Obama administration dismantling CIA; Clinton Years Take 2

Predicament? What predicament? You've been trying to convince us that there's nothing consequential to worry about.

 

No, I haven't. I stated very clearly that regarding the release of the torture memos that there is nothing to worry about. That it is a non-issue with inconsequential impact regarding the recruitment of terroists, jihadists, etc. We are far from being problem-free in this country.

Previous CIA heads have failed to develop quality intelligence, solid assets, etc. in the Middle East which is why we're working with such a limited view of the region. They have failed to do what is necessary, given poor or faulty intelligence that our leaders have made decisions with, etc. For all the resources that we have to use to develop this kind of intelligence, we fail to do so for political reasons mostly at the expense of what is best for our country.

For this we reward them...

 

Oh. I see. It's a Bush thing. :dis:

Where you are wrong here is that it's administrations prior to Bush who rendered the CIA and human intelligence gathering impotent. After the 9/11 attacks, Bush, with bipartisan support rebuilt our "spy network" to the point that it was the terrorists who were impotent, as least so far as attacking targets in America. Obama, et. al., in their eagerness to show the world that we are no longer protectionist azzh0les, are destroying 8 years of work, brick by brick. The release of these photos is another brick.

 

What...like keep us safe from another attack? I'd say they did their job extremely well.

 

Do you argue that the absence of an attack is evidence that they have been doing their job well?

Surely you're not that naive...

No, it's not a Bush thing. Tenet's medal of freedom just happens to be the most comical illustration I could paint. Clinton installed Tenet (Who disagreed with Bush on everything Iraq) anyway, so you can just stop your weak attempt at spin right there. If you have to pick out someone, Stansfield Turner under Jimmy Carter is probably the guy to want to blame although it's pretty silly to blame just one man or administration. Still, Turner is the guy who started the mass gutting of the clandestine human intelligence division of the CIA because of that administration's apparent dislike of the unsavory characters that one must get into bed with to maintain a working intelligence agency. The Bush Administration began to invest more in human intelligence, but its far below what is required.

For example Tim Weiner's book, Legacy of Ashes charges that the CIA has never been the intelligence agency that America needs and deserves, but during the Cold War they at least stood toe-to-toe with the Soviets equally inefficient intelligence community. Outside of supporting the Baath Party in Iraq the first go around and the Afghans against the Russians, they few success were they can be praised. They fail to communicate with other agencies at all, allowing known and wanted terrorists to enter the country and lose them enabling the terrorist attacks in New York. They succumb to public and political pressure far to easily. The CIA and the Culture of Failure is another interesting read.

The history of the CIA is littered with colossal failures that no one talks about or they conveniently forget lest we be deemed unpatriotic...

 

Surely you're kidding. Right?

Now I'm confused. You seem to be agreeing with the premise that the CIA has been neutered, yet you defend Obama's consistent efforts at hastening its demise.

 

No attack = Damn good job in the national defense category...especially with half the world gunning for us.

 

You're only confused because you're not listening...

and don't call me Shirley.

 

Like how you have failed to make a valid point yet. You only mention the republican side of this because..well, I don't know why you did.

It didn't? You know for a fact that those pictures were not used to further recruit extremists? Oh, I get it. The NYT has not broken a story about an attack stemming from the use of those photos. Oh well, I guess it has had no effect then.

You are right, it is silly. Except I didn't say that. Obama decided to release them, against the advise of his senior intelligence staff. Exactly two people debated this for him. Rahm Emanuel was one of them. I am not impressed with his advice process, and even less impressed with his decision. And for the record, Obama didn't release them because he felt there was no danger, but because he felt it was more important to be transparent. At least about the former admin. At least partially.

Again, he is a one term senator with no intelligence or military service and apparently ignored the advice of his defense secretary, and from the CIA. But you have arbitrarily dismissed their views because they deal with intelligence. That makes sense.

So our current situation(what is that anyway?), is the responsibility of the former heads of the CIA? What about us not having any successful attacks on US soil since 9-11? Do they get credit for that or did the jihadists take the last 7 years off?

Unless I completely miss the point of the CIA, I don't think you are supposed to be able to examine their "body of work". Usually it's just the screw ups that you hear about, despite the publication of several books on those subjects. I don't remember many successful CIA ops in the paper. Maybe that's because it's suppose to be a secret?

Yeah, they are clear. Just incorrect.