The latest Harper’s has an article on the rift in the deep-state between Trump and the cold-warriors in the CIA. Not a good article in general, but i did find schumer’s statement, appal.ingly insightful.

link:https://harpers.org/archive/2017/06/security-breach/2/

Security Breach
Trump’s tussle with the bureaucratic state

By Michael J. Glennon

Over the course of President Trump’s short tenure, an unprecedented, seismic split between the Oval Office and the security directorate has taken place….

….
….

(page 3 of 3 )

…Many never-Trumpers in both parties now regard the security bureaucracy as their last, best hope. Following the Washington Post’s disclosure on December 9 that the CIA believed Russia had intervened in the election to help Trump, the agency overnight became the great darling of many Trump critics. They urged it to share its secrets with the Electoral College with the goal of preventing the president-elect from taking office. Trump was “being really dumb” by feuding with the CIA, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. “You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” Francis Fukuyama hoped that “America’s enormous bureaucracy” would restrain Trump. Bill Kristol proclaimed he would “prefer the deep state to the Trump state.” And The New Yorker assured readers that the intelligence community’s managers were likely to challenge Trump before Congress, which was as it should be: “This is just the sort of thing we want to see happening” as part of “the fabled ‘checks and balances’ in the U.S. system.”

Clearly the public has a right to know whether a president is telling the truth if he claims that his predecessor ordered that he be illegally wiretapped. The public also has a right to know whether the president’s staff illegally coordinated with a foreign government during the election campaign or lied to the FBI about foreign contacts. But consider the price of victory if the security directorate were somehow to establish itself as a check on those presidential policies — or officials — that it happened to dislike. To formally charge the bureaucracy with providing a check on the president, Congress, or the courts would represent an entirely new form of government, a system in which institutionalized bureaucratic autocracy displaces democratic accountability. What standing would Trump’s critics have to object to bureaucratic supremacy should an enlightened president come along, in some brighter time, and seek to free them from the “polar night of icy darkness” that Max Weber warned is bureaucracy’s inevitable end point? Where then would they turn, having consecrated the security directorate as their final guardian?

As a creature of the people’s elected institutions, the bureaucracy was never intended to be a coequal of Congress, the courts, and the president. Bureaucracy doesn’t even appear in the constitutional design that emerged from Philadelphia in 1787. Under the Constitution, power is delegated to the intelligence bureaucracy, not by it. Like other departments and agencies, an intelligence organization can exercise only those powers given to it by its constitutionally established creators. Those who would counter the illiberalism of Trump with the illiberalism of unfettered bureaucrats would do well to contemplate the precedent their victory would set.

This perilous precedent would be the least of it, however, should the bureaucracy emerge triumphant. American history is not silent about the proclivities of unchecked security forces, a short list of which includes the Palmer Raids, the FBI’s blackmailing of civil rights leaders, Army surveillance of the antiwar movement, the NSA’s watch lists, and the CIA’s waterboarding. No one passingly familiar with this record of abuse and misconduct could seriously contemplate entrusting these agencies with responsibility for preserving the nation’s civil and political liberty. Without constitutional accountability, what reason is there to believe that they would not quickly revert to their old ways, particularly should a national emergency provide plausible justification? Who would trust the authors of past episodes of repression as a reliable safeguard against future repression?….see link

What is the actual rule on the ‘celebration’ thing?

I think there should be a special designated area, on the sideline
for all narcissistic displays by prima donnas. Like a litle stage. With strobe lights and solid-gold-dancers in the background.

And i think it should have a small amount of dynamite underneath it.

w
v

Zooey wrote:

Yeah, I think there is a big difference between promoting an establishment point of view which is narrow and selective and promoting outright lies, lies of omission, and basically hate speech in order to manipulate a large portion of the population into hostile partisanship.

Those things are not equal.

One of those things can actually be engaged; the other can’t.

====================

Well, its true Fox is off-the-charts, with their NeoCon/Evangelical sales-pitch.

But what IS the NYTimes? What does it stand for, what does it sell to the public exactly?

My own view is that it essentially sells Obama/Clinton. Neoliberalism.
And there is no neoliberalism without the CIA and the Corporations and the Pentagon and weapons manufacturers and the corporate-media, etc, etc etc. The whole shebang. The NYT is pro ‘system’. Pro ‘corporotacracy’.

And what does the corporotacracy do to the biosphere? To the poor?

So is that so much better than what Fox News is all about? Well…yes…i suppose…but still…. blah blah blah yall know my speech by now.

I loathe the NYT.

w
v

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

Those are indeed the two narratives of the two corporate-mainstream-media-outlets.

I don’t agree. I think it dignifes one version to call it “a narrative.” Yeah teachnically it is, but that;s not what’s pertinent. What’s pertinent is that it;s full of lies and distortions and misleads and suppresses part of the story.

The other version is more factual as reporting, though yes like all coverage, it works within certain interpretive boundaries.

We are going to keep disagreeing on this–the right spin on things like this is far worse and far more dangerous. It’s not “equal” in terms of just being “equally a narrative.”

It makes a difference to sort out the best info on things. What I would welcome more is a critique of the mainstream, not-rightie version which accounted for more things, was a better interpretation, and stood up better to scrutiny. But just declaring these 2 to be effectively equal, TO ME, is actually just another distortion. I of course don’t think it’s intended as a distortion…but those 2 versions of events are absolutely not equal. The challenge of course is to work at coming up with a better interpretation than the one version that is at least minimally factual.

=================

Well I’d like to see an article like that showing the NYTimes narrative about Hillary compared to their narrative about Bernie.

I just cant take the NYTimes seriously anymore. Its an organ of propaganda (in my view). Fox is another organ of propaganda. Does Fox tell more blatant lies? Yes. Does the NYT tell more subtle lies? I’d say yes. The NYT has supported every war i can think of, blah blah blah.

Anyway, I’m bowing out of this thread. No heat from me. Just would rather post about other things this week.

w
v

Well the article is right on about there being two mega-corporate-narratives — ie, the pro-Hillary-NewYork-Times version of the narrative and the pro-Trump-Fox-Newz narrative.

Those are indeed the two narratives of the two corporate-mainstream-media-outlets.

I dont put much stock in either of those narratives. Just my view. I know some folks have a different view. (and i know all about not trusting one source and ‘layering’ various sources and all that. I dont think that works very well anymore, given the corporate dominance of the news agencies now.)

w
v

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

And btw, fwiw, the CIA and the NSA and the FBI are all kinda ‘one thing’ to me. They are separate ‘tentacles’ of the same Cthulhu

And I have to say I don’t agree with that either. I always prefer actual concrete analysis over vague monster making.

.

======================
To me that just means you disagree. I didnt make the monsters. I just look at the histories and if they look like frankenstein and walk like frankenstein and think like frankenstein — i call’em monsters.

Now, to me, I’m just ‘shooting from the hip’ when i call them ‘tentacles of Chthulu’. Its not meant to be a detailed analysis. But shooting from the hip doesnt mean ‘creating monsters’. It just means its a way of describing something quickly in a message board post. No different than saying “Lawrence Philips is a BUST”. Its not a detailed analysis but its still accurate in a shooting from the hip kind of way.

I think maybe we just see the Corporotacracy differently. To me its Cthulu. And the various subsystems (FBI, CIA, NSA, Corporate-Media, Banks, Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc) are all ‘tentacles’. Separate but related tentacles. Thats how i see it. Thats the metaphor that works for me.

You see it differently.

I still have the Stockwell book on my mantle in my living-room. Lots of good info in that book.

I dont think the thread is getting ugly, btw. We are fleshing out fundamentaly different perspectives.

w
v

waterfield wrote:

“we are dealing with a secret society, a secret culture, a secret organization — the CIA. ”

What I don’t get is this: if in fact they are a secret organization, culture and society-how do you know so much about them that you hate them as passionate as you do? They just can’t be all that secret for you and others to obtain information on the bad stuff they do.

=================

We only know a SMALL FRACTION of the horror, W. A small fraction. From that fraction we can extrapolate what they’ve been up to all these years.

The small fraction comes from ex-cia agents, leaks, and investigative reporters.

But most of it we will never know. And that fact alone should chill citizens to the bone. What kind decent society needs a secret police? One that interferes in other nations elections, assassinates socialists, trains terrorists, traffics in heroin and cocaine, plants false stories in the media, and sucks up UNKNOWN billions of dollars of tax payers dollars.

Do you even WANT to know what the CIA does? I get the impression you dont really care about it, or the fact that they are undemocratic and are unaccountable.

And btw, fwiw, the CIA and the NSA and the FBI are all kinda ‘one thing’ to me. They are separate ‘tentacles’ of the same Cthulhu.

Zooey wrote:

wv wrote:

=================

I suspect it is more than just ‘he offended’ them. It could be that. But that makes them seem awfully…thin skinned. I have NO idea what the truth is, but it could be more than just ‘personal offense taken’. It could be a deep-state-policy thing.

I dont think we will ever know.

As far as the word ‘conspiracy’ — we are dealing with a secret society, a secret culture, a secret organization — the CIA. So, i dont even know how to leave out the term ‘conspiracy’, or how to even talk about them.

I see it as a pathological organization. Doesnt matter (to me) if a few of them are ‘good people’ or fighting for a less-monstrous-organization. Its no different than Monsanto or Blackwater. I see them as pathological. Reflections of a pathological system in general. I see them the way Smedley Butler saw the powers-that-be.

Again, no ‘heat’ here. I’m just talkin calmly. No big thing.

My views have darkened since about the beginning of the election cycle. Partly because of what i saw the Dems do to Bernie. Partly because of what the corporate media has become — its much worse now than ever. Its essentially nothing but propaganda now. The CIA disgusts me.

w
v

I agree with all of that.

By offended, I’m not talking about reaching into the snack bowl with his hands instead of using the tongs.

I think he has trampled all over their holy service and sacrifice, and shown total disregard for the meaning of all they hold dear. His actions have told them that he doesn’t respect them or value what they do.

===================

Ok, could be Zooey. But IS trump really doing that? I dunno. My own wild speculation is that he uses and relies on the NSA/CIA as much as Obama did.

I kinda suspect his ‘agenda’ is a bit different than Obama/Hillary — and the only thing i can figure, is maybe it has something to do with Russia. Somethin to do with how he views Russia. But who the hell knows. Everybody’s got an opinion on it, but how can we know what factions of the CIA are thinking? I mean just the term ‘factions of the CIA’ is surreal and problematic. It all has an Alice in Wonderland feel to it. And yet…

At any rate, Its an undemocratic, secret-organization with a long long history of creating horror, torture and undemocratic activity. How can we even have a language for talking about what it may or may not be doing?

Rick sees them as ‘professionals’. I dont even know what to do with that. Professional whats?

We have fallen down the rabbit hole. The Dems and Reps are tweedle dum and tweedle dee. I dunno what character the CIA is. Or Trump. I dont know what else to say.

w
v

This is the kind of personnel/coaching decision that makes the difference between a wildcard team or a losing team, etc.

These ‘nuts and bolts’ decisions. They are NOT ‘no brainers’. This coaching staff has to get this right. The Center decision. And its not an easy decision, i bet. Its not like starting Goff or Quinn or somethin.

These are the kinds decisons that will tell us a lot about this new organization.
The WR decisons are the same thing, to me.

w
v

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

But ‘something’ about Trump just made some faction in the CIA go nutz.

This is so simple.

They’re professionals and he is dangerously incompetent when it comes to those issues.

It’s nothing more than that. Notice none of the dissent is about policy (unlike in the courts with immigration). It’s about procedures.

=================

Professional killers? Professional torturers?

Sorry, i dont see it the same way. AND, you cant prove that the reason they didnt want Trump is ‘professionalism’. I mean how can you know that?

We know there is a fissure. We know one faction wanted Hillary BAD.

We DONT know WHY. You can speculate it was ‘professionalism’.

w
v

Yes that’s part of it within divided organizations that actually have factions on one side or another of those issues.

What you DON’T do in real analysis is inflate this fictional enemy to darth vader status, and ignore real history (the CIA includes people who argue AGAINST using torture on the grounds that it is actually ineffective, and that includes the people who outed a lot of Bush’s “go to war” info as fake).

Slogans are easy, analysis is better.

AND remember who you are talking to! Do you see in me a longterm defender or american secret foreign policy alliances with dictators and death squads etc?

These things have histories, they are never these inflated mythical things, and I will always back real analysis over bumper stickers.

.

=============
i added a ‘PS’ on my message while u were typing yours. Fwiw.

I agree things have ‘histories’. I dont agree what I’m doing is ‘bumper sticker analysis’. I mean i could say exactly the same thing about what you are doing — i could call it ‘bumper sticker analysis’.

We just see the CIA differently now. I know about its history as well as you. I know its history. And i disagree about what it is. I know…its…history…and i see it as a Monstrosity. You see it as a mix of things. Cool, we disagree. But dont act like i dont know its history. We both know its history.

I’m sure there were Nazis who argued that the Jews shouldnt be killed — but the Nazi Party was still a monstrosity.

w
v

• This reply was modified 9 years, 2 months ago by wv.

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

But ‘something’ about Trump just made some faction in the CIA go nutz.

This is so simple.

They’re professionals and he is dangerously incompetent when it comes to those issues.

It’s nothing more than that. Notice none of the dissent is about policy (unlike in the courts with immigration). It’s about procedures.

=================

Professional killers? Professional torturers?

Sorry, i dont see it the same way. AND, you cant prove that the reason they didnt want Trump is ‘professionalism’. I mean how can you know that?

We know there is a fissure. We know one faction wanted Hillary BAD.

We DONT know WHY. You can speculate it was ‘professionalism’.

PS — edit, that came across much snarkier than i intended. We just see some fundamental-things differently now, Rick. No big deal. No heat. Just difference of opinion. I have zero respect for the CIA. I see it as a monstrosity protecting a biosphere-killing corporate-capitalist-system. I dont recognize any ‘professionalism’ in it.

w
v

• This reply was modified 9 years, 2 months ago by wv.

How Roger Ailes Built the Fox News Fear Factory

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-20110525

“…To watch even a day of Fox News – the anger, the bombast, the virulent paranoid streak, the unending appeals to white resentment, the reporting that’s held to the same standard of evidence as a late-­October attack ad – is to see a refraction of its founder, one of the most skilled and fearsome operatives in the history of the Republican Party. As a political consultant, Ailes repackaged Richard Nixon for television in 1968, papered over Ronald Reagan’s budding Alzheimer’s in 1984, shamelessly stoked racial fears to elect George H.W. Bush in 1988, and waged a secret campaign on behalf of Big Tobacco to derail health care reform in 1993. “He was the premier guy in the business,” says former Reagan campaign manager Ed Rollins. “He was our Michelangelo.”

——————

Yeah, for me, that article goes in the Zine. (along with the Rolling Stone article on Hog Farms)
Each paragraph could be bolded, undrlined, italicized, and highlighted.

The Reps are driving us off the cliff at 100 mph.
And they have what? about 35 percent of the hearts/minds of
the people? The left is divided, and another faction doesnt vote cause of apathy, and another faction doesn’t vote out of principle (system is too corrupt to participate in)

w
v

zn wrote:

Enh. I dunno. Looks hyped up, not really substantial.

——————-

I miss Picard.

w
v