The CIA and America’s Presidents
Weekend Edition March 13-15, 2015
Some Rarely Discussed Truths Shaping Contemporary American Democracy
The CIA and America’s Presidents
by JOHN CHUCKMAN
Many people still think of the CIA as an agency designed to help American presidents make informed decisions about matters outside the United States. That was the basis for President Truman’s signing the legislation which created the agency, and indeed it does serve that role, generally rather inadequately, but it has become something far beyond that.
Information is certainly not something to which any reasonable person objects, but the CIA has two houses under its roof, and it is the operational side of the CIA which gives it a world-wide bad reputation. The scope of undercover operations has evolved to make the CIA into a kind of civilian army, one involving great secrecy, little accountability, and huge budgets – altogether a dangerous development indeed for any country which regards itself as a democracy and whose military is forbidden political activity. After all, the CIA’s secret operational army in practice is not curtailed by restrictions around politics, many of its tasks having been quite openly political. Yes, its charter forbids operations in the United States, but those restrictions have been ignored or bent countless times both in secret programs like Echelon (monitoring telephone communications by five English-speaking allies who then share the information obtained, a forerunner to the NSA’s recently-revealed collection of computer data) and years of mail-opening inside the United States or using substitutes to go around the rule, as was likely the case with the many Mossad agents trailing the eventual perpetrators of 9/11 inside the United States before the event.
As with all large, powerful institutions over time, the CIA constantly seeks expansion of its means and responsibilities, much like a growing child wanting ever more food and clothing and entertainment. This inherent tendency, the expansion of institutional empire, is difficult enough to control under normal circumstances, but when there are complex operations in many countries and tens of billions in spending and many levels of secrecy and secret multi-level files, the ability of any elected politicians – whose keenest attention is always directed towards re-election and acquiring enough funds to run a campaign – to exercise meaningful control and supervision becomes problematic at best. The larger and more complex the institution becomes, the truer this is.
Under Eisenhower, the CIA’s operational role first came to considerable prominence, which is hardly surprising considering Eisenhower was a former Supreme Commander in the military, the military having used many dark operations during WWII, operations still classified in some cases. In his farewell address, it is true, Eisenhower gave Americans a dark warning about the “military-industrial complex,” but as President he used CIA dark operations extensively, largely to protect American corporate interests in various parts of the world – everything from oil interests to banana monopolies in Central America. Perhaps, he viewed the approach as less destructive or dangerous or likely to tarnish America’s post-WWII reputation than “sending in the Marines,” America’s traditional gang of paid-muscle for such tasks, but, over the long term, he was wrong, and his extensive use of CIA operations would prove highly destructive and not just tarnish America’s image but totally shatter it. It set in motion a number of developments and problems that haunt America to this day.
In the 1950s, the CIA was involved in a number of operations whose success bred hubris and professional contempt for those not part of its secret cult, an attitude not unlike that of members of an elite fraternity or secret society at university. The toppling of disliked but democratic governments in Guatemala and Iran and other operations had, by about the time of President Kennedy’s coming to power in 1960, bred an arrogant and unwarranted belief in its ability to do almost anything it felt was needed. The case of Cuba became a watershed for the CIA and its relationship with Presidents of the United States, President Eisenhower and his CIA having come to believe that Castro, widely regarded by the public as a heroic figure at the time, had turned dangerous to American corporate and overseas interests and needed to be removed. Fairly elaborate preparations for doing so were put into place, and parts of the southern United States became large secret training grounds for would-be terrorists selected from the anti-Castro exile community by CIA officers in charge of a project which dwarfed Osama bin Laden’s later camp in the mountains of Afghanistan.
More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/13/the-grand-illusion-about-terrorism/
= new reply since forum marked as read
More than one observer has speculated about Obama’s being CIA, and there are significant holes in his resume which could be accounted for by his involvement. He would have been an attractive candidate for several reasons. Obama is bright, and the CIA employs few blacks in its important jobs. He also might have been viewed as a good political prospect for the future in just the way foreign politicians are selected for secret pensions. After all, before he was elected, there were stories about people meeting this smart and (superficially) charming man and remarking that they may just have met a future president.
If Obama is not actually CIA, then he is so intimidated that he pretty much rubber stamps their projects. A young, inexperienced President must always be mindful of that other young President whose head was half blown off in the streets of Dallas. Moreover, there are some shady areas in Obama’s background around drugs and perhaps other matters which could be politically compromising.
To repeat what Counterpunch readers are told they should believe:
1. It's the US's fault Saddam invaded Kuwait (long since debunked by, including others, Tariq Aziz)
2. Manuel Noriega was 'set up' on drug charges, which may not be true
3. Obama is probably a secret CIA mole; or
3a. Obama is being blackmailed for "shady areas" in his "background around drugs and perhaps other matters."
Counterpunch: The magazine for people who hate the United States, Barack Obama, and reality
P.S. The author of this article must have forgotten that Obama discussed his drug use in his fucking autobiography.
The "other matters" to which this guy refers is the Larry "Obama had gay sex with me" Sinclair
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11164.html
"The "other matters" to which this guy refers is the Larry "Obama had gay sex with me" Sinclair http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11164.html ?
I'm not seeing it, and believe me, I checked your source, "Politico."
Friday, May 4, 2007 12:08 PM CDT
Who funds and runs the Politico?
A longtime Reaganite is the president and CEO of the Politico. Are we supposed to believe that to be irrelevant to its political coverage?
Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/2007/05/04/politico_funding/
[center]~ ~ ~[/center]
Your attacks on my author seem extreme, and unwarranted. I really can't catch the connection between the author and "Larry Sinclair."
I had never heard of "Larry Sinclair" so I just did a google image search for "Larry Sinclair" and saw this trash:
[center]
[/center]
Why on earth would you even have ever poured over stuff like this?
http://12160.info/group/exposebarackhusseinobama/forum/topics/report-obama-s-alledged-gay-lover-dead-larry-sinclair-killed-by-h
It's garbage other people never usually see, ever! If they did see it they would spot it for #### instantly.
I miss the mods... 
