2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Wanted to Abolish the CIA, which helps keep us safe? No how, no way
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-cia-219451One big difference between then and now: Forty years ago, Sanders didnt just complain about CIA interventions abroad; he called for abolishing the spy agency altogether.
The CIA is a dangerous institution that has got to go, Sanders told an audience in Vermont in October 1974.
not fit to lead and protect this great country
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)Most of the issues we're facing today are blowback from messed up CIA operations.
Kept us safe?
Gee, that sounds like a Republican meme about Dubyah; He kept us safe.
Except for that twin towers major catastrophe....
amborin
(16,631 posts)wreaking havoc everywhere
Broward
(1,976 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Folks like that used to be called "Republicans".
Broward
(1,976 posts)JudyM
(29,251 posts)most, if not all, the neo-liberal wing of the party.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)The OP's supporting your candidate keep getting funnier and funnier.
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)IMHO the CIA has done far more harm than any good ever.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)for all of Kissinger's faults, Kissinger is not a COMMUNIST like Cornel West and Noam Trotsky
so if I had to chose, I'd choose the former, not the latter.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Kissinger apologists, red baiting, what website is this again?
demwing
(16,916 posts)Wake up, people, McCarthyism is dead.
PghTiny
(276 posts)The overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran in 1953, the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973, the toppling of Gough Whitlam in Australia in 1975, and support for plenty of other right-wing corporate friendly dictators throughout the post-WW2 period. Seems the CIA is a play thing for 1%ers with more money than sense.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The CIA keeps us safe? Not fit to lead and protect this great country?
That's exactly what the right wing nut jobs said about Obama.
This is Democratic Underground, websites who welcome that kind of rhetoric are that way ----->
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Wilms
(26,795 posts)Meanwhile, 70% of Americans aren't happy with them. Why is that?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)No the Clinton campaign is just demonstrating how low they will stoop.
You'd expect this from Republicans.
Oh silly me.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Are you saying he never said that?
Bernie has to be able to stand up to vetting and a lot of it will be unfair.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Yes the GOp may trot ioyut things like that.
But for democrats to criticize it implicitly condones the factors that led Bernie -- and many others -- to be so critical of the CIA back then-- overthrowing governments and imposing and supporting brutal fascist regimes on countries
treestar
(82,383 posts)to say that we probably need the CIA - there are things that it is supposed to do and they may do those things OK or even well.
Abolishing it would mean its functions have to go somewhere. There's little doubt we need those functions.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The 70's were a different time and -- especially under Nixon, the CIA was widely discredited by heinous things they were doing, and the dirtier partrs of their history.
For liberal left , what Bernie was saying was not far of what many were saying.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . than it has EVER kept us safe from! Get.A.Clue!
IDemo
(16,926 posts)Forty years ago, there was overwhelming reason to want to abolish the CIA.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016144537
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)At first I saw this: I'm with Bernie (TM), so my knee jerk reaction was WTF?
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)He was young and like the rest of us in the sixties pretty much hated CIA. BTW, kept us real safe on 911 huh?
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)The CIA has done more to put us in danger than any other entity worldwide.
Keep us safe? Pah. What a load of hooey.
Kennedy wanted to break up the CIA too, look what happened to him. Protect us? Hahaha!
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)If you flip over the rock of American foreign policy of the past century, this is what crawls out invasions bombings overthrowing governments occupations suppressing movements for social change assassinating political leaders perverting elections manipulating labor unions manufacturing news death squads torture biological warfare depleted uranium drug trafficking mercenaries
Its not a pretty picture. Its enough to give imperialism a bad name.
Read the full details in: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II.
Far and away the best book on the topic. Noam Chomsky
I enjoyed it immensely. Gore Vidal
I bought several more copies to circulate to friends with the hope of shedding new light and understanding on their political outlooks. Oliver Stone
A very valuable book. The research and organization are extremely impressive. A. J. Langguth, author, former New York Times Bureau Chief
A very useful piece of work, daunting in scope, important. Thomas Powers, author, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist
Each chapter I read made me more and more angry. Dr. Helen Caldicott, international leader of the anti-nuclear and environmental movements
http://williamblum.org/books/killing-hope/
randome
(34,845 posts)But probably complete abolishment is too simplistic.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)baran
(92 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)Change has come
(2,372 posts)in 1974? LOL
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)PonyUp
(1,680 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)one who established it. That's how fast it went rogue. One of the ten best Presidents in US history by the standards of honest historians.
Read up, k?
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)a murder incorporated on a global scale, and also the greatest danger to the security of the American people. No other organization has been as instrumental in creating the "enemies" with which "we" then go to war.
It is hilarious that you think this true and honest statement is a minus for Sanders. The sad thing is that this is something he is highly unlikely to live up to if he is elected. If he tries, of course, he endangers his own life.
MrWendel
(1,881 posts)what's the alternative to the CIA? Do we structurally change it or just start tearing down institutions? FBI? Military? Just shrug and say "Shit happens"
Did Bernie have an alternative?
CdnExtraNational
(105 posts)MrWendel
(1,881 posts)so how is abolishing it going to accomplish that?
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)The fucking CIA has done monumental damage to the United States reputation in the world. Bay of Pigs, assassinations of other country's leaders.
You have to some special kind of deluded to think the CIA is a good thing. George fucking Bush ran the CIA. No wonder you support Clinton.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)The CIA he caused the US more harm than al Qaeda could ever dream of. They have killed so many innocent civilians and done so much that is illegal and against the countries own interests.
They should be defunded and their agents and leadership should be indicted and tried where it is the right thing to do..
F@&k the CIA.
villager
(26,001 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)It needs to be drastically reined in. Unfortunately it's just completely won a huge turf war among it, NSA, and DIA (Snowden was the first salvo), and will probably be stronger going forward than it's been since the 60s.
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)John Stockwell, former CIA Station Chief in Angola in 1976, working for then Director of the CIA, George Bush. He spent 13 years in the agency. He gives a short history of CIA covert operations. He is a very compelling speaker and the highest level CIA officer to testify to the Congress about his actions. He estimates that over 6 million people have died in CIA covert actions, and this was in the late 1980's.
John Stockwell is the highest-ranking CIA official ever to leave the agency and go public. He ran a CIA intelligence-gathering post in Vietnam, was the task-force commander of the CIA's secret war in Angola in 1975 and 1976, and was awarded the Medal of Merit before he resigned. Stockwell's book In Search of Enemies, published by W.W. Norton 1978, is an international best-seller.
"I did 13 years in the CIA altogether. I sat on a subcommittee of the NSC, so I was like a chief of staff, with the GS-18s (like 3-star generals) Henry Kissinger, Bill Colby (the CIA director), the GS-18s and the CIA, making the important decisions and my job was to put it all together and make it happen and run it, an interesting place from which to watch a covert action being done...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)They didn't keep us so safe when they flooded the inner cities with crack. Or gave us false info leading up to the Iraq invasion.
Oh, and it isn't 1974.
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)coups abroad? Yes, I can totally see how that keeps us safe. O wait, you mean "in check" rather than "safe".
Are you in the 1 %, by any chance?
treestar
(82,383 posts)it is made up entirely of devils who only want to topple good foreign government to replace them with bad ones. And spy on Americans (though to what effect, as we don't have political prisoners and are free to say even the most ridiculous things on the internets).
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Chile, Argentina and all the other shit the CIA has done. Or are you just going to handwave it all away because our mainstream media does too?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Probably a lot of ordinary stuff goes on too.
Also, when does it drop off the list? How long ago does it have to be - can it at least move up to the birthdates of whoever is currently there? A lot of these things happened before they were born.
It may well do good, but DU has demonized it focusing only on the negative. Sort of the way the police are treated. Have a few bad things happen and all are tainted.
By that measure most of us are just as bad as they are few people who are perfect.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)rather than black and white thinking. If you look ONLY at the bad stuff then you could be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
It's hard for the CIA to show what it does that it is supposed to do and that is helping as by its nature it would be stuff we don't want the targets to know.
It's hard to imagine anyone in the modern world thinking we could do without it as to what it is supposed to do.
