posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 01:40 AM
I have speculated since this president took office that both CIA and the State Department are actively working against the Administration.
- Consider the incredible size of these two bureaucracies. Many of the management type have been in their posts more than 6 years. Meaning that
they originally served another president, with a much different set of agendas.
- Colin Powell was clearly against the goals of the white house in responding to terrorism. He said at one point that he wanted "another year or
more" for sanctions to take effect. On the one hand, he presented the evidence to the UN of Saddam's attempts to by WMD. Yet on the other, part of
the reason he was dismissed is that he made no efforts to court other nations for the 'coalition of the willing.' Eastern Europe came on board
because of Cheney's visits, not Powells.
- The evidence for Saddam's alleged weapons programs came almost exclusively from other nations. The info that later turned out to be false was
handed to the CIA by the French probably USA's most serious rival as a superpower. Russia also vouched for the evidence in front of the UN.
Once the evidence began to be questioned, the CIA has offerred no further documentation. Instead, they said they never "really" believed it
- The whole Plame affair. It now looks like Plame's husband never had a security clearance or background check. Yet this is the man who was sent
to investigate French reports of Saddam trying to purchase yellow cake. And then, he wrote an article about it in the Washington Post. And the CIA
never had a problem with it. Yet it's reasonable to assume, if Plame was and active agent, that the CIA would have tried to stop her spouse
from writing newspaper articles about spying.
- I have wondered whether plame ever had a security clearance, or was in any sense an agent, other than by the fact that she was paid by the CIA.
- The most embarrassing chapter in the whole Iraq war has, without a doubt been Abu Ghraib. The soldiers who were charged with torture testified that
they were taking orders from civilian translators. If you have ever worked overseas, especially around the military, you know that the only
civilians present in a situation like that are INTEL. And civilians would be CIA right? I doubt it was teachers from a Berlitz Language Course.
While the President and Military was seriously embarrased by Abu Ghraib, no investigations have ever been launched into the civilian translators, or
what they expected to gain other than incriminating photos. Many of the tortured barely saw combat. None were officers, that I can discover.
- originally, it seemed that CIA was running the INTEL in Iraq, while Army and Marines ran their own in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has been judged by
many observers to be a success, while Iraq is generally seen as a failure.
- all the secret documents leaked by congressional members of the defense committee seem to have been cia docs, and not specifically from the
- Bush's attempts to fold all the intel into one agency was first suggested by democratic congressmen; then, when it turned out that bush didn't
want the CIA at the top of the food chain, the democrats all spoke out against it.
- On the most recent trip through africa, Rice's staff complained that at several points they seemed to have inadequate security, or to be out of
contact with links in the state department. I am still trying to find that article on the internet, but cannot find the original story.
Anyway, what about this hypothesis? Does it seem unwarranted? Could it be refined in some way to fit the facts better?