It's about tensions among the Arabs and the Afghans; it's about the role of religion, the continuing frictions between Sunnis and Shiites, and the varying hatred of radicals from either sect toward the United States, modernity and the West.

Origins and Roots of Islamic Radicalism

Wright's book delves deeply into these issues. It goes all the way back to the origins, to the life and events that led Sayyid Qutb to write the seminal texts at the root of radical Islam. Even the word "radical" itself derives from "root," or "radix" in Latin; likewise, radical Islam goes to the root of Islamic belief — obedience, a complete and total obedience to the word of the Koran. Once there, if the imam suggests that the sublime ecstasy of martyrdom is attainable by strapping on bombs and marching into a public square to detonate them in hopes of killing the maximum number of infidels, well then a sufficiently radicalized follower is all in. This state of mind, heart and soul is hard for modern secularists to understand, so it needs to be communicated in a way that reaches not only intellectually to the mind, but also dramatically to the heart and soul.

I've written before about the natural affinity between television and terror and the way terrorists can exploit the medium. With this series, Hulu will turn the tables and use the medium to better comprehend the motivations and stories on both sides of the struggle.

Spy vs. Spy

At the heart of one side of that struggle lies the antagonism between the FBI and CIA. The rivalry is in part structural; the FBI's beat, after all, is mainly (though not entirely) inside the United States, while the CIA's is mainly (though not entirely) outside it. The competition between them flourishes not just because their beats occasionally overlap, nor because of a kind of collegiate team spirit, but much more insidiously because of each agency's deep suspicions of the other. Would sharing information sacrifice one agency's security to the other agency's moles? It's not just a matter of limitations — a lack of funding, of linguists and translators, or of adequately trained operatives at the CIA or the FBI. The real problem is a culture of secrecy that makes interagency sharing seem like a scandal rather than a standard procedure, a liability rather than an asset.

Take just one incident out of many detailed in Wright's book:

    "Tom Wilshire, who was the CIA's intelligence representative to the FBI's international terrorism section at FBI headquarters, was studying the relationship between Khaled al-Mihdhar and Khallad, the one-legged mastermind of the Cole bombing. … 'Something bad was definitely up,' Wilshire decided. He asked permission to disclose this vital information to the FBI. The agency never responded."

Though he couldn't share what he knew with the FBI, he wanted to know what the FBI knew. On June 11, 2001 — precisely three months before 9/11 — representatives from both agencies held a multihour meeting in New York. When an FBI agent asked whether other surveillance photographs of two of the attack's plotters were available:

    "(The CIA supervisor) refused to say. (An FBI intelligence analyst) promised that 'in the days and weeks to come' she would try to get permission to pass that information along. The meeting became heated; people began yelling at each other. The FBI agents knew that clues to the crimes they were trying to solve were being dangled in front of their eyes, but they couldn't squeeze any further information from (the CIA supervisor) or the two FBI analysts."

What-Ifs and the Roles of Individuals

What might have happened if the plot had been stopped? What peace might have loomed? What if the United States had never invaded Iraq and put Saddam Hussein in his grave? The thought of a less troubled Middle East, the thought of thousands undead, trillions unspent — it's enough to make you wonder.

And it all goes back to the actions of this one individual, bin Laden, a Saudi multimillionaire who financed the rise of al Qaeda and the assault on the World Trade Center. Wright wonders:

    "One can ask ... whether 9/11 or some similar tragedy might have happened without bin Laden to steer it. The answer is certainly not. Indeed the tectonic plates of history were shifting, promoting a period of conflict between the West and the Arab Muslim world; however, the charisma and the vision of a few individuals shaped the nature of this contest."

The same might be said of a few individuals on the American side of the contest. Tune in and you will likely be swept up and moved, possibly changed, by a drama involving some very colorful individuals.

Jay Ogilvy joined Stratfor's board of contributors in January 2015. In 1979, he left a post as a professor of philosophy at Yale to join SRI, the former Stanford Research Institute, as director of research. Dr. Ogilvy co-founded the Global Business Network of scenario planners in 1987. He is the former dean and chief academic officer of San Francisco’s Presidio Graduate School. Dr. Ogilvy has published nine books, including Many Dimensional Man, Creating Better Futures and Living Without a Goal.
Stratfor

YOU'RE READING
The Looming Tower: Retreading the Road to 9/11



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
CIA vs. Nork smuggling
« Reply #633 on: March 07, 2018, 07:28:01 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Putin's hit in Britain
« Reply #634 on: March 12, 2018, 05:56:06 PM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Putin's hit in Britain
« Reply #635 on: March 14, 2018, 06:28:50 PM »
http://thehill.com/homenews/the-memo/378047-the-memo-british-spy-drama-echoes-through-washington?userid=188403

Surprise! President Trump is silent , , , wuzzup with that?


