The CIA’s Great Misstep In Its War For Supremacy


January 23, 2017 - San Francisco, CA - – There has been a very public intra-governmental war going on between [now former] director John Brennan’s Central Intelligence Agency and the incoming Trump administration. It has by no means been a typical DC bureaucratic turf dust-up. This one is being promulgated by the United States’ premiere spy agency and - making the matter far more serious - is actually a continuation of a long standing and completely illegal effort by the CIA to avoid culpability and "leave no fingerprints" as it runs illegal domestic operations against political targets.

Brennan's actions can only be judged in one way, it was his objective [obviously acting upon orders by former president Obama] to discredit Donald Trump by creating the impression that Vlad Putin hacked him into office.

More succinctly this is called an attempted soft coup.

Now, while we are generally wary of just about anything that appears on The Intercept, given its political bias, its commentary is usually interesting as long as one keeps the aforementioned in mind.

Such is the case with Glen Greenwald’s feature piece, The Deep State Goes to War With President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer, that despite being a bit thin on sourcing some serious charges, does offer the following snapshot from the campaign, essentially the point in time where - in the author's opinion - the Cold War spooks took to the barricades in service of DC’s political/business/media, etc., elite:

“For months, the CIA, with unprecedented clarity, overtly threw its weight behind Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and sought to defeat Donald Trump. In August, former acting CIA Director Michael Morell announced his endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed that “Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.” The CIA and NSA director under George W. Bush, Gen. Michael Hayden, also endorsed Clinton and went to the Washington Post to warn , in the week before the election, that “Donald Trump really does sound a lot like Vladimir Putin,” adding that Trump is “the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited.”

This core thesis deserves to be fleshed out.

The first public salvo can be dated back to March 2, 2016 when well over 100 national security types [see, Open Letter on Donald Trump from GOP National Security Leaders] including former Bush AG Michael Mukasey, the first Director of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Iraq invasion cheerleader Kenneth Adelman and others, took the unprecedented step of publicly attacking then candidate Trump, claiming in very non-diplomatic language that Trump was among a great many negative things, a “racketeer” a torturer and “fundamentally dishonest.”

Actually the hysterical verbiage was so over the top that for many, the effect was just this side of being comical, the political equivalent of a National Enquirer "Fish Headed Baby" fable.

Hardly satiated, five months later his same coterie of player [I-95 lifers, toadies and neo-con hacks - according to our sources, coordinated within U.S. intel circles] struck again in the form of another “open letter” decrying the candidacy of Donald Trump. [source, A Letter From G.O.P. National Security Officials Opposing Donald Trump, August 8, 2016, NYT]

But these very in your face efforts, in order to be understood, must be seen against the backdrop of America’s chief spy agency having long ago gone rogue to the point of launching black ops against political opponents.

An intriguing chronology:

On June 3, 2004, CIA director George Tenet retires and the position and agency are rebranded as “The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.”

But almost coincident with Tenet’s departure, the CIA started an agitprop operation against Team Bush. Despite claims to the contrary the anti-Bush leak was always intended to become public.

“A few hours after George W. Bush dismissed a pessimistic CIA report on Iraq as "just guessing," the analyst who identified himself as its author told a private dinner last week of secret, unheeded warnings years ago about going to war in Iraq. This exchange leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the president of the United States and the Central Intelligence Agency are at war with each other.

Paul R. Pillar, the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, sat down Tuesday night in a large West Coast city with a select group of private citizens. He was not talking off the cuff…When Pillar was asked why this was not made clear to the president and other higher authorities, his answer was that nobody asked - not even DCI Tenet. [this assertion is ludicrous on its face, as it’s exactly this type of analysis that the CIA is bound by its charter to provide to the CIC]

Pillar was not some free-booter, this presentation, “was approved by his "management team" at Langley as part of an ongoing "outreach" program. However, the spokesman said, Pillar told him that the fact I knew his name meant somebody had violated the off-the-record nature of his remarks. In other words, the CIA bureaucracy wants a license to criticize the president and the former DCI without being held accountable. Through most of the Bush administration, the CIA high command has been engaged in a bitter struggle with the Pentagon. CIA officials refer to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Under Secretary Douglas Feith as ‘ideologues.’” [source, Robert Novak, CIA versus Bush , CNN, September 27, 2004]

So obviously though absent its titular head the CIA was not blind and rudderless, it had an internal agenda irrespective of who officially ran the agency.

