BS: What the CIA taught me

Subject: BS: What the CIA taught me
From: Donuel
Date: 01 May 04 - 11:41 AM

Having a mentally impaired President who is used to looking for his CIA father to fix things is the best of both words for the CIA.
But unlike the forgetful dementia of Reagan, Georege W Bush has a more volitile condition.

To have a mentally impaired President of the United States that garners the support of a religious movement that believes in Armageddon is the best of both worlds for a Military Industrial Complex.
Limiting his public exposure and adjusting his medication are precautions that will eventually fail.
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushtia.jpg


No matter how many prayers Bush can elicit from the troops, no matter how many drugs Bush takes, he will eventually have a grave and possible public breakdown where no excuse or translation of his meaning will suffice. I only hope his total breakdown occurs after leaving office or responsible physicians intervene as soon as possible but I will not hold my breath. I expect some fundamentalists to attribute Bush's ramblings and speaking in tongues to God and he could even continue on after such an attack.

I would not wish this kind of brain pathology on anyone.
Still I want you to realize that most of the people in this current administration got their experience under a former president that was in the throes of Alzheimer dementia.

Under Reagan, government by CIA double dealing, weapon sales and negotiating with terrorists was standard operation. This scenario has now grown to immense proportions. Instead of just a few Poindexters and Oliver Norths running wild there are now thousands of them.

My brief experience with the CIA taught me several obvious things.
They consider ethics to be for boy scouts and suckers.
They love the hair brained scheme.
They hold that appearence is paramount to truth.
They will run with a credo far beyond is functionality.
They worship secrecy over patriotism and Constitutionality.
They believe long range vision is solely theirs to construct.

Clearly the current political push is to institutionalize the very same CIA way of life in our Judicial and Legislative branches of government. Circumventing politics and the Constitution is old hat to the CIA. Controling every aspect of politics from vote counting to policy is not just a dream anymore. Media control and electronic voting is finally a way of life.

To be fair, PNAC is just a faction of the CIA octopus. To call this entity the Military Industrial Complex or New World Order, Bilderburgs or Shadow Government would be a misnomer. To claim it is primarily fascist is also an oversimplification. As an integrated organization it is subject to chaos as any organization would be. It can hang itself along with vast populations with enough rope.

It's Achilles heel is also its shining glory. They believe that long range vision is their domain. But it is at the expense of short range disaster. Insuring their own survival is classified as preserving the core of mankind. This is a noble vision as long as they are not the cause of genocide. There is work being done today to establish a controlled genocide with selective bio weapons.

Many people recognize the party is over regarding the total exploitation of resources combined with a runaway population.
The transition holds many unknowns that the "octopus" can not anticipate.

My contention with their "vision thing" is that life giving and alternative energy systems are always secondary to death delivery systems.



I am enthusiastic when democratic processes stub the toe of the MIC such as banning the use of a limited number of corrupt electronic voting machines in California or when a whistle blower makes the news for a month or two. I love to see the pendulum swing so far to the right that it must begin to swing the other way. Still I am pessimistic since the main bearing of the pendulum can be moved in any direction by less than one half of one percent of the population of the planet.

We no longer face a standard despotism. We can no longer expect to use methods of a standard revolution.

Something new is needed, and quick. All I can think of is the enlightenment from the inside out of the Military Industrial Complex and a willingness to declassify the truth, the whole truth and even the ugly truth.

Don Hakman
Wash. DC

Subject: RE: BS: What the CIA taught me
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 04 - 12:31 PM

Agreed, Don. Only full disclosure of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth can set this society free. If so, it would not be "business as usual" any longer.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: What the CIA taught me
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 04 - 12:39 PM

Don:

What is a PNAC?


A

Subject: RE: BS: What the CIA taught me
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 04 - 12:45 PM

By the way, your description of the CIA sounds kind of like the Nazi Secret Service...or the KGB.

Subject: RE: BS: What the CIA taught me
From: CarolC
Date: 01 May 04 - 12:49 PM

Project for a New American Century, Amos.

This is what I think. I think 'instant karma' is getting more and more 'instant' all the time. At some point the weight of all of that instant karma is going to knock them flat.

Subject: RE: BS: What the CIA taught me
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 May 04 - 01:40 PM

FYI, whenever you mention The Project for the New American Century in a political discussion, many people, generally conservatives, roll their eyes and make snide remarks about "conspiracy theories." Yes, it is a conspiracy, but there's nothing theoretical about it. It's a Washington think-tank composed of one of the major factions of the political movement known as "neoconservatives." There is a lot of cross-fertilization with the Bush administration. Check the PNAC Statement of Principles, then scroll down and read the names of the signatories. Most interesting.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: What the CIA taught me
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 May 04 - 02:09 PM

It's absurd the way "conspiracy theory" gets used. Conspiracies if some sort - agreements between people to act in consort, and to conceal some aspects of the truth - are universal. In fact they are legally protected - "commercial confidentiality" "official secrets".

Anyone speculating about things like that is necessarily constructing a "conspiracy theory", and we do it as a matter of course. Some theories are right, some are wrong, some are based on the known facts, some are based on ignoring the known facts.

But the idea that, just by calling something a "conspiracy theory", you are somehow proving that it is worthless is a bit ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: What the CIA taught me
From: CarolC
Date: 01 May 04 - 02:15 PM

It's a very popular argumentum ad hominem, McGrath. And it's popular because it seems to be pretty effective.

Subject: RE: BS: What the CIA taught me
From: DougR
Date: 01 May 04 - 03:00 PM

Donuel: grab yourself a copy of Bob Woodruff's latest book, "Plan of Attack" and read it. I think if you do, you might have your eyes opened to a few things. One of them: Bush is not mentally impaired, and he calls the shots, not Cheany, Powell or anyone else. He is a perfect example of the theory that "the buck stops here."

To infer that the president of the United States is mentally impaired is just plain dumb.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: What the CIA taught me
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 04 - 03:07 PM

I am not as certain of that as you are, DougR, as I am sure you know. See the "Dry Drunk" post. I think he has a problem relating to reality. That's the kindest spin I can put on it./


A

Subject: RE: BS: What the CIA taught me
From: CarolC
Date: 01 May 04 - 03:15 PM

I'll have to find a copy of that Woodruff book. The one with the same title by Bob Woodward is a bit lame. Maybe the one by Woodruff is better.

Subject: RE: BS: What the CIA taught me
From: Donuel
Date: 01 May 04 - 06:49 PM

Exactly how ill the President is will remain a subject of speculation until it is undeniable any longer. For me it is dumb to ignore his symptoms any longer. Today speaking about the new Canadian Prime Minister Bush had another verbal meltdown that could not be translated into any coherent meaning.

You may believe in tooth fairies and hazardous pretzels if you wish. Having only comforting thoughts like Barbara Bush may be appealing to some, if they can afford it.

As for conspiracies...
I suppose anything can be called a conspiracy...that is until it happens to you.

Subject: RE: BS: What the CIA taught me
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 May 04 - 06:20 AM

Some here seem to be quite confused as to what a conspiracy theory is. If someone makes a theory about some observations or facts and tries to explain absence of convincing evidence where it could safely be expected to be found by appeal to conspiracy then this is termed a conspiracy theory. To build a conspiracy theory is often used as a way to immunize one's pet theory against refutation.

So for instance if you theorise about faked moon landings, one approach to put such an idea to test is to ask what would be present if the landing would have been a fake. One instance (of many) would be the Russians crying 'foul'. The absence of this evidence, that is the Russians have not cried foul, is taken as a strong argument against the fake idea. If a proponent of the idea then says the Russians have been in the game (bribed, or threatened, together with all the astronauts and many scientists) the theory becomes a conspiracy theory. And to call it by this name is definitely not an argumentum ad hominem.

If I make a theory sbout something that is not known (official secrets, commercial confidentiality) this is not a conspiracy theory. So, if I muse about all the ingredients of classical coke I make a theory about something that is unknown (as far as I know), but not a conspiracy theory. If I would, however, claim that arsenic is in coke, and refute the argument that in this case many deaths would have been reported after drinking a lot of coke by saying that that only shows that both the government and the doctors have been bought by the company, then I would make a conspiracy theory.

Just by the way, the argument that some theory (in politics) is a conspiracy theory is much more often used by the left against ideas of the right than vice versa as a simple Google search shows.

I agree, however, that the use of the term 'conspiracy theory' for the PNAC is completely wrong. Some of the more outlandish musings, however, around the PNAC project, like the one's involving Bilderburg and New World Order (remember the too many posts by Dreaded Guest?) cross the line to conspiracy theories.

Wolfgang