Ron Paul: CIA runs the U.S. government

[Searcher08]

...

Is it true that the CIA is now running the country?

Twenty years ago I would have pretty well agreed with Ron Paul's statement.

Nowadays, I'm not so sure it's really accurate or useful.

The CIA is a big problem. The Federal Reserve the same. Are either- or both- of these the problem? I'm no longer so sure...

From what people like Ray mcGovern have said, the Bush era politicizing of the CIA (in the sense of gutting it's mission to provide accurate and timely information to the Pres and turning it into a collector of information that confirms the Pres policy du jour) - has been an absolute disaster for the organisation in terms of morale, direction and accountability at least for the 'analysis' side rather than 'operations' side.

I think it important to remember that ultimately CIA is an organisation, and all organisations which are not capable of changing to match changes in the wider environment face certain extinction, regardless of how much 'power' they wield..

I think a very important issue is that if it was shut down, many of it's members would just go private and re-organise, as they did once under Carter.

Corporate memory is a powerful force - a sort of organisational equivalent of Mercury Man

[barracuda]

Oh, yes.

I also think Alice has a point, albeit one I'm not fully aligned with; however she does deserve some recognition for her ability to outline an entire polemic within the scope of five letters.

I am not saying that Paul is a CIA agent. His inability to do anything about the grand machinations he points out is why he has nothing to fear from small plane rides.

[American Dream]

barracuda wrote:

Who, American Dream, would you add to that list?

I do think the CIA and Federal Reserve are very powerful and very important, but they are not the be all and end all of the problem. Twenty-five years ago or so, when Iran Contra was really breaking, I had a different take on things. I did believe that "the CIA killed JFK" and had been essentially running the country ever since.

I wouldn't say I've discarded that story since- rather I would say that I've added to it.

Here's briefly how I might express it today:

Elements of the CIA were very involved in the JFK hit, and the whole thing amounted to a power play by certain elements of the power elite, including but not limited to big players in the Military Industrial Complex. A hardline strategy for the Cold War prevailed, and the CIA, as well as many other such secretive organizations has had a field day. There were allies for this movement, and opponents, I would imagine, around the world.

Is "the CIA" the leading power in and of itself? Not really- not everything is so centralized and bureaucratically efficient as that. Certainly there are factions of the CIA aligned with certain factions of the owning class that have pushed for and achieved certain agenda.

That said, what I believed in way back then- a sort of Unified Field Theory of conspiracies- that the CIA was the Alpha and the Omega of organized evil- does not hold.

The CIA is very, very important, but it is not everything.

[MacCruiskeen]

I am not saying that Paul is a CIA agent. His inability to do anything about the grand machinations he points out is why he has nothing to fear from small plane rides.

I didn't say you were saying that Paul is a CIA agent. Nor did I say he has anything to fear from small plane rides. (Though let's see exactly how long he lives and exactly how outspoken about the CIA he remains.)

I said that people* should be supported when they have the guts to say things that are important, true and timely, even if they cannot immediately abolish the evils they name and condemn.

In any case, speech is also an action. And Rome wasn't demolished in a day.

*Especially when they are, almost incredibly, American politicians.

[23]

I think Paul acts as a pressure release valve for segments of his rabid base, while evidencing absolutely no ability to create change or momentum by his pronouncements with regard to the Fed, or the CIA. He is a useful tool.

Since Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney both preferred that voters vote for Dr. Paul if they couldn't vote for Nader or McKinney in the 2008 election...

does that make 'em members of Dr. Paul's "rabid base"?

[barracuda]

Once again, I was unclear. Ron Paul's base is not entirely composed of "rabid" individuals, but the share which is constituted by patriot secessionists, yes, I would characterise as "rabid", and I'd say the overlap between them and supporters of Cynthia McKinney would be small.

Full disclosure: McKinney voter here.

[23]

Once again, I was unclear. Ron Paul's base is not entirely composed of "rabid" individuals, but the share which is constituted by patriot secessionists, yes, I would characterise as "rabid", and I'd say the overlap between them and supporters of Cynthia McKinney would be small.

Full disclosure: McKinney voter here.

