US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo © Reuters / Piroschka Van De Wouw; Central Intelligence Agency logo © Reuters
RT: Pompeo says US intel only OCCASIONALLY ‘gets things wrong’, after bragging about ‘lying’ CIA
US intelligence agencies occasionally make mistakes but should still be trusted and taken at their word, according to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who once famously boasted that the CIA “lies, cheats and steals.”
In an interview with Euronews, the former CIA chief insisted that US intelligence agencies are right to consider Chinese telecom giant Huawei a national security threat – a claim that has been disputed by Washington’s European allies.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: They should not be trusted and taken at their word.
6 comments:
Is he f*cking joking?
In the last 20 years, the MAJOR, MAJOR things they got all wrong
-9/11
-Iraq
-China & South China Sea
-Snowden
-Wikileaks
-RussiaGate/RussiaHoax (depending on where you stand on this :D)
-Russia Crimea invasion
-Russia Georgia invasion
-China electromagnetic gun surprise
-Russia & China supersonic missile surprise
Like what did they actually get right? Or did they always assess right and our leaders got it all wrong (might very well be, the public knows squat).
I really like the US and think fondly of the secret services and the role they play.. but what Pompeo says is just a bit off to what the general population thinks
For sure.
We have a saying in intel: can't win them all. Would you prefer NO intel when you win none?
The problem is what the intel is, which department gets it, and how it is used to advance the desires of whoever, subversive or otherwise although subversive tends to win out, as opposed to say the needs of the people.
In the case of 911 they just ignored it, or, rather buried it, and that most likely on the instructions of the President, or, one of his minions, who decided to facilitate it, for perhaps the actual outcome. In that respect Pear Harbor comes to mind, a nasty subverting of the intel resulting in terrible loss of life.
The pity is that no matter the intel, or, how it is used, when the action taken is criminal and those responsible are not punished appropriately. If they were punished perhaps intel would have better served the country and the world.
Bob-
who is the "they" that ignored it and how do you know or suggest on the instruction of the president? that is a serious charge. Here is an example just this week that worked
Man Arrested in Alleged Times Square Terror Plot - Comments
Feds say Ashiqul Alam bought weapons from undercover agent
Thanks for the comment.
"they" means the people in a couple of intel departments who supposidly had information that something really big was about to happen and who failed to pass it on to the President or passed it on only it got "dropped" making the use of intel as was the subject of the question more pertinent.
I tend to use bankerspeak as in "most likely" which is not a direct accusation against the President as "most likely" suggests it could have been other others.
From my own perspective.
The whole sad 911 event raised a lot of issues that could have been avoided if there had been a complete and proper processing of the physical evidence created. NIST made such a statement in its three reports on the matter. They of course did not add that people in charge, including the President failed in their duty to determine all and sundry information relative to the attack. Even staff at NIST have revolted regarding the final report.
A belated investigation was conducted during which testimony was neither sought nor accepted from professional individuals and organizations. There were many strange and verifiable happenings that led a lot of people to question the veracity of the investigation and the report. Those questions have never been addressed. Many loose ends were not investigated and when raised were ignored. All of this happened during the tenure of G W Bush the top man in the country's political chain. Of course Obama passed on the issue. Given he was the man at the top the failure to adequately defend his country rests on his shoulders.
The failure to institute a proper investigation provides reasonable cause to suggest the existing people and especially the top man were derelict in their duties and possibly involved if not before, then afterwards in covering up evidence. Involved otherwise why not have it properly investigated?
Finally don't even think that I am the first and only person to voice such a suggestion regarding Bush and company and to the best of my knowledge none have been charged because there is no way the existing government wants to see the accusation proven in court and there is no telling what might come out.
Post a Comment