Comments on: What the CIA Should Be Doing

By: Arthur

Arthur — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:01:38 +0000

Perhaps the spooks are just consolidating – bringing their lackeys And their competition under their wing . While there may be men and women of integrity working at this agency , I’m more than willing to consider that most have job skills more indicative of smug slimy gangsters – like pathological fabrication , extortion , drug dealing and murder .

By: Thomas O. Meehan

Thomas O. Meehan — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:45:38 +0000

One hopes that the agency is creating a web of sources and sleeper agents. We will not be in Afghanistan forever, and we do need to keep tabs on the next lot. An effort should also be made to cement influence on those factions who will make up any fragmented successor state(s). This may be a cheap and effective way of preventing the Taliban from consolidating power over the whole country.

Or we could just mumble something or other about the invincible ignorance and corruption of the Kabul regime and Afghans in general and bug out.

By: Norwegian Shooter

Norwegian Shooter — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:37:18 +0000

The source of the leak is the administration. There is absolutely a political agenda behind it.

What about from Ahmed Walid Karzai’s angle? Why would he go on the payroll and hand the Americans an opportunity to blackmail or expose him any time they wanted? It’s not exactly a positive to Pashtuns to be linked to Americans.

And I’m not saying that there is no communication or cooperation with Karzai, just that it would be far more discreet than direct payments to him.

By: Philip Giraldi

Philip Giraldi — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:37:29 +0000

NS, the CIA does indeed have a payroll with signed receipts from its agents. These days, they may even do direct deposit. That said, the source of the leak remains murky and there could be a political agenda in surfacing it at this point.

By: Norwegian Shooter

Norwegian Shooter — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:34:21 +0000

Philip, does the CIA really have a payroll with pay stubs and all? And even if they did, would they really tell the administration this directly? Plausible deniability and all. Isn’t this just an administration planted story to damage President Karzai in front of the upcoming elections?

By: Barney Rebble

Barney Rebble — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:09:03 +0000

Why don’t we surrender to the UN?

Really. I wonder if the ‘antiwar.com” folks might have this one right?

Let’s say we can identify some legitimate military goals. Why can’t we hand the problem to the UN, and keep no more troops in-country than the UN can match?

And below a certain threshold, if there are not enough “world troops” to keep our people safe, we withdraw entirely in protest.

I vote we put this one on a strict agressive timetable, for just getting out. Use economy as an excuse, whatever.

Unless George Soros and GE have figured out a way to make money by us staying, why aren’t we out already?

Basically, Bush won the Iraq war (if you kind of look at it with squinted eyes, and aren’t a hating dishonest lib), so just declare the whole thing a victory, and get out. Because we are going to get the blame for everyone who stubs their toe in the area FOR THE NEXT 10 TO 20 YEARS anyway.

The US will be fast losing it’s ability to field an army (because of the impending economic meltdown), and we’d better retrench sooner, rather than later.