Those plotting in this manner - absent oversight - had plenty of opportunities to sow the seeds of dissension callously ignoring the harm such a public bloodletting might cause to American forces which were fully engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Unfortunately due to rancorous opposition by top Senate Democrats, Tenet’s replacement [Porter Goss] was not approved until April 21, 2005.

But just a year later Goss was forced to resign by president Bush - May 5, 2006. The rumor at the time which we still firmly believe to be true was that Bush ran up the white flag, knowing that taking on the CIA in the middle of two wars and growing public opposition was not in the national interest.

As proof that the CIA wasn’t playing games in trying to force Goss out; it was so bold as to forcefully challenge its new director on his first day in office.

“Almost immediately upon Director Goss's and his former Congressional staffers arrival, Steve Kappes - the Director of Operations - and his subordinates including Michael Sulick , Kappes' then-deputy began a series of confrontations with Goss and his personal staff immediately upon their arrival at the CIA. Kappes was rumored to have personally told DO officers that if they were seen or heard to be subservient to the new DCI and his staff their careers would be over. Kappes, Sulick, and Deputy Director John McLaughlin were reported to believe that ultimately Goss would back down . Since Kappes' reemergence at the CIA it has been reported that he quit the Agency rather than carry out a request by Goss to reassign Michael Sulick. It is also reported that this incident occurred because the chief of staff, Murray, heatedly admonished Sulick about the then assistant deputy director for counterintelligence, Mary Margaret Graham, about leaked classified information regarding another CIA officer. [source, Porter Goss, Wiki]

But Kappes had the last laugh here, returning to the agency in triumph a year after Goss’ departure.

“But to many intelligence insiders, the Kappes nomination sends a clear message that the Bush [administration] has abandoned its efforts to reform a dysfunctional agency. And that is the most troubling part of this appointment. "The CIA has been at war with the Bush administration since the beginning," says Richard Perle, the former chair of the Defense Policy board. "What is astounding is the CIA campaign to discredit this administration." [Kenneth Timmerman, Stephen Kappes: The Wrong Man at CIA , Human Events]


“Some critics, including Representative Peter Hoekstra, the Michigan Republican who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, have portrayed his return as a victory for a hidebound C.I.A. bureaucracy that resists all change. There has even been grumbling among White House officials that Mr. Kappes, the former head of the clandestine service, criticized the Bush administration and its policies after he left the agency in 2004.” [source, Mark Mazzetti A Storied Operative Returns to the C.I.A , May 30, 2006, NYT]

But the Agency is always engaged in protecting its claimed turf and given its sordid track record must be seen as a potential clear and present danger to the republic.

Fast forward to 2014 where Brennan's agency had grown so bold that it hacked into the Senate Intelligence Committee’s supposedly secure network reading among other documents, staffer’s email. - unfortunately for the CIA it got busted, big time.

In what should serve to prove that party affiliation was no protection if the CIA felt threatened - at the time the GOP had not yet taken over control of the Senate and the Intel Committee was run by California’s senior Senator, Dianne Feinstein - who was so outraged by the breach that she took the information public.

Having no alternative after having been caught dead to rights, the CIA confessed to its subterfuge of course in the most sterile language imaginable.

“An internal investigation by the C.I.A. has found that its officers penetrated a computer network used by the Senate Intelligence Committee in preparing its damning report on the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation program. The report by the agency’s inspector general also found that C.I.A. officers read the emails of the Senate investigators and sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department based on false information, according to a summary of findings made public on Thursday. One official with knowledge of the report’s conclusions said the investigation also discovered that the officers created a false online identity to gain access on more than one occasion to computers used by the committee staff.

