Fmr. CIA Analyst Laughs at CNN Host - You're Just Carrying the Water for Mr. Obama

page: 5
96
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by pupilstutor
 


Question: How much time do you (pupilstutor) spend each day, engaged in activities in which you try to get people to think badly of political dissenters who don't "stand with their country.."...?



Sounds like someone trusts their government a little bit too much...




posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Personally i believe that we have intelligence agencies somewhat at war with themselves.
To me that explains it all - I don't think that the CIA is 'bad' at all - in fact, I think they are pretty cool. That said there are the CIA agents that are smart that know what needs to be done and want to do it, and then there is the political TOP of the CIA that wants to run it's own agenda - and it's for hire- and sometimes that means tying the hands of those that would do better by the American people.

It's not just that CNN is propaganda - they all about are. They are so afraid that they will get sued or called on any bad information that they just want to pass on 'official' information. So they become mouthpieces and they get used.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by nenothtu
 


The CIA is not law enforcement. Not when theyre in a different country with their own laws.


I'm sorry, did some one say they were? They're not law enforcement in the US or abroad - not law enforcement any where. They're an intelligence agency. Oh, I see now. Apparently "simile" isn't in your repertoire, so I'll try to make the point a bit more obvious.

I went to Nicaragua once. There was a war going on. I didn't cause it. I went to Afghanistan a couple times. There was a war going on. I didn't cause it. I have an uncle who went to Vietnam once. There was a war going on. He didn't cause it. I went to eastern NC/VA once. A hurricane had blown through. I didn't cause it. I went to north central PA once. There was a strike going on. I didn't cause it. I have a friend here on the fire department. He goes to burning buildings quite often. He doesn't set them on fire. The point is, presence isn't causation, no matter how you try to spin it. There are certain classes of people who go places and do things, and quite often do it because of what is ALREADY going on. Otherwise, they'd go somewhere else.



CIA is hands on and concerned with operations.


CIA is predominantly intel gathering and analysis. There is a certain subgroup who are concerned with operations of a warlike nature. They are not the CIA overall, they are a subgroup of the CIA, and even have their own acronym. The CIA is unbelievably compartmentalized, and it's unfair to apply a blanket statement to an entire group of people.



What those operations are i dont know,


They cover a pretty wide range of activity, within their own sections. Some are paramilitary (those guys are pretty busy right now, as we speak, by order of some of the same folks who not long ago were condemning them for the SAME sorts of activity - under different management, though
) Some are your classic cloak-and-dagger Super Spooks, building intel networks and gathering intelligence. Some are sitting in cramped cubicles analyzing that gathered intelligence.

Some are playing politics, apparently laboring under the illusion that it's in their job description.



but i do not think they are there "helping" either america or foreign interests.


Think as you will. I'm not even trying to change made up minds any more. Their job is not to "help" foreign interests at all, and "promoting" or "helping" US interests is only ancillary to their primary task of intelligence gathering and analysis. Foreign governments have their own intel people to "help" their interests. It's an unfortunate fact of they way they do business that sometimes those interests coincide, OR trades are made in a mutual back washing love fest. I don't like that, but that's the way it is.



They are faciliating an agenda.


Oh yes, without a doubt. Just not the same one they are constantly accused of. It's probably a GOOD thing that they are generally pretty thickly skinned.



Bringing about situations that will lead to other situations, and so on.


In some cases, yes, that's the way it works out. It's not a general rule or Agency policy, though.



Thats what theyre actually doing, whether you want to believe it or not. Politicians, businessman, industrialists do the talking, while men like these do the work.


You have your own opinions of "what they're really doing", and I have mine. Just as Mr. Scheuer's words have fallen on deaf ears, I fully expect mine will as well. They usually do. One thing I'll tell you though, I don't generally deal in "belief".

Your point concerning politicians is taken, and agreed - up to a point. As I've said repeatedly, there's far too much political gamesmanship going on in the upper echelons. They don't take orders from "businessmen", "industrialists", or "magnates" of any sort. Your politicians have the market cornered on that. I'd say that's where you need to direct that particular ire, but do as you will.



This is how it was in the late 1800s, with the British and European intelligence and this is how it is today. Theyre are an obscenely corrupt group of men/woman.


I dont know about that - I wasn't around then or there, and never much cared what European intelligence did (other than Eastern European, but not going back THAT far).

Yes, there are some corrupt people there, as there are in ANY group of people. The group, as a whole, isn't that way, and most actually don't even have the potential or opportunity to GET corrupted. I try to stay away from labeling people as groups - it's lead to some terrible unpleasantness in the past - but again, you're welcome to do as you like, and believe as you will.

Which brings us back to cops. There are a few corrupt cops out there, too. Maybe you should fire the lot of 'em.

After all, they're all in the same group, right along with the corrupt ones.

edit on 2011/4/2 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Pha3drus
 


Notice he called him 'Mr. Obama'?

Subliminal message to the masses regarding eligibility?




In the entire history of my existence, there are two men who have occupied the Oval Office whom I have never referred to by the political title. Mr. Obama is one of them. Potential eligibility is not nor was it the reason for that, although I have lingering doubts which can never be addressed now.

No, the reason is that the title of "President" means a leader, one who presides and leads. Neither of those two were ever caught leading much of anything, much less the US. If I ever catch Mr. Obama doing anything "presidential", then how I address him is subject to change. The other one never did. Neither has demonstrated a potential for being presidential or leadership material to date (regardless of "eligibility issues"), so I refuse to abuse the title in reference to them.

That's just my reasoning. Perhaps Mr. Scheuer has other reasons of his own... or an inside track on intel....



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pr0t0
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Let go of politics. It's ALWAYS been the same dragon, just a different head every 4 years. Sure this Cerberus argues with it's 'opposing' heads but it will never bite one off for fear of the curtain raising during the middle acts allowing us to see the Rothschilds and Rockerfellers of this world wheeling on the props. Regardless of which head holds sway the body is sat firmly and permanently on it's people - the backside of all democratic parliaments spews the same crap from the same a'hole(s) it always has.


You do realize, or course, that at some point I will without doubt steal that analogy, because it presents so much more effective a picture than my own lame 2 sided coin analogy, right?




As for Libya, Gates & Obama, Clinton, Cameron, Sarkozy, Hague et al all said no boots on the ground - so those 8 SAS, 26 CIA and the countless others we haven't been told about had better be wearing plimsolls. We were told Gadhafi was not a target, that we weren't taking sides, that we'd never arm the rebels... all lies.


Yup. Funny how "regime change" is only a dirty phrase if it's the "other guys" doing it, isn't it?



What really irked me this last week was Obama's "I Refuse To Wait For Images Of Slaughter And Mass Graves Before Taking Action" which ostensibly one assumes gives him ultimate power to take preemptive action anywhere against anyone. But what about when he does see slaughter and mass graves? The coward calls a UN meeting where they can all officially scorn the dictators who genuinely are murdering their populace, everybody nod, agrees it's wrong and goes home. Not another word said.


Exactly! Why "wait for images of slaughter" when he could take a short junket to places like Darfour and see it first-hand, in real time? Perhaps Michelle won't allow him to see THOSE images, because it might damage he delicate sensibilities?



From the beginning the reporters in Libya wore no protective gear, none of the rockets shown on news stations had hit anybody, for weeks we've heard every 'apparently', 'non verified', 'cannot be confirmed' and still we're firing tomahawks, killing civilians. What the hell are we doing? Why are Russia and China so quiet? Couldn't be that this is a deal which allows Russia cover for their operations against Chechnyan 'rebels' and benefits Chinas growth in Africa by easing border tensions allowing for them to continue their rail network expansion andmining of precious metals - "hey, you take the metals and sell them back to us on circuit boards, you're good at that, we'll take the oil and sell it to you as a consumable... don't scorn us too badly in public but make people feel like we're on the brink of WW3". Nothing like a bit of staged fearmongering to make the rich richer.


War is also good for China in Sub-Saharan Africa. They have a pretty large factory there that cranks out nothing but 7.62x39 AK cartridges for the African market. Gotta keep that demand up, or prices might fall... Sub Saharan Africa... WHERE did Qadaffi hire his alleged mercenary force from again? It eludes memory at the moment...


edit on 2011/4/2 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal


Where in the HELL is "neocon" stamped on Obama, or Hillary, or Rice? Libya is THEIR war this time.


My, my, a bit touchy, aren't we? Sorry, but I don't see much of a difference between Obama's cast of disreputable characters and the NeoCon garbage they followed into office and are imitating to a tee. If you can see a difference, more power to you.


That's one of my triggers, because so many here can't seem to comprehend the difference between a conservative and a "neocon" (which has been adequately demonstrated to be anything BUT conservative) and so use the terms interchangeably.

No, there is absolutely NO difference between the current administration and the one they replaced (gives new meaning to "continuity of government"), and the "neocon" label implies that there is. That implied difference is the only reason I ever see it used around here. Take it for what it is.




