The hand that feeds you can punch you too

[usmbguest5318]

Donald Trump's aspersing of the U.S. intelligence community (USIC) has wrought the quiet rancor of the civil servants who collect, assemble, analyze and compose the information that appears in his intelligence briefs. What ever made him think that publicly calling into question the quality, and sincerity, of their efforts and intentions is anybody's guess. What you don't have to guess about is how those people are likely to take his having done so. We all know the consequences of Nixon's chilly relationship with the USIC.

Times have changed and people of all stripes are considerably less obsequious toward presidents and officials than in Nixon's time. It's not these days beyond plausibility or probability that a disgruntled civil service USIC worker (DI, NCS, etc.) act on their discontent. That's not a good thing for a president to inspire, particularly when it is he with whom the person is plucked.

Quite simply, those people are trained at secretly obtaining information that their targets would just as soon others not get. Getting such information on Trump would be child's play for them; it's far easier to get intel from comparatively friendlier sources than from unfriendly ones. The info need not be classified. Trump's a politician; there's lot of low level dirt to be obtained and that can be disseminated without repercussions for the obtainer. Then there's always the "oops" option, which can very deftly be employed to make someone look really foolish.

At the end of the day, it's really ill advised to play games with spooks and geeks in the USIC. Of course, they're not going to effect any physical harm, but political harm is a very different matter. What president doesn't need the USIC on his side? Yet even before he's taken office, Trump is creating animus among the very people on whom he'll have to rely for many of the vital decisions he will make. Just as Trumpkins hold grudges, so do highly skilled civil servants.

 

[Iceweasel]

Where can we find this "quiet rancor" other than a leftist op-ed? If it's his opinion that they will not do their jobs effectively due to politics he destroyed his own argument.

 

[Fenton Lum]

The american public would do well to consider the implications of this thread's title relative to the concentrated corporate state power and wealth which they have sacrificed themselves to.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Where can we find this "quiet rancor" other than a leftist op-ed? If it's his opinion that they will not do their jobs effectively due to politics he destroyed his own argument.

Seems all you ever have in terms of a rebuttal is to label something "leftist". Would you care to comment further? Or that's it as per usual?

 

[Ringel05]

The american public would do well to consider the implications of this thread's title relative to the concentrated corporate state power and wealth which they have sacrificed themselves to.

Soooooooo, still projecting the US as a dystopian construct in order to hawk your fantasy utopian ideology? Cool, everyone should have a hobby.......

 

[Fenton Lum]

The american public would do well to consider the implications of this thread's title relative to the concentrated corporate state power and wealth which they have sacrificed themselves to.

Soooooooo, still projecting the US as a dystopian construct in order to hawk your fantasy utopian ideology? Cool, everyone should have a hobby.......

Look around son, or perhaps you really shouldn't.

 

[Ringel05]

The american public would do well to consider the implications of this thread's title relative to the concentrated corporate state power and wealth which they have sacrificed themselves to.

Soooooooo, still projecting the US as a dystopian construct in order to hawk your fantasy utopian ideology? Cool, everyone should have a hobby.......

Look around son, or perhaps you really shouldn't.

I'm quite aware of what's going on...... I'll try this again, see if it sinks in this time; Which fantasy utopian society are you currently living in?

 

[whitehall]

The FBI couldn't find two Russian born terrorists in Boston before they bombed the Marathon and they dropped the investigation on the terrorist in Fla just before he shot up a nightclub. The FBI director gave a compelling case to indict Mrs. Clinton and declined to recommend indictment. Meanwhile the CIA hasn't been on top of any world event since the agency was used illegally by JFK to raise an army to invade Cuba. Where was the CIA when illegal alien terrorists were attending flight school learning how to steer a plane into a building? You almost gotta laugh that the only time the CIA seemed to react was when socialite Valerie Plame was allegedly "outed" by Fox and then they got it wrong. There are so many traitors and so much negligence among (competing?) "intelligence agencies" that there are no secrets left. Trump is right....drain the swamp.

