This is an excerpt from How Close Is US to War? I just think your audience needs to be reminded of the 1948 legislation that created the CIA and created the National Security Council. There is important language in there about the the role of the National Security Council which is, of course, a body that has no congressional oversight. The fact is that they [the CIA] can run a secret foreign policy, they can do things that are covert in nature--non reportable to the American people, non-reportable to Congress. They can lie, they can cheat, they can steal. Americans can have diplomats saying one thing while the CIA is doing another thing altogether. And that's just the way it is.
Chief Craig would have been the best choice but donors are lining up behind Roger’s, so Craig declined to run. Being a former resident he still a hell of a lot better than Slotkin. I believe Roger’s was a former alum of Marks before he went to congress.
Of course this is right. But I can't be the only one who recalls how JFK was going to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds? What would the CIA do if a President today actually attempted what Scott is describing?
At biggertruthmedia.com there are articles that discuss what seems to be an effort to infiltrate and cripple the Republican Party from within by people who sound like former Democrats. This is happening in my county GOP and the focus: organizing to mobilize voters to win elections, has degenerated into an assault on very effective people. Attempts at initiating lawfare and doing things like trying to get the state AG involved. Very disruptive activities and personalities. There is ongoing investigation into this to see what is going on and who is doing what. Who is at the root of it all? Is this an effort by radicals to take over the Republican Party? Is it private or is government in the deep background? Is this part of a color revolution? Per Ritter: would the US Marshals en masse storm the CIA? Maybe if the CIA was running an op to subvert the political opposition.
Scott Ritter is absolutely right in every respect. See my own book "Our Country Then and Now" that provides a history of the CIA and calls for its abolishment.
Sam Faddis spoke at Hillsdale College's four-day seminar on intelligence in October 2023.
His presentation, The Rise and Fall of the CIA, was bracing. During the Q&A, Mr Faddis described the approach the next administration (if Trump) would need to take to return the CIA to sobriety. Faddis' response earned a standing O, with a subsequent question, would he be willing to do the job, similarly met with strong applause.
Sam Faddis convincingly condemns some of the CIA's greatest recent failures (failure to infiltrate/expose the truth surrounding the Wuhan Lab, failure to anticipate and prevent Benghazi massacre, political opposition to Trump, including CIA involvement in Russia Hoax, CIA involvement in Hunter Laptop disinformation).
But to me, Faddis seems to believe that the CIA can be successfully reconstructed to appropriately and honorably serve the country, perhaps along the lines of the WWII-era OSS. I wonder. It seems that CIA is part of an extra-constitutional construct which is inherently outside the control of Congress and of the American people. I have no quarrel with CIA's fact-finding mission. But Faddis does not address the controversial operational side of CIA, such as its support for regime change, color revolution, etc. He does not address the terrible legacy of Allen Dulles and his acolytes, including James Jesus Angleton. It seems to me there is much more to this story than Faddis suggests.
I pray for a miracle where Trump is concerned. However, he has just endorsed yet another Deep State creep, Mike Rogers. I just don't think he's the one to change this. May I be horribly and hopelessly wrong!
Whether this Mike Rogers tried to undermine Trump from his position in the 2016 campaign, or was just there to 'listen', he seems clearly to be a Deep State operative. (If memory serves, Mike Rogers was recruited to the Trump campaign by the preposterous (to me, anyway) Sam Clovis. The same guy who I believe hired the inestimable Carter Page.
Among his many 'qualifications', this Mike Rogers may or may not have been a member of the heavily Deep State-affiliated Atlantic Council. His wikipedia entry suggests that he was at one point but the Atlantic Council website makes no mention of him. Of course, Mark's 2019 post suggests that he was a member of the 2016 Trump campaign, but his wikipedia entry is silent on this fact as well.
I must say, this aspect of Trump's modus operandi (his choice of, shall we say, his associates) is troubling. While I can acknowledge that Trump will need a GOP majority in both the House and the Senate if he is to have meaningful power if he is re-elected, it seems the Mike Rogers of the world fall far from the base that is promoting Trump's candidacy.
Trump is playing a complicated, and some might say, dangerous, game. Like Steg, for now, I'm counting on the 'miracle'.
POSTSCRIPT
I should probably have also linked Mark's 2018 post entitled The Spy in the Trump Campaign:
Of especial interest is Mark's update at the foot of his post:
"UPDATE: H/T Gateway Pundit. GP points out this morning that Jeff Sessions was chairman of candidate Trump's National Security Advisory Committee (NSAC). Does that answer sundance's question: "So how did Decepticon [former US Representative, Mike] Rogers come to be an advisor to the Trump campaign?" If so, this certainly helps to explain the depths of Trump's obvious feelings of aggrievement against Sessions, the roots of which include other factors than Sessions' recusal. The recusal may, in fact, have been in Trump's view the straw that broke the camel's back--following on from the hiring of Rogers."
If all this is true (re the connection between Sessions and Mike Rogers) it makes Trump's endorsement of Mike Rogers' Senate candidacy all the more bewildering...
Chief Craig would have been the best choice but donors are lining up behind Roger’s, so Craig declined to run. Being a former resident he still a hell of a lot better than Slotkin. I believe Roger’s was a former alum of Marks before he went to congress.
True. If I recall, he was in CG before he quit and went to MI to run.
Of course this is right. But I can't be the only one who recalls how JFK was going to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds? What would the CIA do if a President today actually attempted what Scott is describing?
We may find out!
At biggertruthmedia.com there are articles that discuss what seems to be an effort to infiltrate and cripple the Republican Party from within by people who sound like former Democrats. This is happening in my county GOP and the focus: organizing to mobilize voters to win elections, has degenerated into an assault on very effective people. Attempts at initiating lawfare and doing things like trying to get the state AG involved. Very disruptive activities and personalities. There is ongoing investigation into this to see what is going on and who is doing what. Who is at the root of it all? Is this an effort by radicals to take over the Republican Party? Is it private or is government in the deep background? Is this part of a color revolution? Per Ritter: would the US Marshals en masse storm the CIA? Maybe if the CIA was running an op to subvert the political opposition.
Scott Ritter is absolutely right in every respect. See my own book "Our Country Then and Now" that provides a history of the CIA and calls for its abolishment.
https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/category/agi/
It's very hard to disagree with him.
Perfectly describes how we got here.
Sam Faddis spoke at Hillsdale College's four-day seminar on intelligence in October 2023.
His presentation, The Rise and Fall of the CIA, was bracing. During the Q&A, Mr Faddis described the approach the next administration (if Trump) would need to take to return the CIA to sobriety. Faddis' response earned a standing O, with a subsequent question, would he be willing to do the job, similarly met with strong applause.
Most strongly recommended:
https://freedomlibrary.hillsdale.edu/programs/cca-i-u-s-intelligence-history-and-controversies/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-cia
Sam Faddis convincingly condemns some of the CIA's greatest recent failures (failure to infiltrate/expose the truth surrounding the Wuhan Lab, failure to anticipate and prevent Benghazi massacre, political opposition to Trump, including CIA involvement in Russia Hoax, CIA involvement in Hunter Laptop disinformation).
But to me, Faddis seems to believe that the CIA can be successfully reconstructed to appropriately and honorably serve the country, perhaps along the lines of the WWII-era OSS. I wonder. It seems that CIA is part of an extra-constitutional construct which is inherently outside the control of Congress and of the American people. I have no quarrel with CIA's fact-finding mission. But Faddis does not address the controversial operational side of CIA, such as its support for regime change, color revolution, etc. He does not address the terrible legacy of Allen Dulles and his acolytes, including James Jesus Angleton. It seems to me there is much more to this story than Faddis suggests.
I pray for a miracle where Trump is concerned. However, he has just endorsed yet another Deep State creep, Mike Rogers. I just don't think he's the one to change this. May I be horribly and hopelessly wrong!
Didn’t Mike Roger tip of Trump to the campaign wire taps?
That was Admiral Rogers - a true patriot and as opposite as you could get from his namesake.
https://www.npr.org/2016/11/22/502980006/reports-suggest-nsa-director-mike-rogers-is-on-his-way-out
That was Adm Mike Rogers, not Michigan Rep Mike Rogers.
Thanks for clearing that up. It always confused me.
"However, he has just endorsed yet another Deep State creep, Mike Rogers."
Yes. As Mark reported in 2019, this Mike Rogers is this Deep State apparatchik: https://meaninginhistory.substack.com/p/the-other-mike-rogers-againhtml
Whether this Mike Rogers tried to undermine Trump from his position in the 2016 campaign, or was just there to 'listen', he seems clearly to be a Deep State operative. (If memory serves, Mike Rogers was recruited to the Trump campaign by the preposterous (to me, anyway) Sam Clovis. The same guy who I believe hired the inestimable Carter Page.
In any event, here is Rogers' wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Rogers_(Michigan_politician)
Among his many 'qualifications', this Mike Rogers may or may not have been a member of the heavily Deep State-affiliated Atlantic Council. His wikipedia entry suggests that he was at one point but the Atlantic Council website makes no mention of him. Of course, Mark's 2019 post suggests that he was a member of the 2016 Trump campaign, but his wikipedia entry is silent on this fact as well.
I must say, this aspect of Trump's modus operandi (his choice of, shall we say, his associates) is troubling. While I can acknowledge that Trump will need a GOP majority in both the House and the Senate if he is to have meaningful power if he is re-elected, it seems the Mike Rogers of the world fall far from the base that is promoting Trump's candidacy.
Trump is playing a complicated, and some might say, dangerous, game. Like Steg, for now, I'm counting on the 'miracle'.
POSTSCRIPT
I should probably have also linked Mark's 2018 post entitled The Spy in the Trump Campaign:
https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-spy-in-trump-campaign.html
Of especial interest is Mark's update at the foot of his post:
"UPDATE: H/T Gateway Pundit. GP points out this morning that Jeff Sessions was chairman of candidate Trump's National Security Advisory Committee (NSAC). Does that answer sundance's question: "So how did Decepticon [former US Representative, Mike] Rogers come to be an advisor to the Trump campaign?" If so, this certainly helps to explain the depths of Trump's obvious feelings of aggrievement against Sessions, the roots of which include other factors than Sessions' recusal. The recusal may, in fact, have been in Trump's view the straw that broke the camel's back--following on from the hiring of Rogers."
If all this is true (re the connection between Sessions and Mike Rogers) it makes Trump's endorsement of Mike Rogers' Senate candidacy all the more bewildering...
https://www.newsweek.com/steve-bannon-suggests-donald-trump-has-been-bought-1877583
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/03/12/hr7521-the-tiktok-ban-law-as-written-is-not-about-banning-tiktok-its-about-information-control-pdf-included/
Nice. As the House majority pushes forward...