Keep playing your politics.


I'll play whatever I want; thank you for your concern.


By all means do. I thought I'd already made it clear that it's exactly what you ought to do.



Now, what exactly are you playing?


You'd probably have to read some of my posts here and there to figure it out. Everyone like a puzzle.

edit on 2011/4/2 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by pupilstutor
A close look at his words shows a very limited understanding of what is taking place in Islamic societies but also what is taking place in his own country, from which he is standing apart from.


He was a CIA analyst specializing in the Middle East.

I think YOU should give us a fuller understanding of "what is taking place in Islamic societies" than a CIA Middle East Analyst can.

Don't just drop hints and stand back from them, give us the straight dope on what's REALLY going on in the Middle East....



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pupilstutor
He identified himself as a "Paul" guy. Libertarian. He will not get anymore CNN money for his opinions. He won't get much on FOX either. For an analyst, he bottled his opinions on a small time frame. Not what one would call a thinker. Good theater for those who think it was important. A close look at his words shows a very limited understanding of what is taking place in Islamic societies but also what is taking place in his own country, from which he is standing apart from.


............ what???????????? seriously...wake up dude



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Is it oil, or is it an executive privilege that a Muslim president is using to create a power vacuum in several Muslim nations that would eventually enable the Muslim Brotherhood to rise to power?

Even the CIA seems clueless now.

A successful "Manchurian candidate" would be able to pull this off.. But for who and why ultimately?

Maybe we'll only know when it is far too late.

Everything this president has done, and plans to do, should paint a vivid picture as to his ultimate objectives.

Corruption in government and in the private sector has made all of this possible.

Obama will not need to run for re-election in 2012.

What comes next you'll have to see to believe.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Theres no such thing as FORMER cia. just like there is no such thing as an ex marine or ex president.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
So, for the purpose of this thread, we now trust CIA operatives?

It's so hard to keep up. Last week the CIA were liars, today they are heroes. I guess it all depends on if they say something you agree with.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
So, for the purpose of this thread, we now trust CIA operatives?

It's so hard to keep up. Last week the CIA were liars, today they are heroes. I guess it all depends on if they say something you agree with.


It's not about trusting them. We shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush. Not EVERYONE in this organization is a scum. If you follow the conversation, it's pretty clear that Michael is pretty knowledgeable and doing his best in exposing the media's hypocrisy.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Awesome. Michael Sheuer gave CNN unexpected surprise comments. Once in a blue moon, God sent someone to speak and expose the truth.

Those CNN host ladies should resign and spend more time with their husband making babies at home.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by wisdomnotemotion
Awesome. Michael Sheuer gave CNN unexpected surprise comments.


Scheuer didn't say anything unexpected. He may have caught the "info-babes" (woof) off-guard, but those who knew who he was before they watched the interview will not have been surprised by anything that he said. I think that CNN got the interview that they wanted, otherwise why would they interview him of all people?



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soshh

Originally posted by wisdomnotemotion
Awesome. Michael Sheuer gave CNN unexpected surprise comments.


Scheuer didn't say anything unexpected. He may have caught the "info-babes" (woof) off-guard, but those who knew who he was before they watched the interview will not have been surprised by anything that he said. I think that CNN got the interview that they wanted, otherwise why would they interview him of all people?


It's pretty naive of you to think that CNN is in absolute control over what is shown on their channel. Of course, they have their agenda, and you can control what guest you want to have on the show. But, you cannot control what they will say.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pha3drus
It's pretty naive of you to think that CNN is in absolute control over what is shown on their channel.


I didn't say that. If only you were as good at reading as you are at jumping to conclusions.


Of course, they have their agenda, and you can control what guest you want to have on the show. But, you cannot control what they will say.


Controlling who is on the show is good enough, you don't have to directly control what they say because you know in advance what kind of answers they will give to whatever questions you decide to ask them. If you get someone with extremely strong views on a particular subject and then ask them questions about it, those views are very likely to come out aren't they?



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Great thread. I had just posted the same video in another thread not knowing of this one. Sorry to the OP, didn't see this one going on.
Great find. S+F



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Soshh
 


I agree. The control is not as blatant as most people seem to think. They can be subtle with promoting their agenda.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Pha3drus
 


"This is a U.S.-led operation."

Priceless! He told it like it is, and they couldn't stand it! Look how happy they were to run out of time! Wanna buy that man a drink.





top topics
 
96
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum