4 ms·

They (CIA, NSA, US deep state in general) are in the business of lying. The WMDs that Saddam had? The Gulf of Tonkin incident? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gu

by cies 6y ago

They (CIA, NSA, US deep state in general) are in the business of lying. The WMDs that Saddam had? The Gulf of Tonkin incident? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

komali2 6y ago
> US deep state I agree with you but I think using terms like this can hurt credibility.
- cies 6y ago
  They keep making up more of these three letter institutes (CIA, NSA, DoD, ...), I cannot keep up. I mean those that have unaccounted budgets.
  - komali2 6y ago
    They do? You just listed most of them lol. As I understand it the DoD is just the department these agencies fall under (unless it's the DHS). The actual agencies you've just about covered, surely? CIA, NSA, ICE being the most problematic, then FBI and, what else? I mean yea they suck but I don't think it's necessarily a hydra.
imphatic 6y ago
Right and Assange went on TV and lied about Wikileaks publishing credit cards, which they had done. So....
- cies 6y ago
  Govt lies, but that's okay because a civilian also did it. /s
  - imphatic 6y ago
    The point is, saying one group lied, therefore this is a lie is bad logic because it is so easy to turn the tables around on that line of thinking.
altcognito 6y ago
Lying is just one of many of the things they do. The CIA is entrusted with protecting US interests, much like every other intelligence service in the world. They do a range of things, much of them boring. It's government. They have outlets to disseminate disinformation just like Russia does. We're just arguing about where and how it's happening.
- cies 6y ago
  > protecting US interests, I think this is increasingly protecting the interest of the super rich (those with vested interests in large corps). Not "the people". I'm not claiming other govts are better. Just saying they've shown they cannot be trusted.
- 50ckpuppet 6y ago
  they protect their bureaucracy first, American people second.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> They (CIA, NSA, US deep state in general) are in the business of lying. The WMDs that Saddam had? Yeah, I remember that: even with the bold and explicit lies put forward by the White House and political leadership at DoD, particularly, and some other agencies, the actual releases from the intelligence agencies were quite guarded and reserved. The intelligence community is in the business of lying to it's targets, sure, but also of protecting it's credibility to decision makers, both within the executive branch and outside of it, including even the American public. The political leadership, OTOH, is often more shortsighted.
- 34679 6y ago
  >but also of protecting it's credibility to decision makers The CIA spied on the Senate, the director lied to them about it, and nothing happened. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-senate https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-di...
leftyted 6y ago
There's nothing in the Pentagon Papers to suggest that the CIA lied to the government (or to the American people). The liars were various presidents, their various cabinets filled with brain-trusters, and other politicians who either ignored factual information from the CIA or twisted it to fit their ideas of "containment" and "domino theory" and all that nonsense. The CIA would be no good to anyone if they were in the business of lying.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Gulf of Tonkin was an NSA op. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.ht...
  - leftyted 6y ago
    > The SIGINT also shows, according to Hanyok, that a second attack, on August 4, 1964, by North Vietnamese torpedo boats on U.S. ships, did not occur despite claims to the contrary by the Johnson administration. President Johnson and Secretary of Defense McNamara treated Agency SIGINT reports as vital evidence of a second attack and used this claim to support retaliatory air strikes and to buttress the administration's request for a Congressional resolution that would give the White House freedom of action in Vietnam. This is exactly what I said. > Hanyok further argues that Agency officials had "mishandled" SIGINT concerning the events of August 4 and provided top level officials with "skewed" intelligence supporting claims of an August 4 attack. "The overwhelming body of reports, if used, would have told the story that no attack occurred." Key pieces of evidence are missing from the Agency's archives, such as the original decrypted Vietnamese text of a document that played an important role in the White House's case. Hanyok has not found a "smoking gun" to demonstrate a cover-up but believes that the evidence suggests "an active effort to make SIGINT fit the claim of what happened during the evening of 4 August in the Gulf of Tonkin." Senior officials at the Agency, the Pentagon, and the White House were none the wiser about the gaps in the intelligence. Hanyok's conclusions have sparked controversy among old Agency hands but his research confirms the insight of journalist I.F. Stone, who questioned the second attack only weeks after the events. Hanyok's article is part of a larger study on the National Security Agency and the Vietnam War, "Spartans in Darkness," which is the subject of a pending FOIA request by the National Security Archive. To figure out who the liars are we need to know who engaged in a cover-up. Who manipulated, withheld information, or lied. You already know my opinion: I don't think it was the NSA. For example "The overwhelming body of reports, if used, would have told the story that no attack occurred" suggests that the NSA's information was, in fact, good. It just was ignored, manipulated, omitted, etc.
ifmpx 6y ago
No, sir. They don't lie. At least not wittingly.. There are cases where they may inadvertently.. perhaps lie, but not wittingly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs&t=402 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs&t=402

by cies 6y ago

komali2 6y ago

> US deep state I agree with you but I think using terms like this can hurt credibility.

cies 6y ago
They keep making up more of these three letter institutes (CIA, NSA, DoD, ...), I cannot keep up. I mean those that have unaccounted budgets.
- komali2 6y ago
  They do? You just listed most of them lol. As I understand it the DoD is just the department these agencies fall under (unless it's the DHS). The actual agencies you've just about covered, surely? CIA, NSA, ICE being the most problematic, then FBI and, what else? I mean yea they suck but I don't think it's necessarily a hydra.

imphatic 6y ago

Right and Assange went on TV and lied about Wikileaks publishing credit cards, which they had done. So....

cies 6y ago
Govt lies, but that's okay because a civilian also did it. /s
- imphatic 6y ago
  The point is, saying one group lied, therefore this is a lie is bad logic because it is so easy to turn the tables around on that line of thinking.

altcognito 6y ago

Lying is just one of many of the things they do. The CIA is entrusted with protecting US interests, much like every other intelligence service in the world. They do a range of things, much of them boring. It's government. They have outlets to disseminate disinformation just like Russia does. We're just arguing about where and how it's happening.

cies 6y ago
> protecting US interests, I think this is increasingly protecting the interest of the super rich (those with vested interests in large corps). Not "the people". I'm not claiming other govts are better. Just saying they've shown they cannot be trusted.
50ckpuppet 6y ago
they protect their bureaucracy first, American people second.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> They (CIA, NSA, US deep state in general) are in the business of lying. The WMDs that Saddam had? Yeah, I remember that: even with the bold and explicit lies put forward by the White House and political leadership at DoD, particularly, and some other agencies, the actual releases from the intelligence agencies were quite guarded and reserved. The intelligence community is in the business of lying to it's targets, sure, but also of protecting it's credibility to decision makers, both within the executive branch and outside of it, including even the American public. The political leadership, OTOH, is often more shortsighted.

34679 6y ago
>but also of protecting it's credibility to decision makers The CIA spied on the Senate, the director lied to them about it, and nothing happened. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-senate https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-di...

leftyted 6y ago

There's nothing in the Pentagon Papers to suggest that the CIA lied to the government (or to the American people). The liars were various presidents, their various cabinets filled with brain-trusters, and other politicians who either ignored factual information from the CIA or twisted it to fit their ideas of "containment" and "domino theory" and all that nonsense. The CIA would be no good to anyone if they were in the business of lying.

jessaustin 6y ago
Gulf of Tonkin was an NSA op. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.ht...
- leftyted 6y ago
  > The SIGINT also shows, according to Hanyok, that a second attack, on August 4, 1964, by North Vietnamese torpedo boats on U.S. ships, did not occur despite claims to the contrary by the Johnson administration. President Johnson and Secretary of Defense McNamara treated Agency SIGINT reports as vital evidence of a second attack and used this claim to support retaliatory air strikes and to buttress the administration's request for a Congressional resolution that would give the White House freedom of action in Vietnam. This is exactly what I said. > Hanyok further argues that Agency officials had "mishandled" SIGINT concerning the events of August 4 and provided top level officials with "skewed" intelligence supporting claims of an August 4 attack. "The overwhelming body of reports, if used, would have told the story that no attack occurred." Key pieces of evidence are missing from the Agency's archives, such as the original decrypted Vietnamese text of a document that played an important role in the White House's case. Hanyok has not found a "smoking gun" to demonstrate a cover-up but believes that the evidence suggests "an active effort to make SIGINT fit the claim of what happened during the evening of 4 August in the Gulf of Tonkin." Senior officials at the Agency, the Pentagon, and the White House were none the wiser about the gaps in the intelligence. Hanyok's conclusions have sparked controversy among old Agency hands but his research confirms the insight of journalist I.F. Stone, who questioned the second attack only weeks after the events. Hanyok's article is part of a larger study on the National Security Agency and the Vietnam War, "Spartans in Darkness," which is the subject of a pending FOIA request by the National Security Archive. To figure out who the liars are we need to know who engaged in a cover-up. Who manipulated, withheld information, or lied. You already know my opinion: I don't think it was the NSA. For example "The overwhelming body of reports, if used, would have told the story that no attack occurred" suggests that the NSA's information was, in fact, good. It just was ignored, manipulated, omitted, etc.

ifmpx 6y ago

No, sir. They don't lie. At least not wittingly.. There are cases where they may inadvertently.. perhaps lie, but not wittingly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs&t=402 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs&t=402