 

[Fenton Lum]

The american public would do well to consider the implications of this thread's title relative to the concentrated corporate state power and wealth which they have sacrificed themselves to.

Soooooooo, still projecting the US as a dystopian construct in order to hawk your fantasy utopian ideology? Cool, everyone should have a hobby.......

Look around son, or perhaps you really shouldn't.

I'm quite aware of what's going on...... I'll try this again, see if it sinks in this time; Which fantasy utopian society are you currently living in?

I'm trying to understand why you assume you might matter.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Donald Trump's aspersing of the U.S. intelligence community (USIC) has wrought the quiet rancor of the civil servants who collect, assemble, analyze and compose the information that appears in his intelligence briefs. What ever made him think that publicly calling into question the quality, and sincerity, of their efforts and intentions is anybody's guess. What you don't have to guess about is how those people are likely to take his having done so. We all know the consequences of Nixon's chilly relationship with the USIC.

Times have changed and people of all stripes are considerably less obsequious toward presidents and officials than in Nixon's time. It's not these days beyond plausibility or probability that a disgruntled civil service USIC worker (DI, NCS, etc.) act on their discontent. That's not a good thing for a president to inspire, particularly when it is he with whom the person is plucked.

Quite simply, those people are trained at secretly obtaining information that their targets would just as soon others not get. Getting such information on Trump would be child's play for them; it's far easier to get intel from comparatively friendlier sources than from unfriendly ones. The info need not be classified. Trump's a politician; there's lot of low level dirt to be obtained and that can be disseminated without repercussions for the obtainer. Then there's always the "oops" option, which can very deftly be employed to make someone look really foolish.

At the end of the day, it's really ill advised to play games with spooks and geeks in the USIC. Of course, they're not going to effect any physical harm, but political harm is a very different matter. What president doesn't need the USIC on his side? Yet even before he's taken office, Trump is creating animus among the very people on whom he'll have to rely for many of the vital decisions he will make. Just as Trumpkins hold grudges, so do highly skilled civil servants.

The I in CIA Stands for Ego

Credentialism is for cretins. These slavishly educated bureaucrats are narrow-minded conformists. Despite their expensively publicized image of being the smartest guys in the room, they can't connect the dots; they can only collect the dots.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Donald Trump's aspersing of the U.S. intelligence community (USIC) has wrought the quiet rancor of the civil servants who collect, assemble, analyze and compose the information that appears in his intelligence briefs. What ever made him think that publicly calling into question the quality, and sincerity, of their efforts and intentions is anybody's guess. What you don't have to guess about is how those people are likely to take his having done so. We all know the consequences of Nixon's chilly relationship with the USIC.

Times have changed and people of all stripes are considerably less obsequious toward presidents and officials than in Nixon's time. It's not these days beyond plausibility or probability that a disgruntled civil service USIC worker (DI, NCS, etc.) act on their discontent. That's not a good thing for a president to inspire, particularly when it is he with whom the person is plucked.

Quite simply, those people are trained at secretly obtaining information that their targets would just as soon others not get. Getting such information on Trump would be child's play for them; it's far easier to get intel from comparatively friendlier sources than from unfriendly ones. The info need not be classified. Trump's a politician; there's lot of low level dirt to be obtained and that can be disseminated without repercussions for the obtainer. Then there's always the "oops" option, which can very deftly be employed to make someone look really foolish.

At the end of the day, it's really ill advised to play games with spooks and geeks in the USIC. Of course, they're not going to effect any physical harm, but political harm is a very different matter. What president doesn't need the USIC on his side? Yet even before he's taken office, Trump is creating animus among the very people on whom he'll have to rely for many of the vital decisions he will make. Just as Trumpkins hold grudges, so do highly skilled civil servants.

The Church Committee hearings changed all that and the USIC cant sneeze in a dead end alley without wondering if it might cost them funding.

IF it is POTUS vrs USIC, POTUS wins every time hands down.

 

[Ringel05]

The american public would do well to consider the implications of this thread's title relative to the concentrated corporate state power and wealth which they have sacrificed themselves to.

Soooooooo, still projecting the US as a dystopian construct in order to hawk your fantasy utopian ideology? Cool, everyone should have a hobby.......

Look around son, or perhaps you really shouldn't.

I'm quite aware of what's going on...... I'll try this again, see if it sinks in this time; Which fantasy utopian society are you currently living in?

I'm trying to understand why you assume you might matter.

Who's assuming?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Aspersing?

 

[usmbguest5318]

The FBI couldn't find two Russian born terrorists in Boston before they bombed the Marathon and they dropped the investigation on the terrorist in Fla just before he shot up a nightclub. The FBI director gave a compelling case to indict Mrs. Clinton and declined to recommend indictment.

And yet the FBI isn't among the bureaus Trump has stated he intends to "revamp"

Meanwhile the CIA hasn't been on top of any world event since the agency was used illegally by JFK to raise an army to invade Cuba. Where was the CIA when illegal alien terrorists were attending flight school learning how to steer a plane into a building?

June 28, 2001:

CIA Director George J. Tenet has been "nearly frantic" with concern. A written intelligence summary for national security adviser Condoleezza Rice says: "It is highly likely that a significant al Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks." Rice will later claim that everyone was taken by complete surprise by the 9/11 attack. By late summer, one senior political appointee says, Tenet had repeated this threat "so often that people got tired of hearing it." [Washington Post, 5/17/02]
​

July 4-14, 2001:

Bin Laden reportedly receives kidney treatment from Canadian-trained Dr. Callaway at the American Hospital in Dubai. Telephoned several times, the doctor declines to answer questions. During his stay, bin Laden allegedly is visited by one or two CIA officers. [Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, Times of London]
​

July 10, 2001:

A Phoenix FBI agent sends a memorandum warning about Middle Eastern men taking flight lessons. He suspects bin Laden's followers and recommends a national program to check visas of suspicious flight-school students. The memo is sent to two FBI counter-terrorism offices, but no action is taken. [New York Times, 5/21/02] Vice President Cheney says in May 2002 that he opposes releasing this memo to congressional leaders or to the media and public. [CNN, 5/20/02]
​

July 26, 2001:

CBS News reports that Attorney General Ashcroft has stopped flying commercial airlines due to a threat assessment, but "neither the FBI nor the Justice Department ... would identify [to CBS] what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it." [CBS, 7/26/01] "Ashcroft demonstrated an amazing lack of curiosity when asked if he knew anything about the threat. 'Frankly, I don't,' he told reporters." [San Francisco Chronicle, 6/3/02]

It is later reported that he stopped flying in July based on threat assessments made on May 8 and June 19. In May 2002, it's claimed the threat assessment had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, but Ashcroft walked out of his office rather than answer questions about it. [AP, 5/16/02] The San Francisco Chronicle concludes, "The FBI obviously knew something was in the wind ... The FBI did advise Ashcroft to stay off commercial aircraft. The rest of us just had to take our chances." [San Francisco Chronicle, 6/3/02]
​

Aug 6, 2001:

President Bush is warned by US intelligence that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. The White House waits eight months after 9/11 to reveal this fact. [New York Times, 5/16/02] Titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US," the intelligence briefing specifically mentions the World Trade Center. Yet Bush later states the briefing memo "said nothing about an attack on America." [CNN, 4/12/04, Washington Post, 4/12/04, CNN, 4/10/04, Intelligence Briefing, 8/6/01, The President's Daily Brief]

A Congressional report later describes this memo mentioning "that members of al-Qaeda, including some US citizens, had resided in or traveled to the US for years and that the group apparently maintained a support structure here. The report cited uncorroborated information obtained in 1998 that bin Laden wanted to hijack airplanes to gain the release of US-held extremists. It also described FBI judgments about patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, and a number of bin Laden-related investigations underway." [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02]
​

Aug 24, 2001:

Frustrated with lack of response from FBI headquarters about detained suspect Moussaoui, the Minnesota FBI begins working with the CIA. The CIA sends alerts calling him a "suspect 747 airline suicide hijacker." Three days later an FBI Minnesota supervisor says he is trying to make sure that Moussaoui does not "take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center." [Senate Intelligence Committee, 10/17/02] FBI headquarters chastises Minnesota FBI for notifying the CIA. [Time, 5/21/02] FBI Director Mueller will later say "there was nothing the agency could have done to anticipate and prevent the [9/11] attacks." [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02, more]
​

Sept 10, 2001:

Former president Bush is with a brother of Osama bin Laden at a Carlyle business conference. The conference is interrupted the next day by the attacks. [Global Research]
​

Sept 10, 2001:

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announces that by some estimates the Department of Defense "cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." CBS later calculates that 25% of the yearly defense budget is unaccounted for. A defense analyst says, "The books are cooked routinely year after year." [DOD, 9/10/01, CBS, 1/29/02] This announcement was buried by the next day's news of 9/11.
​

The fact of the matter is that unless there's a public need to know, you, I and everyone else will not be informed of what the CIA gets right or "is on top of." What the general public becomes aware of consists almost entirely of the abject blunders. The public needs to think about it a bit more carefully than you've expressed above.

Count the disclosed blunders (here are some CIA predictions, but I'm not suggesting they are all there are). Then count the number of years over which they occurred. Then consider the size of the CIA and how many thousands of employees it has. With those things in mind, do you honestly think that the blunders that have made their way into the public eye are all the CIA worked on over all those years? (David Ignatius - When the CIA Got It Right)

You seem to think they've gotten so much wrong, so to prove your claim, I ask you to show us a list of all the CIA have tried to do and all its predictions and just note which ones are accurate and which aren't. I know you can't do that any more than I can. The point is that when you don't know something, and you cannot back it up with facts, it is irresponsible to make claims about it and expect to be taken as anything but a quack.

You almost gotta laugh that the only time the CIA seemed to react was when socialite Valerie Plame was allegedly "outed" by Fox and then they got it wrong. There are so many traitors and so much negligence among (competing?) "intelligence agencies" that there are no secrets left. Trump is right....drain the swamp.

Who got what wrong?


Traitors are people who commit treason. Treason against the United States is:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.​

You seem to know of treasonous acts, so you should probably notify somebody in a position to do something about it. Or are you comments about there being "so many traitors...among intelligence agencies," with the implication that those traitors have disclosed our nation's secrets, just bombast you can share here because USMB makes it possible for you to do so? Just how confident are you about the presence of traitors in our intelligence community? Do you actually know of the secrets they've disclosed? I know the FBI and CIA are always willing to receive good intel.[/QUOTE]

 

[usmbguest5318]

Donald Trump's aspersing of the U.S. intelligence community (USIC) has wrought the quiet rancor of the civil servants who collect, assemble, analyze and compose the information that appears in his intelligence briefs. What ever made him think that publicly calling into question the quality, and sincerity, of their efforts and intentions is anybody's guess. What you don't have to guess about is how those people are likely to take his having done so. We all know the consequences of Nixon's chilly relationship with the USIC.

Times have changed and people of all stripes are considerably less obsequious toward presidents and officials than in Nixon's time. It's not these days beyond plausibility or probability that a disgruntled civil service USIC worker (DI, NCS, etc.) act on their discontent. That's not a good thing for a president to inspire, particularly when it is he with whom the person is plucked.

Quite simply, those people are trained at secretly obtaining information that their targets would just as soon others not get. Getting such information on Trump would be child's play for them; it's far easier to get intel from comparatively friendlier sources than from unfriendly ones. The info need not be classified. Trump's a politician; there's lot of low level dirt to be obtained and that can be disseminated without repercussions for the obtainer. Then there's always the "oops" option, which can very deftly be employed to make someone look really foolish.

At the end of the day, it's really ill advised to play games with spooks and geeks in the USIC. Of course, they're not going to effect any physical harm, but political harm is a very different matter. What president doesn't need the USIC on his side? Yet even before he's taken office, Trump is creating animus among the very people on whom he'll have to rely for many of the vital decisions he will make. Just as Trumpkins hold grudges, so do highly skilled civil servants.

The Church Committee hearings changed all that and the USIC cant sneeze in a dead end alley without wondering if it might cost them funding.

IF it is POTUS vrs USIC, POTUS wins every time hands down.

If you think the funding for the sort of retaliation I alluded to needs to come from Congress, you're mistaken. There doesn't even need to be funding; there need only be sufficient will on the part of a disgruntled agent, asset or analyst. Their "business" is information. Do you really think they don't come by plenty that can't be clandestinely leaked at little to no cost?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Donald Trump's aspersing of the U.S. intelligence community (USIC) has wrought the quiet rancor of the civil servants who collect, assemble, analyze and compose the information that appears in his intelligence briefs. What ever made him think that publicly calling into question the quality, and sincerity, of their efforts and intentions is anybody's guess. What you don't have to guess about is how those people are likely to take his having done so. We all know the consequences of Nixon's chilly relationship with the USIC.

Times have changed and people of all stripes are considerably less obsequious toward presidents and officials than in Nixon's time. It's not these days beyond plausibility or probability that a disgruntled civil service USIC worker (DI, NCS, etc.) act on their discontent. That's not a good thing for a president to inspire, particularly when it is he with whom the person is plucked.

Quite simply, those people are trained at secretly obtaining information that their targets would just as soon others not get. Getting such information on Trump would be child's play for them; it's far easier to get intel from comparatively friendlier sources than from unfriendly ones. The info need not be classified. Trump's a politician; there's lot of low level dirt to be obtained and that can be disseminated without repercussions for the obtainer. Then there's always the "oops" option, which can very deftly be employed to make someone look really foolish.

At the end of the day, it's really ill advised to play games with spooks and geeks in the USIC. Of course, they're not going to effect any physical harm, but political harm is a very different matter. What president doesn't need the USIC on his side? Yet even before he's taken office, Trump is creating animus among the very people on whom he'll have to rely for many of the vital decisions he will make. Just as Trumpkins hold grudges, so do highly skilled civil servants.

The Church Committee hearings changed all that and the USIC cant sneeze in a dead end alley without wondering if it might cost them funding.

IF it is POTUS vrs USIC, POTUS wins every time hands down.

If you think the funding for the sort of retaliation I alluded to needs to come from Congress, you're mistaken. There doesn't even need to be funding; there need only be sufficient will on the part of a disgruntled agent, asset or analyst. Their "business" is information. Do you really think they don't come by plenty that can't be clandestinely leaked at little to no cost?

The upper level political appointees will be shitting their pants if some loon did some stunt that costs the agency they are in ANY funding.

Get serious, it is in the final analysis about the money.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Donald Trump's aspersing of the U.S. intelligence community (USIC) has wrought the quiet rancor of the civil servants who collect, assemble, analyze and compose the information that appears in his intelligence briefs. What ever made him think that publicly calling into question the quality, and sincerity, of their efforts and intentions is anybody's guess. What you don't have to guess about is how those people are likely to take his having done so. We all know the consequences of Nixon's chilly relationship with the USIC.

Times have changed and people of all stripes are considerably less obsequious toward presidents and officials than in Nixon's time. It's not these days beyond plausibility or probability that a disgruntled civil service USIC worker (DI, NCS, etc.) act on their discontent. That's not a good thing for a president to inspire, particularly when it is he with whom the person is plucked.

Quite simply, those people are trained at secretly obtaining information that their targets would just as soon others not get. Getting such information on Trump would be child's play for them; it's far easier to get intel from comparatively friendlier sources than from unfriendly ones. The info need not be classified. Trump's a politician; there's lot of low level dirt to be obtained and that can be disseminated without repercussions for the obtainer. Then there's always the "oops" option, which can very deftly be employed to make someone look really foolish.

At the end of the day, it's really ill advised to play games with spooks and geeks in the USIC. Of course, they're not going to effect any physical harm, but political harm is a very different matter. What president doesn't need the USIC on his side? Yet even before he's taken office, Trump is creating animus among the very people on whom he'll have to rely for many of the vital decisions he will make. Just as Trumpkins hold grudges, so do highly skilled civil servants.

The Church Committee hearings changed all that and the USIC cant sneeze in a dead end alley without wondering if it might cost them funding.

IF it is POTUS vrs USIC, POTUS wins every time hands down.

If you think the funding for the sort of retaliation I alluded to needs to come from Congress, you're mistaken. There doesn't even need to be funding; there need only be sufficient will on the part of a disgruntled agent, asset or analyst. Their "business" is information. Do you really think they don't come by plenty that can't be clandestinely leaked at little to no cost?

The upper level political appointees will be shitting their pants if some loon did some stunt that costs the agency they are in ANY funding.

Get serious, it is in the final analysis about the money.

What makes you think an agency will lose funding because one of its employees hauls off on their own and leaks information?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The FBI couldn't find two Russian born terrorists in Boston before they bombed the Marathon and they dropped the investigation on the terrorist in Fla just before he shot up a nightclub. The FBI director gave a compelling case to indict Mrs. Clinton and declined to recommend indictment.

And yet the FBI isn't among the bureaus Trump has stated he intends to "revamp"

Meanwhile the CIA hasn't been on top of any world event since the agency was used illegally by JFK to raise an army to invade Cuba. Where was the CIA when illegal alien terrorists were attending flight school learning how to steer a plane into a building?

June 28, 2001:

CIA Director George J. Tenet has been "nearly frantic" with concern. A written intelligence summary for national security adviser Condoleezza Rice says: "It is highly likely that a significant al Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks." Rice will later claim that everyone was taken by complete surprise by the 9/11 attack. By late summer, one senior political appointee says, Tenet had repeated this threat "so often that people got tired of hearing it." [Washington Post, 5/17/02]
​

July 4-14, 2001:

Bin Laden reportedly receives kidney treatment from Canadian-trained Dr. Callaway at the American Hospital in Dubai. Telephoned several times, the doctor declines to answer questions. During his stay, bin Laden allegedly is visited by one or two CIA officers. [Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, Times of London]
​

July 10, 2001:

A Phoenix FBI agent sends a memorandum warning about Middle Eastern men taking flight lessons. He suspects bin Laden's followers and recommends a national program to check visas of suspicious flight-school students. The memo is sent to two FBI counter-terrorism offices, but no action is taken. [New York Times, 5/21/02] Vice President Cheney says in May 2002 that he opposes releasing this memo to congressional leaders or to the media and public. [CNN, 5/20/02]
​

July 26, 2001:

CBS News reports that Attorney General Ashcroft has stopped flying commercial airlines due to a threat assessment, but "neither the FBI nor the Justice Department ... would identify [to CBS] what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it." [CBS, 7/26/01] "Ashcroft demonstrated an amazing lack of curiosity when asked if he knew anything about the threat. 'Frankly, I don't,' he told reporters." [San Francisco Chronicle, 6/3/02]

It is later reported that he stopped flying in July based on threat assessments made on May 8 and June 19. In May 2002, it's claimed the threat assessment had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, but Ashcroft walked out of his office rather than answer questions about it. [AP, 5/16/02] The San Francisco Chronicle concludes, "The FBI obviously knew something was in the wind ... The FBI did advise Ashcroft to stay off commercial aircraft. The rest of us just had to take our chances." [San Francisco Chronicle, 6/3/02]
​

Aug 6, 2001:

President Bush is warned by US intelligence that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. The White House waits eight months after 9/11 to reveal this fact. [New York Times, 5/16/02] Titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US," the intelligence briefing specifically mentions the World Trade Center. Yet Bush later states the briefing memo "said nothing about an attack on America." [CNN, 4/12/04, Washington Post, 4/12/04, CNN, 4/10/04, Intelligence Briefing, 8/6/01, The President's Daily Brief]

A Congressional report later describes this memo mentioning "that members of al-Qaeda, including some US citizens, had resided in or traveled to the US for years and that the group apparently maintained a support structure here. The report cited uncorroborated information obtained in 1998 that bin Laden wanted to hijack airplanes to gain the release of US-held extremists. It also described FBI judgments about patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, and a number of bin Laden-related investigations underway." [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02]
​

Aug 24, 2001:

Frustrated with lack of response from FBI headquarters about detained suspect Moussaoui, the Minnesota FBI begins working with the CIA. The CIA sends alerts calling him a "suspect 747 airline suicide hijacker." Three days later an FBI Minnesota supervisor says he is trying to make sure that Moussaoui does not "take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center." [Senate Intelligence Committee, 10/17/02] FBI headquarters chastises Minnesota FBI for notifying the CIA. [Time, 5/21/02] FBI Director Mueller will later say "there was nothing the agency could have done to anticipate and prevent the [9/11] attacks." [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02, more]
​

Sept 10, 2001:

Former president Bush is with a brother of Osama bin Laden at a Carlyle business conference. The conference is interrupted the next day by the attacks. [Global Research]
​

Sept 10, 2001:

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announces that by some estimates the Department of Defense "cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." CBS later calculates that 25% of the yearly defense budget is unaccounted for. A defense analyst says, "The books are cooked routinely year after year." [DOD, 9/10/01, CBS, 1/29/02] This announcement was buried by the next day's news of 9/11.
​

The fact of the matter is that unless there's a public need to know, you, I and everyone else will not be informed of what the CIA gets right or "is on top of." What the general public becomes aware of consists almost entirely of the abject blunders. The public needs to think about it a bit more carefully than you've expressed above.

Count the disclosed blunders (here are some CIA predictions, but I'm not suggesting they are all there are). Then count the number of years over which they occurred. Then consider the size of the CIA and how many thousands of employees it has. With those things in mind, do you honestly think that the blunders that have made their way into the public eye are all the CIA worked on over all those years? (David Ignatius - When the CIA Got It Right)

You seem to think they've gotten so much wrong, so to prove your claim, I ask you to show us a list of all the CIA have tried to do and all its predictions and just note which ones are accurate and which aren't. I know you can't do that any more than I can. The point is that when you don't know something, and you cannot back it up with facts, it is irresponsible to make claims about it and expect to be taken as anything but a quack.

You almost gotta laugh that the only time the CIA seemed to react was when socialite Valerie Plame was allegedly "outed" by Fox and then they got it wrong. There are so many traitors and so much negligence among (competing?) "intelligence agencies" that there are no secrets left. Trump is right....drain the swamp.

Who got what wrong?


Traitors are people who commit treason. Treason against the United States is:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.​

You seem to know of treasonous acts, so you should probably notify somebody in a position to do something about it. Or are you comments about there being "so many traitors...among intelligence agencies," with the implication that those traitors have disclosed our nation's secrets, just bombast you can share here because USMB makes it possible for you to do so? Just how confident are you about the presence of traitors in our intelligence community? Do you actually know of the secrets they've disclosed? I know the FBI and CIA are always willing to receive good intel.

[/QUOTE]
Those Who Get Paid for Their Opinions Are of the Same Ilk as Those Who Get Paid to Have Sex

The investigative sources are no more competent than the official sources. Neo-Condi Rice said, after the fact that no one had ever heard of hijacking an airline and using it as a bomb. Yet an individualistic check, not relying on where anybody tells us to look, reveals that the Israelis had shot down an off-course Libyan airliner on February 21, 1973, because they had information that Muslim terrorists were going to do just that. The self-hating Jews at the New York Times threw a hissy fit, accusing the Israelis of being trigger-happy cowboys, going overboard on acting tough to avoid the Woody Allen Jewish image.