General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Facts about Libya under Gaddafi that you probably did not know about ! [View all]Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)It was pretty obvious to me that there was an internal war between the CIA and the Neo-Cons during the Bush junta, circa 2003-2006, with one of the visible parts being Cheney-Rumsfeld's outing of the CIA's worldwide WMD counter-proliferation project and its head, Valerie Plame. Another visible part was Patrick Fitzgerald (DoJ special prosecutor) and his investigation of Cheney for the CIA outings (in which he netted "Scooter" Libby who fell on his sword). And a third, and very important, visible (but not well known) part was Bush Sr.'s convening of his "Iraq Study Group" (read Iran Study Group) in spring '06 and the subsequent resignation (force out?) of Rumsfeld from the Pentagon later in that year.
Following these events, all talk of nuking Iran (which was big in 2006) went away, Nancy Pelosi announced that "impeachment is off the table" (what table, Nancy?) and Barack Obama, when he entered the scene, said, "We need to look forward not backward" on the war crimes and grand theft of the Bush junta. (They teach that at Harvard Law School: The crimes of the rich & powerful don't happen in the past, like other crimes, but are a special category of crime that occurs in a parallel universe on a different time-line altogether.)
Summary of this theory: Bush Sr. intervened to save Bush Jr.'s presidency, and perhaps his sorry ass, from the CIA, which was mightily pissed off about the outings of its agents. Also, the Bush cartel has interests in China and didn't want Iran nuked, cuz China gets a lot of its oil from Iran. (Bush and CIA are more inclined to subvert than to nuke.)
Fast forward to today:
Please see this thread on former NSA Director/former CIA Director Michael Hayden's remarks, yesterday, at a Tech conference, regarding Hillary Clinton's actions as Sec of State:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511946508
I think there is an on-going internal war, or a second internal war, within our governing elite, between the Neo-Cons and the CIA. Michael Hayden would NEVER do what he did yesterday entirely on his own initiative. He would not go rogue, or even hint of rogue.
What Hayden said, basically, was that it is absurd to think that the Chinese and other foreign governments didn't hack Clinton's private server, and that her "original sin" was setting up the private, insecure server in the first place. That Hayden would say this--thus intervening, publicly, in the FBI investigation--means, in all probability, that the CIA is extremely concerned about Neo-Con influence on Clinton. They don't want a repeat of the Cheney-Rumsfeld attack on the CIA. They are likely also concerned simply about leaks of their own or other agencies' secret machinations for whatever purposes.
I'm no fan of the CIA. I'd like to see the CIA abolished (or restored to the original purpose intended by Harry Truman--gathering intelligence, not intervening in this or any other country). But I do think, in these recent internal struggles, they are more inclined to subvert than to wreak other kinds of havoc on foreign lands. (They likely opposed the war on Iraq, for instance, and got into a bloody fight with Cheney-Rumsfeld about it; opposed nuking Iran, and were part of Bush Sr.'s coalition to stop it; maybe opposed the NATO war on Libya that Clinton was an engineer of).
I suspect that the CIA is in a dilemma, as to our political scene. They don't want Clinton (rogue leaks, rogue policies uninformed by CIA wisdom). They don't want Trump either (too unpredictable). It would be ...well, interesting, to say the least... if who they really want is Sanders, who will keep the domestic scene calmed down, while they play their games abroad.
But I think it's more likely that Hayden's purpose is to extract rock-solid guarantees from Clinton, via threat of a DoJ indictment, that there will be no private servers in the White House, and that someone like Leon Panetta (member of Bush Sr.'s "Iraq Study Group," chief of staff to Bill, later CIA Director under (over?) Obama then Pentagon chief) will be present as a check on Hillary and her new Neo-Con pals (and maybe on Bill as well).
My guess would be that AG Lynch (a Clinton supporter) is trying to block an indictment or a threat of indictment (re: CIA purpose as a check on Clinton and on leaks). The CIA/NSA are pushing the FBI to recommend indictment or threaten to. The FBI is caught in the middle (and that may be the reason for their delayed report).
Last week, President Obama stated to a reporter in a special White House interview that "there has been NO political influence on the FBI investigation. Full stop." He repeated this many times, provoked only by sputtering half-questions from the reporter. "Full stop."
Of course there is political influence! What do we think 'the Beltway' is but a viper's nest of political influence (and almost none of it in our interest, We the People)? What's being considered by all agencies and entities touched in any way by the FBI investigation is whether or not Clinton should be president.
If yes, how to cover up what Michael Hayden said she did (exposed U.S. national security secrets to the Chinese and other foreign governments)? If no (she shouldn't be president), how to let the public know what she did and how serious it was (enter Michael Hayden), and/or take other measures to defeat her, which at this point could be done without risking Trump as president (because Sanders is still a viable candidate, is still winning primaries, refuses to drop out and has great numbers against Trump).
What's going to happen that would affect us and our primary and the GE? Damned if I know. And I don't even have a strong guess among the many possibilities. I'm just trying to bring some perspective and some history to this highly unusual situation.
I imagine the FBI is trying to maintain some integrity and neutrality in what threatens to be an explosive political scandal like the original Watergate. But, of course, the FBI likes to be perceived as having integrity and neutrality. It's their thing (or at least Comey's). Is it true? Will they do what's right and just, according to the law? And if that is to recommend indictment of Clinton, will AG Lynch act on it, or will she protect her political ally? Or will all of this just remain a colossal muddle, like most Clinton business?
We don't have any say in these matters. All we can do is rally, and organize and vote, and pull off a decisive victory for Bernie Sanders in California and the remaining primary states. That will settle the matter. No more Clinton "baggage" to worry about.