Probably listening to his advisors for once and keeping his mouth shut about an act of war that per our NATO treaties we would have to get into.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #636 on: March 14, 2018, 06:33:06 PM »
Well, normally he is rather loquacious when something irks him , , ,

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #637 on: March 14, 2018, 07:10:28 PM »
Well, normally he is rather loquacious when something irks him , , ,

Stop listening to your sitzpinkler Lefty soy boys on Facebook. I'm sure they are whipped into a froth because Trump hasn't moved us closer to a nuclear exchange with Russia.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #638 on: March 14, 2018, 10:21:43 PM »
 :lol: :lol: :lol:

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Brennan's career
« Reply #639 on: March 19, 2018, 05:25:31 PM »
Should ever you find yourself discussing Brennan, you want to be armed with this.


http://andmagazine.com/us/1520349089.html

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #640 on: March 19, 2018, 05:43:12 PM »
good post

Brennen is a stooge for the LEFT.  First owes his career to Clinton .  Probably has a stain on his suit .
Then played up to Brock.
and now plays it up for MSNBC and the other LEftist stations


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Tim Kennedy waterboarded in support of Haspel
« Reply #641 on: May 13, 2018, 04:36:48 PM »
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/green-beret-livestreams-himself-being-waterboarded-to-support-gina-haspels-nomination-as-cia-director
Green Beret livestreams himself being waterboarded to support Gina Haspel's nomination as CIA director
by Katelyn Caralle
 | May 13, 2018 03:38 PM
Green Beret and former UFC fighter Tim Kennedy livestreamed a video of himself Saturday voluntarily being waterboarded by his friends to illustrate that the practice could not be compared to real torture tactics.

The more than 40-minute-long video, Kennedy said, was meant to show support for President Trump’s nomination of Gina Haspel for CIA director.

Many Democrats and some Republicans in the Senate oppose Haspel because she oversaw in 2002 a CIA black site that tortured terror suspects. However, Haspel's confirmation seems likely as at least two Democrats who are vulnerable in the 2018 midterms say they'll vote in her favor.  Between sessions of being waterboarded, Kennedy would answer questions posed by those watching the live stream, reiterating that this was an enhanced interrogation method of question and not torture, adding that it was simply an uncomfortable experience.

“The reason we are doing this ... is for us to have a conversation. Right now, an amazing hero has been appointed to be director of the CIA and because of that, some of the things she has done are being attacked,” Kennedy said.

The homemade waterboarding station was set up in a backyard where Kennedy laid on a collapsible plastic table propped up on one side by Yeti coolers.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
WSJ: Vincent: At the CIA immorality is part of the job
« Reply #642 on: May 17, 2018, 10:52:26 AM »


By Fay Vincent
May 16, 2018 7:01 p.m. ET
175 COMMENTS

The confirmation hearings for Gina Haspel to head the Central Intelligence Agency became a theater of the absurd, as senators pressed her for an assurance that she would apply “moral” standards to intelligence-gathering, including interrogation of terrorists.

As I watched, I kept thinking of Sen. Frank Church and the disaster his Senate select committee inflicted upon the CIA in 1975. The committee was troubled by the disclosures of various misguided, even bizarre CIA endeavors during the Cold War, including an attempt to kill Fidel Castro. It ultimately adopted a series of proposals to rein in the agency that led the Carter administration to impose broad changes.

The effort to reform intelligence operations to make them moral was a noble one—and the damage it wrought to national security took decades to undo. The new generation of CIA veterans like Ms. Haspel must wonder if anyone in the current Senate has even heard of the Church Committee.

Senators today seem to assume there is agreement on what constitutes moral conduct in spycraft. But recruiting spies is not the work of moralists. The CIA’s mission involves persuading others to disregard their deepest moral and legal obligations. It is a dirty yet necessary business, not best examined in open hearings.

In 1977 my friend Dick Helms was prosecuted by the Carter Justice Department for perjury after he denied in an open Senate hearing that the CIA had been involved in the 1973 overthrow of the Allende government in Chile. Helms was bound by his oath as a CIA officer never to reveal classified secrets. Yet before the Senate he was under the perjury threat if he fulfilled his obligation to preserve intelligence secrets. What was the moral thing to do in that situation?