The inspector general’s account of how the C.I.A. secretly monitored a congressional committee charged with supervising its activities touched off angry criticism from members of the Senate and amounted to vindication for Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the committee’s Democratic chairwoman, who excoriated the C.I.A. in March when the agency’s monitoring of committee investigators became public.

A statement issued Thursday morning by a C.I.A. spokesman said that John O. Brennan, the agency’s director, had apologized to Ms. Feinstein and the committee’s ranking Republican, Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, and would set up an internal accountability board to review the issue. The statement said that the board, which will be led by a former Democratic senator, Evan Bayh of Indiana, could recommend “potential disciplinary measures” and “steps to address systemic issues.” [source Mark Mazetti and Carl Hulse, Inquiry by C.I.A. Affirms It Spied on Senate Panel , NYT, July 31, 2014]

Not very reassuring is it to know that the Central Intelligence Agency has operated beyond the law for a very long time…and these are only the incidents which have come to light as it really stretches credulity to believe that this is the extent of CIA’s criminal wrongdoing. To our knowledge no one at the Agency was fired over the incident or even held to account...typical.

There is a postscript however - a snag of major proportions has developed, in that despite official DC [including but not limited to the Central Intelligence Agency] having chosen poorly, actively and quite publicly throwing its considerable weight behind Hillary, the loser in the recently concluded presidential election, the rats running this operation are now left with the worst possible scenario, they committed the classic error of striking at the king but failing to kill him.

So it is with considerable interest that we noted how quickly President Trump decided to present a show of force, traveling to the heart of the beast - CIA headquarters in Langley, VA - where he “pledged his full backing to the CIA.” This was followed by the wink-wink-nod-nod assurance,“ I am so behind you…I can only say that I am with you 1,000 percent…”

Shades of George McGovern and Tom Eagleton...

No one who has read this far should be in the least surprised by the reaction of now ex-CIA Dir John Brennan to the Langley field trip; ever the ass, he had some flunky tweet, “Former CIA Dir Brennan is deeply saddened and angered at Trump's despicable display of self-aggrandizement in front of CIA's Memorial Wall of Agency heroes.” [source, Politico ]

But this clubfooted Machiavelli wasn’t done, adding “that Trump should be ashamed of himself.”

We have a feeling that the heavy presence of the military in the president’s cabinet is by no means an accident; Mr. Trump has been well briefed and is obviously on to CIA’s gamesmanship which is why his nomination of Mike Pompeo as its director is so welcome.

Pompeo seems perfectly suited for the job. He graduated first in his class at West Point and then attended Harvard Law School [where he edited the Law Review] after his active duty Army career had ended. In Congress he served on both the House Intelligence and Energy Committees.

In recent testimony Pompeo opined that water boarding may return under his watch. Lastly he has no problem identifying the enemy as radical Islam mentioning it in the same sentence with the word Nazism:

“My generation was the tail end of the Cold War,” Pompeo said during a 2014 visit to Kansas State, where he discussed the battle against the Islamic State. He added: Before that, you had Nazism. This will ultimately be this generation’s fight, this battle where radical Islam continues to want to take on the West in fundamental ways, in the same way these other ideologies wanted to do before. I think we’re going to be at this for a while. We ought to be vigorous and thoughtful and effective in the way we respond." [source, John Hayward, Ten Things You Did Not Know About Rep. Mike Pompeo, Breitbart]

Comments such as this have of course earned him the enmity of one of America’s HAMAS linked front groups, the Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR].

All of these are very good signs that the new Sheriff in town means business and is not wearing a paper badge.

End note:

For further reading you might be interested in, John Brennan, Obama and the Central Intelligence Agency and John Brennan's "Al Quds" NYU Address - Providing Aid and Comfort to the Islamists

©2017 LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.