And why the people there now have to get blamed for what the institution did before they were born.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)...and those who benefit from all the banksters and warmongers and those with the biggest guns of all -- you know, the friends of Prescott Bush and his son George Herbert Walker Bush and his grandson George Walker Bush.
Tom Hayden saw the CIA director wasn't just another nice guy and had an undemocratic streak:
...And finally, the power elite ruled beyond, or behind, elected officials. To take one example among many, official disclosures in 1984 revealed that John McCone, Kennedys CIA director, head of the Atomic Energy Commission and Bechtel executive, conspired with the FBI in a psychological warfare campaign against the Free Speech Movement and to elect Ronald Reagan governor of California. Rampant conspiracy theories seemed to negate the prospects of popular movements and peaceful transitions through elections. But even if the paranoia went too far, as it usually did, there were still grounds for believing that manipulators were behind the curtain...
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2012/03/30/participatory-democracy-port-huron-statement-occupy-wall-street
The news from Langley concerned a report by (the current?) CIA historian, David Robarge. He is the fellow who was trotted out before the cameras a few years' back to say the CIA wouldn't release part of its Bay of Pigs history, the part of the report written by Inspector General Lyman Kirkpatrick that apparently assigned responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco to CIA ops guy Richard Bissell.
Background on the Bush connection from historian and political science guy Larry J. Sabato, author of "The Kennedy Half-Century: The Presidency, Assassination, and Lasting Legacy of John F. Kennedy," in April 1969, Prescott Bush wrote Clover Dulles:
SOURCE p. 368 online:
https://books.google.com/books?id=X7OnBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA368&lpg=PA368&dq=john+mccone+%2B+prescott+bush&source=bl&ots=dJAjiC_h6D&sig=fkfjmBYhc8KD3Relu4Vc93mEyCo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBmoVChMInOeZgovAyAIVBpiACh0JnAxi#v=onepage&q=john%20mccone%20%2B%20prescott%20bush&f=false
Clearly shows how the players, like the aspens, look like a forest of individual trees above ground, but really are connected by their roots underground.
Secret Government should be a matter of concern for all who believe in Democracy. Those who laugh it off are either fooling themselves or trying to fool others.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)by Jon Schwarz
The Intercept, Nov. 2 2015, 1:24 p.m.
EXCERPT...
Because what the Safari Club demonstrates is that Dulles entire spooky world is beyond the reach of American democracy. Even the most energetic post-World War II attempt to rein it in was in the end as effective as trying to lasso mist. And today weve largely returned to the balance of power Dulles set up in the 1950s. As Jay Rockefeller said in 2007 when he was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dont you understand the way intelligence works? Do you think that because Im chairman of the Intelligence Committee that I just say I want it, give it to me? They control it. All of it. All of it. All the time.
In February 2002, Saudi Prince Turki Al Faisal, head of Saudi intelligence from 1977 until September 1, 2001, traveled to Washington, D.C. While there, Turki, whod graduated from Georgetown University in the same class as Bill Clinton, delivered a speech at his alma mater that included an unexpected history lesson:
In 1976, after the Watergate matters took place here, your intelligence community was literally tied up by Congress. It could not do anything. It could not send spies, it could not write reports, and it could not pay money. In order to compensate for that, a group of countries got together in the hope of fighting communism and established what was called the Safari Club. The Safari Club included France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Iran so, the Kingdom, with these countries, helped in some way, I believe, to keep the world safe when the United States was not able to do that. That, I think, is a secret that many of you dont know.
Turki was not telling the whole truth. He was right that his Georgetown audience likely had never heard any of this before, but the Safari Club had been known across the Middle East for decades. After the Iranian revolution the new government gave Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, one of the most prominent journalists in the Arab world, permission to examine the Shahs archives. There Heikal discovered the actual formal, written agreement between the members of the Safari Club, and wrote about it in a 1982 book called Iran: The Untold Story.
And the Safari Club was not simply the creation of the countries Turki mentioned Americans were involved as well. Its true the U.S. executive branch was somewhat hamstrung during the period between the post-Watergate investigations of the intelligence world and the end of the Carter administration. But the powerful individual Americans who felt themselves literally tied up by Congress that is, unfairly restrained by the most democratic branch of the U.S. government certainly did not consider the decisions of Congress to be the final word.
Whatever its funding sources, the evidence suggests the Safari Club was largely the initiative of these powerful Americans. According to Heikal, its real origin was when Henry Kissinger, then secretary of state, talked a number of rich Arab oil countries into bankrolling operations against growing communist influence on their doorstep in Africa. Alexandre de Marenches, a right-wing aristocrat who headed Frances version of the CIA, eagerly formalized the project and assumed operational leadership. But, Heikal writes, The United States directed the whole operation, and giant U.S. and European corporations with vital interests in Africa leant a hand. As John K. Cooley, the Christian Science Monitors longtime Mideast correspondent, put it, the setup strongly appealed to the U.S. executive branch: Get others to do what you want done, while avoiding the onus or blame if the operation fails.
This all seems like something Americans would like to know, especially since de Marenches may have extended his covert operations to the 1980 U.S. presidential election. In 1992, de Marenches biographer testified in a congressional investigation that the French spy told him that he had helped arrange an October 1980 meeting in Paris between William Casey, Ronald Reagans 1980 campaign manager, and the new Islamic Republic of Iran. The goal of such a meeting, of course, would have been to persuade Iran to keep its American hostages until after the next months election, thus denying Carter any last-minute, politically potent triumph.
De Marenches and the Safari Club certainly had a clear motive to oust Carter: They blamed him for allowing one of their charter members, the Shah, to fall from power. But whether de Marenches claims were true or not, we do know that history unfolded exactly as he and the Safari Club would have wished. The hostages werent released until Reagan was inaugurated, Reagan appointed Casey director of the CIA, and from that point forward Americas intelligence community was back in business.
And yet normal citizens would have a hard time just finding out the Safari Club even existed, much less the outlines of its activities. It appears to have been mentioned just once by the New York Times, in a profile of a French spy novelist. It likewise has made only one appearance in the Washington Post, in a 2005 online chat in which a reader asked the Posts former Middle East bureau chief Thomas Lippman, Does the Safari Club, formed in the mid-70s, still exist? Lippman responded: I never heard of it, so I have no idea.
CONTINUED...
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/02/the-deepest-state-the-safari-club-allen-dulles-and-the-devils-chessboard/
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)Remainder of the primary.
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)myrna minx
(22,772 posts)Next we'll find out that Kissinger is an honorary Democratic super delegate.
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)"We will not let Chile go down the drain".
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Operating on behalf of Nixon and Wall Street, the CIA and Milton Friedman & Friends perfected the art of turning the screws through austerity in Chile.
Too bad, so sad about all the little people who didn't go along with the big plan. Oh well. "Progress."
"The Chicago Boys in Chile: Economic Freedom's Awful Toll"
Orlando Letelier
August 28, 1976
EXCERPT...
The Economic Prescription and Chile's Reality
SNIP...
These are the basic principles of the economic model offered by Friedman and his followers and adopted by the Chilean junta: that the only possible framework for economic development is one within which the private sector can freely operate; that private enterprise is the most efficient form of economic organization and that, therefore, the private sector should be the predominant factor in the economy. Prices should fluctuate freely in accordance with the laws of competition. Inflation, the worst enemy of economic progress, is the direct result of monetary expansion and can be eliminated only by a drastic reduction of government spending.
Except in present-day Chile, no government in the world gives private enterprise an absolutely free hand. That is so because every economist (except Friedman and his followers) has known for decades that, in the real life of capitalism, there is no such thing as the perfect competition described by classical liberal economists. In March 1975, in Santiago, a newsman dared suggest to Friedman that even in more advanced capitalist countries, as for example the United States, the government applies various types of controls on the economy. Mr. Friedman answered: I have always been against it, I don't approve of them. I believe we should not apply them. I am against economic intervention by the government, in my own country, as well as in Chile or anywhere else (Que Pasa, Chilean weekly, April 3, 1975).
SNIP...
A Rationale tor Power
SNIP...
Until September 11, 1973, the date of the coup, Chilean society had been characterized by the increasing participation of the working class and its political parties in economic and social decision making. Since about 1900, employing the mechanisms of representative democracy, workers had steadily gained new economic, social and political power. The election of Salvador Allende as President of Chile was the culmination of this process. For the first time in history a society attempted to build socialism by peaceful means. During Allende's time in office, there was a marked improvement in the conditions of employment, health, housing, land tenure and education of the masses. And as this occurred, the privileged domestic groups and the dominant foreign interests perceived themselves to be seriously threatened.
Despite strong financial and political pressure from abroad and efforts to manipulate the attitudes of the middle class by propaganda, popular support for the Allende government increased significantly between 1970 and 1973. In March 1973, only five months before the military coup, there were Congressional elections in Chile. The political parties of the Popular Unity increased their share of the votes by more than 7 percentage points over their totals in the Presidential election of 1970. This was the first time in Chilean history that the political parties supporting the administration in power gained votes during a midterm election. The trend convinced the national bourgeoisie and its foreign supporters that they would be unable to recoup their privileges through the democratic process. That is why they resolved to destroy the democratic system and the institutions of the state, and, through an alliance with the military, to seize power by force.
In such a context, concentration of wealth is no accident, but a rule; it is not the marginal outcome of a difficult situation -- as they would like the world to believe -- but the base for a social project; it is not an economic liability but a temporary political success. Their real failure is not their apparent inability to redistribute wealth or to generate a more even path of development (these are not their priorities) but their inability to convince the majority of Chileans that their policies are reasonable and necessary. In short, they have failed to destroy the consciousness of the Chilean people. The economic plan has had to be enforced, and in the Chilean context that could be done only by the killing of thousands, the establishment of concentration camps all over the country, the jailing of more than 100,000 persons in three years, the closing of trade unions and neighbourhood organizations, and the prohibition of all political activities and all forms of free expression.
While the Chicago boys have provided an appearance of technical respectability to the laissez-faire dreams and political greed of the old landowning oligarchy and upper bourgeoisie of monopolists and financial speculators, the military has applied the brutal force required to achieve those goals. Repression for the majorities and economic freedom for small privileged groups are in Chile two sides of the same coin.
CONTINUED...
http://www.ditext.com/letelier/chicago.html
Three weeks after this was published in The Nation (Aug. 28, 1976), Orlando Letelier was assassinated by a car bomb in Washington, D.C.
FWIW: Then-CIA Director George Herbert Walker Bush knew all about Operation Condor and didn't stop them from killing Orlando Letelier and his American companion, Ronni Moffit.
DCI Bush even told then-Congressman Ed Koch (D-NY), threatened anonymously for his work uncovering Operation Condor and its associated evil at the time, "Nothing I can do."
Why does this matter today? What the CIA and Big Money Boys did in Chile in 1973 was a dry run for what they're doing to the USA today.
A Critique of the Chicago School of Economics:
CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST
EXCERPT...
Chile's privatized pensions
One of the most trumpeted "successes" of Chile's economic miracle is the privatization of its public social security system. It's most vocal supporter is Chilean economist José Piñera, who was once Pinochet's Minister of Labor, and therefore one of the most hated men in Chile. Today he is an international salesman of sorts, selling other nations on the idea of Chile's retirement program. Journalist Fred Solowey writes:
"In his speeches and articles, Piñera credits the Chilean pension model with producing just about everything short of the second coming of Christ: pensions that are 40-50 percent higher than under Social Security; security for the old; lower costs due to the 'fact' that the private sector is much more efficient than the public; a rate of savings rivaling that in an Asian 'tiger' economy; and even the end of class conflict in Chile." (38)
Piñera is co-chairman of a $2 million war being waged against U.S. Social Security by the Cato Institute. Their goal is to privatize the program along Chilean lines. Converts to their cause include Newt Gingerich, and, apparently, Time magazine. In a cover story entitled "The Case for Killing Social Security," Time included a sidebar on "How Chile Got it Right." (39) The operative word here is right, as in right-wing Time's article quotes all the usual conservative think tanks, but not a single dissenting voice.