Helms lied because he was operating under longstanding directions he and others at the agency had received from senior senators, including Democrat Richard Russell of Georgia, who worried candid answers in open hearings might risk “the lives of our boys.” They instructed Helms to protect intelligence operations in such hearings.

Helms’s defense lawyer. Edward Bennett Williams, warned the Justice Department he would have Helms testify in open court to numerous examples of CIA officials lying to Congress to preserve secret agency activities, with the likely exposure of important top-secret operations. The government relented, and Williams arranged for Helms to plead guilty to a misdemeanor with no penalty. In 1983 President Reagan recognized Helms’s long service with a National Security Medal as an implicit apology. No CIA director has since been charged with a crime.

Intelligence work can involve complex judgments about morality and even legality. The law must remain our bulwark, morality a sweet frosting. To serve as head of the CIA is to be in charge of vital operations that must be subject to the rule of law, not the moral sensitivities of any one person.

Dick Helms died in 2002. His portrait hangs in honor at CIA headquarters. There is no portrait of Frank Church.

Mr. Vincent, a retired lawyer, was commissioner of Major League Baseball, 1989-92.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ: Vincent: At the CIA immorality is part of the job
« Reply #643 on: May 17, 2018, 12:42:31 PM »
My copy of the Constitution must be missing some pages. I can't find the sections that allow the DOJ/FBI or CIA to operate as independent branches of the government, immune to Congressional oversight and control from the executive branch.




By Fay Vincent
May 16, 2018 7:01 p.m. ET
175 COMMENTS

The confirmation hearings for Gina Haspel to head the Central Intelligence Agency became a theater of the absurd, as senators pressed her for an assurance that she would apply “moral” standards to intelligence-gathering, including interrogation of terrorists.

As I watched, I kept thinking of Sen. Frank Church and the disaster his Senate select committee inflicted upon the CIA in 1975. The committee was troubled by the disclosures of various misguided, even bizarre CIA endeavors during the Cold War, including an attempt to kill Fidel Castro. It ultimately adopted a series of proposals to rein in the agency that led the Carter administration to impose broad changes.

The effort to reform intelligence operations to make them moral was a noble one—and the damage it wrought to national security took decades to undo. The new generation of CIA veterans like Ms. Haspel must wonder if anyone in the current Senate has even heard of the Church Committee.

Senators today seem to assume there is agreement on what constitutes moral conduct in spycraft. But recruiting spies is not the work of moralists. The CIA’s mission involves persuading others to disregard their deepest moral and legal obligations. It is a dirty yet necessary business, not best examined in open hearings.

In 1977 my friend Dick Helms was prosecuted by the Carter Justice Department for perjury after he denied in an open Senate hearing that the CIA had been involved in the 1973 overthrow of the Allende government in Chile. Helms was bound by his oath as a CIA officer never to reveal classified secrets. Yet before the Senate he was under the perjury threat if he fulfilled his obligation to preserve intelligence secrets. What was the moral thing to do in that situation?

Helms lied because he was operating under longstanding directions he and others at the agency had received from senior senators, including Democrat Richard Russell of Georgia, who worried candid answers in open hearings might risk “the lives of our boys.” They instructed Helms to protect intelligence operations in such hearings.

Helms’s defense lawyer. Edward Bennett Williams, warned the Justice Department he would have Helms testify in open court to numerous examples of CIA officials lying to Congress to preserve secret agency activities, with the likely exposure of important top-secret operations. The government relented, and Williams arranged for Helms to plead guilty to a misdemeanor with no penalty. In 1983 President Reagan recognized Helms’s long service with a National Security Medal as an implicit apology. No CIA director has since been charged with a crime.

Intelligence work can involve complex judgments about morality and even legality. The law must remain our bulwark, morality a sweet frosting. To serve as head of the CIA is to be in charge of vital operations that must be subject to the rule of law, not the moral sensitivities of any one person.

Dick Helms died in 2002. His portrait hangs in honor at CIA headquarters. There is no portrait of Frank Church.

Mr. Vincent, a retired lawyer, was commissioner of Major League Baseball, 1989-92.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ: Vincent: At the CIA immorality is part of the job
« Reply #644 on: May 17, 2018, 03:18:13 PM »
G M:  My copy of the Constitution must be missing some pages. I can't find the sections that allow the DOJ/FBI or CIA to operate as independent branches of the government, immune to Congressional oversight and control from the executive branch.

One small problem with the leftist "Living Constitution" is that it isn't written down anywhere.  Other than that, it's a really good limit on government - if you don't want the powers of government constrained by a written document that people are sworn in to uphold.





Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile