bushco vs. cia: some background

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 05:20 (twenty-two years ago)

jfk conspiracy theories are such ass but I've found the jfk-watergate 'cowboys vs. yankees' theories more interesting lately in all the bushco vs. cia hoohaw

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 05:22 (twenty-two years ago)

how fucking odd those bush family gettogethers must be though

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 05:23 (twenty-two years ago)

is it wrong to hope the cia pull some monkeywrench bizness with 2004? even if it's something as meanial as some leaks?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 05:24 (twenty-two years ago)

The thing is, cheney et al. are right that the best guarantor of U.S. security is democratization of undemocratic state. It's just that all their ideas about how you go about "democratizing" are totally fucked in the head. (Well, that and the fact that when it comes down to it, they'd rather have control than democracy -- and not just in Iraq.)

But it's hard to generate much sympathy for the CIA, even if Cheney/Wolfowitz are even worse.

― spittle (spittle), Sunday, 23 November 2003 05:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Not wrong at all, Mr. Blount. In fact, I patiently wait on it. I don't have any 'sympathy' as broadly expressed for the CIA or any government institution, really, but I do have a fascination with idiots in charge of things. It's not a fascination that makes me happy much when thinking about it, mind you.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 23 November 2003 05:37 (twenty-two years ago)

This whole thing is so bizarre. It's actually kind of heartening. The Monster on the Right doesn't have it's shit together nearly as much as I was beginning to suspect!

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Sunday, 23 November 2003 05:38 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean, if the Bush administration doesn't have the fucking CIA, who do they have!? Will the dirty work be done by private armies from now on?

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Sunday, 23 November 2003 05:39 (twenty-two years ago)

The Monster on the Right doesn't have it's shit together nearly as much as I was beginning to suspect!

As mark s notes, the assumption that it does is as fallacious as assuming al-Qaeda is a rigorously centralized and pinpoint-perfect organization.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 23 November 2003 05:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Thank God

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Sunday, 23 November 2003 05:48 (twenty-two years ago)

This whole thing is so bizarre. It's actually kind of heartening. The Monster on the Right doesn't have it's shit together nearly as much as I was beginning to suspect!

http://www.rockonthenet.com/artists-m/pix/maselp_01.jpg
Mo money, mo problems--

― Hunter (Hunter), Sunday, 23 November 2003 07:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Will the dirty work be done by private armies from now on?
Well, for one thing there is still the regular army and special forces thereof. But as far as the type of "dirty work" regularly ascribed (truthfully or not) to the CIA in its glory days, well, google Dyncorp and make up your own mind. It's much easier to farm out work that you don't want accountable to Congress to a private corporation.

― rgeary (rgeary), Sunday, 23 November 2003 07:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Blount, did you catch the article a few weeks back that strongly hinted that the Niger yellowcake thing may have been some CIA folks fucking with Cheney/Rumsfeld in retribution for their strongarming analysts?

― rgeary (rgeary), Sunday, 23 November 2003 07:44 (twenty-two years ago)

haha - "bitch set me up"!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 07:45 (twenty-two years ago)

...the article a few weeks back that strongly hinted that the Niger yellowcake thing may have been some CIA folks fucking with Cheney/Rumsfeld....

"This one?"

― Hunter (Hunter), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Hersh specifically said that the disgruntled-agent prank theory may or may not be true but the fact that it was believed at the CIA, that people around the water-cooler found themselves WANTING to believe it, says a lot about the CIA's relationship to the White House and the Pentagon's Special Plans group. This is diverting, and like blount says the rift could have repercussions in the campaign, but Hersh's reporting cleverly avoids the real question, the one he couldn't answer: where the fuck did that document come from?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Sunday, 23 November 2003 15:21 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.