The Chilean retirement system is only a success to those companies who are pulling down outrageous profits from it. For the working people of Chile, it is a disaster in the making. According to SAFP, the government agency which regulates the private pensions, 96 percent of the known work force were enrolled in the private pensions as of February, 1995, but 43.4 percent of the account owners were not adding to their funds. Perhaps as many as 60 percent do not contribute regularly. Given the rising poverty in Chile, it is not difficult to understand why. Unfortunately, regular contributions are necessary to receive full benefits.
By 1988, about one fourth of Chilean workers were contributing enough to make the program's minimum benefits: $1.25 a day! (40) Critics charge that only 20 percent of the contributors will actually receive good pensions.
Worse, much of the plan's supposedly higher benefits are projected from the surging economic growth rates of the late 80s. But this growth followed a deep economic depression in 1983, and was bound to be high for many years following. Now that actual growth has caught up to potential growth, the Chilean economy is slowing down. The pensions are therefore not going to be as profitable as their cheerleaders claim.
When the current system was created in the early 80s, the government gave the people their choice: stay in the public program, or start contributing to private pensions. Over 90 percent of the people switched over to the private plan. This was carried out, however, under a mixture of threats, coercion and short term incentives. Many employers simply switched their employees' plans for them. The cash-starved public also received short-term pay increases by switching to private pensions, whereas the cost of the public programs went up for those who stayed in them.
"With the information I now have," says Cecilia Prado, a 17-year public employee, "I never would have switched. Under a democratic government they never could have imposed it on us. And if they ever passed a law allowing people to go back, there would be a great exodus." (41)
What many defenders of Chile's current program do not reveal is that under the old public plan, workers received not only pensions, but health care, low-interest housing loans from pension funds, and many other benefits. And that program covered 75 percent of all Chileans. When the private pensions went into effect, all these other services were dropped. As a result, Chile's "welfare pensions" for the desperately needy quickly rose 400 percent up to the legal limit.
It is also extremely telling that when Pinochet introduced the program, his army and police were allowed to keep their own generous public plans. The private plans that were suitable for the masses apparently weren't good enough for those in charge of the country.
CONTINUED...
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm
José Piñera is now working out of the Cato Institute, where the Koch Brothers are big.
Regarding Austerity: They know if We the People are sufficiently worried about keeping a roof over the family and food on the table, We won't have much time to worry about little stuff like Democracy.
More on the subject: from the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
Wonder what else they got in store for the USA?
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)Are you smarter than those men?
merrily
(45,251 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)we don't have to agree with a premise merely because two great men thought it. Very shallow analysis.
And very overgeneralized. What was "too dangerous?" Have those things been corrected since, or become obsolete?
And haven't the threats become quite different?
ladjf
(17,320 posts)opposition to the CIA. If you are interested in this topic , do some research.
No, you don't have to agree with JFK or Carter. Their only qualifications were that they were Presidents of the U.S.A and are considered to be authorities on American Government.
And your credentials?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Your response is also snotty.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Pretty much still think so.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Remember the being in cahoots with Nixon on Watergate?
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)that kills our people here and abroad?
Keeps us safe, my ass.
jillan
(39,451 posts)PonyUp
(1,680 posts)brooklynite
(94,594 posts)...ignore the fact that you need an intelligence agency, which may need to be reformed; come out with an applause line for your base.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Funtatlaguy
(10,878 posts)on a Dem forum.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)has a real place here.
drray23
(7,633 posts)Abolishing the CIA is shortsighted. Its like saying we should abolish the military because they commited atrocities during vietnam. The real issue is put in place reforms and controls such that they dont go around fomenting coups and the like. We live in a complex world. Simple solutions make good campaign slogans but tgey dont work.
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)from which they sprang. Get these agencies out of the lexicon of public life. There is a need which should only be part of the military and their activities should be curtailed to militay matters.
Bernie was 42 years ahead of his time on this issue.
Oddly there is a lot of cheerleading of intelligence agencies on this website.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)With a very ling criminal record.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)If by "us" you mean United Fruit, yeah, sure.