Post by wyldberi on May 6, 2007 18:42:10 GMT -5
This is a portion of a thread from another board concerning Tenet's book that explains his viewpoint on the treason he committed.
As I read through this thread, it evokes two themes that run through my head and twist together:
1) Three Days of the Condor
This is an early Robert Redford film where a low-level CIA analyst detects a plot by a rogue element operating within the CIA to implement a plan to invade the Middle East to secure oil supplies to keep America strong.
The memory of this movie is not connected to cheney's energy task force and the events we're looking at in Iraq today. (Though the resemblance is striking.)
The image that strikes me from this movie is that final scene where Cliff Robertson scolds Redford for handing his story to the New York Times and "damaging national security" without realizing what he has done. It's a good commentary on the validity of the history we Americans were taught in public schools in the 1950's and 60's. And it's also a good commentary on the understanding the average American consumer has concerning their lifestyles.
2) The recent scandal on how the bush administration has been politicizing, not only the Justice Department, but from reports of carl rove's activities that violate the Hatch Act, the manner in which every government bureau and agency has been affected by the mentality of the "K-Street Project."
When the Citizens in a democracy do not have access to accurate information concerning the policies and activities of their representatives/leaders and the government they head up, the People can make neither informed decisions nor effectively demand that changes in those policies that violate the will of the People be made. What you get is an ever-increasing blanket of secrecy that slowly but surely snuffs out the liberty it purports to protect.
The only thing that's changed since the days of Eisenhower and Truman is the rate the snowball is rolling down the hill, and the degree of secrecy required to keep the activities of those responsible for what's taking place hidden in darkness.
They can’t know – most don’t want to know – all the things we do to protect them. But they have to feel comfortable that we’re doing it in a way that they’d find consistent with their values.
I don't care for all this secrecy. This alone is not consistent with my values.
And what does it mean that we can't know, and perhaps don't want to know what is being done to "protect" us?
If I'm not told the details of how such activities are carried out, how can I know if such work is being done according to my values?
And really, this is a bunch of crap, since there is more than enough documented "evidence" that shows the manner in which these people really operate, such as destroying legitimate democracies, supporting genocidal maniacs, etc., is quite obviously not consistent with my values.
Of course, if all a person cares about is having their cake and eating it too, by which I mean maintaining the "lifestyle" we are (supposedly) accustomed to in the USA without worrying about the consequences of how this is done, then I suppose that person's values are a bit screwed up. (And hey, I don't consider the lifestyle in the USA to be all that terrific a thing.)
And with all this secrecy, how am I going to know when these bozos turn on the civilian population of the USA and betray the bulk of this population in order to achieve the goals of some other unspoken agenda?
And what does it mean that we can't know, and perhaps don't want to know what is being done to "protect" us?
If I'm not told the details of how such activities are carried out, how can I know if such work is being done according to my values?
And really, this is a bunch of crap, since there is more than enough documented "evidence" that shows the manner in which these people really operate, such as destroying legitimate democracies, supporting genocidal maniacs, etc., is quite obviously not consistent with my values.
Of course, if all a person cares about is having their cake and eating it too, by which I mean maintaining the "lifestyle" we are (supposedly) accustomed to in the USA without worrying about the consequences of how this is done, then I suppose that person's values are a bit screwed up. (And hey, I don't consider the lifestyle in the USA to be all that terrific a thing.)
And with all this secrecy, how am I going to know when these bozos turn on the civilian population of the USA and betray the bulk of this population in order to achieve the goals of some other unspoken agenda?
One of the best posts I've seen....EVAH!!!
You wouldn't want this kind of secrecy in your business or personal relationships....
I think you've hit on the crux of the matter, ShineOn.... why shouldn't our decent personal values be our political ones?
I would like just once for somebody to show me when our REAL national security was harmed or endangered by someone not keeping a secret.
No, anyone harmed or endangered would be those with their own hidden agendas within our political systems.
You wouldn't want this kind of secrecy in your business or personal relationships....
I think you've hit on the crux of the matter, ShineOn.... why shouldn't our decent personal values be our political ones?
I would like just once for somebody to show me when our REAL national security was harmed or endangered by someone not keeping a secret.
No, anyone harmed or endangered would be those with their own hidden agendas within our political systems.
Our security was harmed when the White House outed not just Valerie Plame Wilson, an undercover CIA operative, but the entire brassplate firm of Brewster Jennings that was gathering information on those seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction. (Did I mention that they were working in the Middle East, in such places as Iran.)
While some degree of secrecy is necessary, such as protecting the lives of intelligence agents, secrecy is often an excuse to hide information that is unflattering. The Bush administration has made a habit of classifying previously unclassified materials. So, it looks like secrecy is just an excuse for the administration very often.
While some degree of secrecy is necessary, such as protecting the lives of intelligence agents, secrecy is often an excuse to hide information that is unflattering. The Bush administration has made a habit of classifying previously unclassified materials. So, it looks like secrecy is just an excuse for the administration very often.
As I read through this thread, it evokes two themes that run through my head and twist together:
1) Three Days of the Condor
This is an early Robert Redford film where a low-level CIA analyst detects a plot by a rogue element operating within the CIA to implement a plan to invade the Middle East to secure oil supplies to keep America strong.
The memory of this movie is not connected to cheney's energy task force and the events we're looking at in Iraq today. (Though the resemblance is striking.)
The image that strikes me from this movie is that final scene where Cliff Robertson scolds Redford for handing his story to the New York Times and "damaging national security" without realizing what he has done. It's a good commentary on the validity of the history we Americans were taught in public schools in the 1950's and 60's. And it's also a good commentary on the understanding the average American consumer has concerning their lifestyles.
2) The recent scandal on how the bush administration has been politicizing, not only the Justice Department, but from reports of carl rove's activities that violate the Hatch Act, the manner in which every government bureau and agency has been affected by the mentality of the "K-Street Project."
When the Citizens in a democracy do not have access to accurate information concerning the policies and activities of their representatives/leaders and the government they head up, the People can make neither informed decisions nor effectively demand that changes in those policies that violate the will of the People be made. What you get is an ever-increasing blanket of secrecy that slowly but surely snuffs out the liberty it purports to protect.
The only thing that's changed since the days of Eisenhower and Truman is the rate the snowball is rolling down the hill, and the degree of secrecy required to keep the activities of those responsible for what's taking place hidden in darkness.
