It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


CIA/Bush animosity????

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 07:18 PM
I read on John Kerry's website that Kerry plans to make the CIA director into the director of all national intelligence:
(look down under priority #1 in "improve intelligence capabilities")


CIA has already gained "oversight" of intel-gathering responsibilities of the FBI in the wake of 9-11. Why is this step needed?

Intel has always had two heads in America: Foreign (CIA) and domestic (FBI). I am concerned that combining them would lesson the checks and balances, since CIA is executive and FBI is judicial . . . .

I have suspected for some time that CIA/state Dept. and Bush have had a falling out.

1. Ongoing rumors of Powell leaving.

2. Blaming innaccuracies in Bush's intel before the UN on CIA. That just isn't done.

3. The whole Abu Ghraib episode. If you read the American troops' testimony, they were taking orders from people (not officers) "in the chain of command." Read CIA. The soldiers originally blamed civilian translators from this company, some of whose stock is even owned by the CIA. Hmmm. Imagine the govt. owning a publicly traded entity. IF it were true, it would be illegal, wouldn't it? Anyway, these are the folks who supposed talked the soldiers into abusing prisoners. Notice how the media never mentioned or blamed any "civilian translation & intel gathering." In the whole episode. I cannot find where a civlian has even been charged!!!!

4. A report of Saddam attempting to buy radioactive supplies in Africa, orignates from CIA, then to MI5 then back to CIA then to Bush, then turns out to be bogus. Made him look like the idiot there.

5. Head of CIA stepping down less than 6 mo. before election. Must be some serious problems for him to resign in the middle of a war, too.


Is there a split between CIA and Bush?

Is Kerry supporting a part of the CIA that wants to redesign the org's role in govt???

What do you think?

[edit on 9-7-2004 by dr_strangecraft]

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 07:25 PM
Don't forget Bush's dad used to be the head of the CIA. I wonder how he feels about his son blaming his old organization?

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 09:11 PM
Yes, do not forget George Sr. was DCI and later Commander in Chief.

This is a unique historical time, even just considering the influence of the Bush family alone.

History repeats it's self, and people will never learn.

The majority of them anyways.

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 09:20 PM
Yes there is a split.

Dont forget this little gem the administration has pulled against the CIA:

The other articles referred to in this one are also good for giving us insight into what may be playing out within the backrooms of power.

The CIA gaining oversight (or any other kind of site thanks to HHS and Patriot acts) to operate within the US is a move to consolidate their power.

posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 12:27 AM
Thanks, Gools for the link and its dependent references.

There is definitely some correlation there. I personally am wondering about the direction of the falsehoods. The article portrays it as all coming from the Bush whitehouse. I personally have been thinking about it going the other way, i.e. the CIA leading the whitehouse into a situation where Bush would be totally dependent upon CIA for cover.

Tennet was a Clinton-era appointee, right? There was a time, when every president cleaned house at CIA at the start of his term. That's what I gather happened to Bush 41. Why didn't Bush 43 do the same to CIA when he got there? Why did he wait this long?

I wonder if anyone feels like CIA is stronger or weaker now than 4 years ago?

posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 10:52 AM

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

I personally have been thinking about it going the other way, ...

Good point I hadn't thought about it like that. Methinks the CIA are experts at complicated tactical scenarios

If Tenet was a Clinton appointee and the CIA was out to get Bush would he not have stayed on?

Does W (read his puppetmasters) have a chance to gain control of the situation with Tenet's resignation? Why is he dragging his feet appointing a replacement? Seems the perfect opportunity to me for him to get his man in there.

posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 03:07 PM
I also wonder how "do-able" the job of Director of CIA really is. It is such a massive organization, and sometimes it seems like its roles in several fields have been compromised by outside influences. There are instances when it seems like the CIA Director has not known about important operations.

BCCI/Contra was exposed in a very uneven way, as if half of the agency was behind the program, and other parts opposed. Like the Latin Americas office saw the program as opposing communism, while the Middle East office was saw it as useless.

I wonder whether there were personel changes, officers 'emigrating' from the South East Asia department into the Latin America dept. after Viet Nam. Liddy, perhaps. CIA use of contras looks a lot like our intervention in SE Asia.

I personally feel like our stance Re China has been compromised for about 10 years now. I believe that officers of the Chinese govt financed key democratic races. I also think the spy plane downed over china at the beginning of bush's presidency was a very 'neat' capture. The pilots thought it was a routine mission, and the chinese seemed to know all about the flight plan. If you remember, many of the people on the plane were 'civilian' and extremely young (very early twenties).

Our treatment of North Korea has been curious since the start of 2004 as well, issuing very friendly communiques and basically offering to go back to the Clinton-era agreements, then a week later holding training exercises in the region . . . Just who is in charge of that particular piece of policy? Bush? Powell? China?

Was Tennet the one who drunkenly blabbed about US Iran intel to Chalabi? That IS the snafu that happened most recently before his resignation. The word was that only a "handful" of officers even new about the operative evidence.

top topics


log in