Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Are Presidents Scared of the CIA?

By Ray McGovern
December 29, 2009

In the past, I have alluded to Panetta and the Seven Dwarfs. The reference is to CIA Director Leon Panetta and seven of his moral-dwarf predecessors — the ones who sent President Barack Obama a letter on Sept. 18 asking him to “reverse Attorney General Holder’s Aug. 24 decision to re-open the criminal investigation of CIA interrogations.”

Read on.
Posted by at

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your article stops a bit short of talking about Dulles' Nazi past and his former treasons, and the possibility that he was still acting as a Nazi agent precipitating a coup in the US in 1963 which may still be with us, as told by the excellent history:

http://enter.net/~torve/trogholm/secret/rightroots/dulles.html

This is an essential part of the story that, if taken as a whole, creates a frighteningly seamless portrayal of our situation today.

Tue Dec 29, 02:53:00 PM 2009
John L.Opperman said...

US Presidents afraid of the CIA - and well they should be. Anyone crossing them somehow gets bumped off, don't they? Experts in assassinating foriegn leaders, they seem not to shy away from taking on our own.
Capitalism, Israel, the CIA...all untouchables. Cross either one at your own risk. Nobodies like myself can rant on as much as I do but anytime serious dissent starts taking hold, watch out !
~John L.

Tue Dec 29, 07:37:00 PM 2009
Uncle Doug said...

Saturday, August 05, 2006
Who Does the CIA Work For?

I feel that I have to ask this question periodically because it really isn't clear what the answer is. Here is an organization that has a secret multi-billion dollar annual budget that seems to be largely unaccountable. No one really knows what they are up to, including the President - who, by his own admission, received faulty intelligence prior to the invasion of Iraq. They are stiffing Congress on requirements to report, they operate on a 'need to know' basis so even people in the agency only know a small part of the picture. The head of the agency is a political appointee that may be as transitory as Porter Goss, the incompetent former Congressman who resigned rather than face the music for his involvement with other corrupt Congressmen involved in Department of Defense bribery and contract scandals.

The CIA, supposidly an intelligence gathering and analysis agency, has been consistently wrong about the big picture for half a century. They overestimated the Soviet threat, underestimated the potential for blowback from Islamic militants, focused on fantom threats from 'Communists' in Central and South America while ignoring very real threats to our national security posed by allied intelligence agencies such as Pakistan's ISI which nutured the Taliban (with CIA complicity).

Rather than focus on intelligence gathering and analysis, the CIA has put its major efforts into covert action. Consider, in a 'Democracy' we have an agency of the government engaged in actions that are illegal, unethical, unknown to the public at large and possibly to their elected representatives (including the President). The decision to engage in these actions is based on what? Who sets the policy that guides the secrect actions that result in murder, kidnapping, torture, disruption of economies, elections, and governments? All activities we know the CIA has engaged in over its 50 year history.

Who does the CIA work for? Not me. You? Why do we put up with this? Someone (or something) more powerful than the Congress, the President, or the Courts, must be getting its money's worth. So, who is really in charge here?

This is a question so fundamental and frightening you will NEVER hear it asked in the main stream media.

Wed Dec 30, 01:38:00 AM 2009
Anonymous said...

The CIA works for Wall St.

Wed Dec 30, 11:30:00 AM 2009
Anonymous said...

Finally getting to the bottom of the poppy bush!

Wed Dec 30, 10:25:00 PM 2009
Unknown said...

Ray,

A far more persuasive book on the Kennedy Assasination is Michael Collins Piper's Final Judgement.

But, as former Congressman Paul Findley once wrote in the Washington Report, "In Kennedy Assassination, Anyone But Mossad is Fair Game for U.S. Media."

Thu Dec 31, 04:24:00 AM 2009
Paul Rigby said...

New York World-Telegram & Sun, 11 December 1963, p.49

Light On a Shadow

By Richard Starnes

Part 1 of 2

A small, but possibly significant, insight into ourselves as others see us is to be obtained in reading an account of Fidel Castro's reaction to the news that the American President had been murdered.

He was, of course, deeply concerned with the nature of his new adversary - Lyndon B. Johnson. Writing in the current New Republic, Jean Daniel, who was with Castro when he heard of Mr. Kennedy's assassination, reports that the Cuban dictator asked:

"Who is Lyndon Johnson? What is his reputation? What were his relations with Kennedy? With Khrushchev? What was his position at the time of the attempted invasion of Cuba?"

The: "What authority does he exercise over the CIA?"

Shielded as they are from the realities of life, Americans are easy to placate and reassure on the score of such cloudy organisms as the Central Intelligence Agency. Not so, however, are sophisticated foreigners, particularly foreigners against whom the CIA is waging war. Castro falls within this category.

The unlikely figure of Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia is another alien princeling whose thoughts are much with the shadowy spooks of the CIA. So much so, indeed, that he turned off the U.S. foreign aid spigot that had poured $355 million into his country, chucked out the U.S. aid mission and U.S. military advisers, and may have condemned his country to the gravitational lure of Communist China - all because he believed the CIA was assisting rebels seeking to overthrow him.

It is possible to reject the maunderings of such as Sihanouk and Castro. But it is not so easy to turn aside episodes such as a conversation with an American official of high rank (and immense personal prestige) who was at the time stationed in the Far East. We had been talking about the CIA, when he said:

"I have Q security clearance, which is the highest anyone can have, and I thought I pretty much knew what was going on. But I have been appalled by what I've seen here. I seriously question whether President Kennedy himself has any effective control over this monstrous bureaucracy."

Castro's question, then, is perhaps not so foolish as it might first appear to be.

End of part 1 of 2

Fri Jan 01, 05:34:00 PM 2010
Paul Rigby said...

New York World-Telegram & Sun, 11 December 1963, p.49

Light On a Shadow

By Richard Starnes

Part 2 of 2

President Johnson may be forgiven if his special commission to examine into the murder of John F. Kennedy seems on sober second thoughts to be a curiously ill-assorted group. He had many problems nagging at him and consuming his time; he unquestionably sought the advice of the Chief Justice, among others, and it is clear now that some of the advice he obtained was poorly considered.

If he had any idea of the tremendous CIA psychosis that is abroad in the world today, he most certainly would not have named Allen W. Dulles to the extraordinary commission. Dulles headed the CIA for eight years, a tenure which spanned such dismal episodes as the U-2 incident and the Bay of Pigs disaster, and he now seems bent on spending his declining years as apologist without portfolio for the huge, bumbling espionage apparatus.

What the meaning of Dulles' appointment is, no one outside the White House knows. But whatever the final judgement of the commission is, it will be looked upon as a product, at least in part, of Dulles' thought processes, conditioned reflexes and rigidly-fixed notions of what is the public's business and what isn't.

In the eyes of foreigners, indeed, Dulles' role in the verdict of the commission will loom larger than life size. He is the only member of the commission (with the exception of Justice Warren) who is widely known abroad. He is known, moreover, as the dean of American spies. His appointment to the commission was not an act designed to reassure those organs of world opinion that are terribly concerned and frightened over what the true significance of the Kennedy assassination may be.

Fri Jan 01, 05:35:00 PM 2010
Anonymous said...

Presidents are more afraid of Israel, AIPAC, and the Mossad
assassination squad. They seem to
influence the CIA, and more recently the DOD.

Of course we all know congress has
been Israeli occupied ever since
JFK assassination.

Go to: highfive4u.com (read)

Mon Jan 04, 02:41:00 PM 2010
Anonymous said...

GO TO: highfive4u.com (read)

Mon Jan 04, 03:13:00 PM 2010

Post a Comment