Maggie's Farm

It ain't your Daddy's ___________(you fill in the blank)

In my case today it will be filled in with the CIA.
I worked for them for ten years, throughout the 1970's, in the hot war of Vietnam, the covert war in Laos and Cambodia, the nefarious work in Chile, fighting the Cubans in Angola and helping Rhodesia. That was in between raising a Soviet nuclear armed sub from the ocean floor and launching real time satellites and SR-71 and U-2 missions.

But when Jimma Carter and his band of idiots took over and the old OSS hands retired practically en mass I felt my work was done ,knowing it was going to be a circus from then on, as they all predicted. I listened to my elders..and the Agency,it hasn't disappointed.

So why the diatribe this morning ? Well it's a hostile stream of conscience. The Brits not aiding in the capture of Bin Laden because the CIA wouldn't promise not to torture him ..pleeese.

The CIA muffed this attack on the US and the Iraq War with an unparalleled lustre.

First they should have told the Brits anything they wanted to hear and then done what was necessary...the Brits are far from tidy in the espionage and covert activity.

But more importantly the Company should have made it 100% sure, failsafe, undeniable, that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

It would have taken one moonless midnight covert mission to have planted enough WMD's, weapons grade anthrax,sarin, a bit of ricin and mustard gas, and other nasties to assure the world that our cause was just...which it was but the Russians moved the stuff to Syria. Instead we went on a scavenger hunt that turned up some old artillery shells and some WMD's but by then it we were way down the public relations road that we had "failed to uncover the evidence"... I guarantee the people of Iraq knew he had WMD's, just ask the dead Kurds, or take the word of the captured Baath documents that frequently mention the Anfal campaign of February-September 1988, when high Baath officials in the north were authorized to gas the Kurds.

What the hell is the CIA for if not to ensure that things like getting it "right" aren't accomplished? The real world is not bound by any conventions or laws I can assure you. Putin, at this very minute knows that and is beginning to make his move while we are worn out and stretched thin.

Those friends I had who remained inside and just recently ended their careers assure me that the Agency is now left leaning , has no balls to speak of, and is politicized beyond imagination.
I was fortuneate enough to have been guided by the men who came from the WWII OSS and knew the ernest deadliness of espionage and the life and death struggle during the Cold War.

Nope it's not the CIA I knew. I'm glad I have different memories.

That thar new weapons system the Non-Line Of Sight Cannon sur do look purdy.

Of course iff'n we gets a Democrat in the WH and they continue to control the HOR then well golly we won't need any guns.

See Mrs. Clinton will have Bill fulfill his "Apology Tour".

That'll happen just before civil war breaks out .... I ain't go'in down the socialist road election or no election ..read the Declaration of Independence.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

I submit through the good writing of Ed Lasky at The American Thinker.

There are preliminary signs of a looming dangerous breach of constitutional safeguards, one that would extend Congressional power into the executive and judicial branches of government. This unprecedented series of threatened actions imperils the checks and balances that have been the bulwark of our system of government.

The Democrats could expand the size of the Court, and, with the presidency and congress (particularly the Senate) under their control, appoint very young Justices who would outlast administrations yet to come. A liberal, activist Supreme Court - with actuarial tables as an ally - could prolong Democratic control past Administrations and Congresses yet to come


The congress is not limiting its imperial overstretch to the Supreme Court of the United States. As the kerfuffle over the selection of US attorneys reveals, the Democrats are intent to take away the unfettered power of a President to appoint US attorneys. This is a power long vested in the President, and is a power that the Democrats had no problem seeing exercised when President Bill Clinton unceremoniously fired and replaced US attorneys during the early years of his Presidency - including one who was investigating the Whitewater controversy.


The entire article:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/post_8.html