And I align with Cynthia McKinney's and Ralph Nader's consensus judgment that... if they couldn't be President, the country would be best served with Dr. Paul as President.

Wise folks, those two.

[pepsified thinker]

Doesn't it seem more likely that they'll just figure out someway to ruin him politically?.

I don't see him as a serious threat to the PTB. He's a safe way of bleeding off pressure--let anyone who wants to go down that rabbit hole with him do so--he's pretty firmly branded/defined as a nut case (not saying I think so, but that's the general public's view, right?) so riase your hand if you're for Ron Paul and instantly loose credibility. By having him say this, it's now an idea that no 'serious person' will take seriously.

If he wasn't around, the CIA would have to invent him.

(not saying they did--but I don't expect him to be much bothered by them)

(on edit: I hadn't read the whole thread--now I see others already said roughly--or even pretty much word for word?--what I said. Great minds, eh?)

[barracuda]

And I align with Cynthia McKinney's and Ralph Nader's consensus judgment that... if they couldn't be President, the country would be best served with Dr. Paul as President.

Wise folks, those two.

I voted McKinney, I voted for Nader in 2000, but I don't vote for Texas republicans under any circumstances. The buddah himself would have to change state and party if he fit that bill, in order for him to get my X. It's a fetish of mine, I'll admit.

[sunny]

I don't like the majority of his politics but he says a lot of things I wish the pols I DO agree with would say.

[Sweejak]

McGovern, Carter, Perot, Nader, Kucinich, Paul have all been people I voted for, some more than once, and I think I did Mondale too and Maybe Joe Walsh. I've donated to many more, this last election to Gravel, Kucinch, and McKinney, pretty much anyone third party anything.

I don't think it's "rabid" to want to secede, it makes a lot of sense to walk away from a dysfunctional government run by a coup doesn't it, one which can't even follow it's own laws. Which is not to say that there isn't a "rabid element" out there or that I'm necessarily for secession, or that I think it's a wise tactic. I'm still thinking about it.

[23]

McGovern, Carter, Perot, Nader, Kucinich, Paul have all been people I voted for, some more than once, and I think I did Mondale too and Maybe Joe Walsh. I've donated to many more, this last election to Gravel, Kucinch, and McKinney, pretty much anyone third party anything.

I don't think it's "rabid" to want to secede, it makes a lot of sense to walk away from a dysfunctional government run by a coup doesn't it, one which can't even follow it's own laws. Which is not to say that there isn't a "rabid element" out there or that I'm necessarily for secession, or that I think it's a wise tactic. I'm still thinking about it.

Dr. Paul is a strict Constitutionalist. Does "rabid" mean interpreting/applying the Constitution strictly? If so, some of our forefathers may have been severely stricken with rabidity.

As for secession, I'm all for it. If it meant that my tax monies could no longer be used to support the imperialist military.

[barracuda]

The problem with seccession under the general terms it is usually considered today is that it seems to seek division on neat racial boundaries.

[23]

The problem with seccession under the general terms it is usually considered today is that it seems to seek division on neat racial boundaries.

Tell that to these fine folks in Vermont:

http://www.vermontrepublic.org/

Blanket statements don't tend to serve rigorous intuition.

[Sweejak]

The problem with seccession under the general terms it is usually considered today is that it seems to seek division on neat racial boundaries.

Really, you mean like the US Civil War? I see what you mean, but Cascadia, would that be racist, Hawaii?
Ethnicity/Religion/ and similar are, I think, inevitable glues used to make nations.

I don't think the PTB care about secession, would it make their control easier is all I think they care about and right now I think their big fad is One World Whatever, I don't know, probably for reasons of efficiency. Maybe, maybe it would fall right into their plans, like Balkanization. That's the worry for me more than religion/racism/ethnics.

Taken without the secret agendas what is wrong with breaking up Iraq? It, like most of Africa, was a cleverly assembled conglomeration designed for control. I suppose it's up to the people to decide if they want to be a nation.

Wouldn't it be great to have a multi-cultural nation made up of many races and religions with the national idea being liberty... all connected in a confederation? LOL, Oh never mind, that didn't work out so well.

Ron Paul on America Gone Insane

http://thestressblog.com/2010/01/19/ron ... ne-insane/