4 ms·
And get the US into completely insane, destructive wars. You’d think there would be some punitive action for the 2000s intel that Iraq had WMDs. This “intel” g
by LewisVerstappen 3y ago
And get the US into completely insane, destructive wars.
You’d think there would be some punitive action for the 2000s intel that Iraq had WMDs. This “intel” got us into a war that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.
Nope, instead the CIA just got more money.
- sph 3y agoWhy punitive action? The CIA is the covert tool through which the USA maintains its global hegemony and reach. No US president in their right mind will ever do anything to reduce the powers of its intelligence agency.
- Consultant32452 3y agoThe CIA understands that it doesn't need the approval or even the funding of any member of the US government to carry out whatever deeds it wants. We have military leadership admitting publicly that they falsified reports to a sitting President to maintain wars and there are no repercussions. The idea that the President has any power to combat any of this is a fantasy.
- BSEdlMMldESB 3y agoI think USA congress is also disabled from acting against them, though it probably costs them a bit more to neuter as there are many more people involved
- Consultant32452 3y agoHypothetically the congress could defund them or even outlaw them, but the CIA could operate solely on the funds of its own illegal operations. And only a fool would think they don't have blackmail files on enough key players.
- jjtheblunt 3y agoMeanwhile it seems that the US economy has historically been the overt tool through which the USA maintains its global hegemony and reach. I mention that because the politicians seem determined to break that trend.
- bilbo0s 3y agoAll the more reason no US president will do anything to reign in the CIA. If anything, we'll be trying to use more covert power in the future.
- pessimizer 3y agoNo, the USA is one of the overt tools which the CIA uses to maintain its (fragile) global hegemony.
- masfuerte 3y agoIn the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the cabinet decided to invade Iraq. The CIA was just providing them with a plausible excuse. The CIA are to blame for many things, but the Iraq war was down to Bush and his cronies.
- Gud 3y agoBush Senior was the head of the CIA before becoming president. Not Prescott Bush, who allegedly tried overthrowing the democratically elected U. S. Government, the other Bush senior.
- WhereIsTheTruth 3y agoIraq invasion was planned way before the 9/11 terrorist attack Dedollarisation in the Middle-East and the potential death of the petrodollar was the real reason they invaded Iraq "Iraq: Baghdad Moves To Euro" (2000) - https://www.rferl.org/a/1095057.html https://www.rferl.org/a/1095057.html We now have all the data to understand the events of the past
- pessimizer 3y agoHis cronies like the Clintons and Biden? You mean all the people still in charge?
- ahartmetz 3y agoYeah, and it wasn't even that plausible - did you watch the ridiculous public presentation? In that case, the CIA probably took the fall for GWB et al who "encouraged" it to find evidence.
- tycho-newman 3y agoThe CIA didn’t go in front of the UN with a vial of anthrax claiming the evidence of WMDs was a slam dunk. That was the neocons. The CIA did something much worse. They never noticed that the Soviet Union was in collapse. Instead they had Team B imagine the Soviets were coming up with borderline magical technologies to spread communism everywhere.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y agoThere is a lot of things to be said about CIA, but I sincerely doubt that they did not notice the collapse. Now we can talk about which reports ended on which desk to ensure a rationale existed for whatever course of action was chosen, but that, as awful as it sounds, politics. In short, I disagree with you unless you have some reasonable proof to back that assertion.
- ahartmetz 3y ago> thousands of lives Estimates are about half a million, actually. Most of them Iraqis, considered rather unimportant in US media.