Is it time to abolish the CIA?

The asks: “Would the security needs of the United States be better served if the agency were dismantled?”

Three responses are especially apt. All of them note that CIA abuses of power are deeply rooted in the agency’s history, going back to the Kennedy presidency.

Peter Kornbluh, author of the timely new book “Back Channel to Cuba”:

“There is no alternative but to remove the C.I.A.’s covert capacities once and for all, and redistribute those functions to other more responsible agencies such as the F.B.I. and the Pentagon, leaving the C.I.A. purely as an intelligence agency.”

Melvin Goodman, former CIA analyst:

“A wall is needed between worlds of analysis and operations to ensure independent assessments.”

Juan Gabrial Tokatlian, professor at the Universidad Torcuato Di Tella in Buenos Aires, Argentina:

“If there is something to be learned by the transition to democracy in the Southern Cone of the Americas—so much affected by the CIA activities over the 60s, 70s, and 80s — it is that human rights should be placed first and foremost in the social and political agenda. If it is not, we will probably have more reports on the U.S. intelligence system cruelty in the next decades to come.”

66 thoughts on “Is it time to abolish the CIA?”

  1. Yes, changes in the CIA do need to be made. The fact that government agencies have made it a rule not to share information has caused countless misunderstandings, not only in the JFK assassination. Perhaps a number of conspiracy theories have resulted from this attitude of secrecy. Too much secrecy can and does cause distrust and sometimes unnecessary confusion. In the case of the assassination it is leaving people chasing after a whirlwind of false leads, running down blind alleys and in the end finding themselves facing a dead end. All we can do is debate the issues. And the debate seems endless. If an unreleased file would lessen the confusion, why wouldn’t it have been released earlier? If the files were released it might have even restored a little faith in the CIA and we wouldn’t be making these comments.

  2. In the eyes of the public it definitely looks like the CIA needs to redeem itself. I’m not so sure it should be abolished as it can and should play a vital role in the world today, plagued with terrorism, etc. We need them but I also think their actions need to be monitored. With some of their past actions and so many Americans losing trust in them, it looks like some changes need to be made.

  3. While terrorism is a currently relevant subject. In relation to the topic, I’ve read, JFK fired cia director dulles after the BOP and said he wanted to “splinter the cia into a thousand pieces and scatter to the winds”. He thought it was time to abolish them over 50 years ago. What did it get him as their commander in chief?

  4. CIA Document 1035-960
    The memorandum lays out a detailed series of actions and techniques for “countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries.” For example, approaching “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)” to remind them of the Warren Commission’s integrity and soundness should be prioritized. “[T]he charges of the critics are without serious foundation,” the document reads, and “further speculative discussion only plays in to the hands of the [Communist] opposition.”

    The agency also directed its members “[t]o employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”

    1035-960 further delineates specific techniques for countering “conspiratorial” arguments centering on the Warren Commission’s findings. Such responses and their coupling with the pejorative label have been routinely wheeled out in various guises by corporate media outlets, commentators and political leaders to this day against those demanding truth and accountability about momentous public events.


    1. Your source’s interpretation of the report should be tempered by the facts that the same source believes that we are bullying North Korea, that Putin has every right to have imperialistic designs on Ukraine, that statins are bad for you, that Ukrainian pro-Russian rebels didn’t shoot down the Malaysian airliner with a missile,etc. Apparently you object to a Federal agency supporting the findings of another Federal body and that agency presenting arguments to bolster that support. Obviously that has not compromised your or any other CTer’s ability to post or publish anything you want about the JFK assassination, no matter how unsubstantiated or erroneous .As the KGB was clearly putting out false information and forged documents in regards to the JFK assassination it makes sense that the U.S. government would want to counter that with an appeal to the facts .
      I am still waiting for your source for your Dec. 24 Colby and Casey quotes. Without a source I must consider them false; the Colby quote has floated around the CT atmosphere for some time with no real confirmation. Just because a lie gets repeatedly posted doesn’t mean that it can magically become true.

      1. Well Photon you are very well “informed” with the propaganda broadcast by the ‘Public Relations Regime’. You also bring up a vast array of topics, and exclude any real rebuttal to CIA Document 1035-960

        You also offer the pretense that the critics of the Warren Report were in the main “Communists” – which is again reanimating the McCarthy era hysteria of that era.

        You inquired of someone you called “Jim” to provide sources for quotes.

        I am not Jim.

        “for that William Casey quote. He said it at an early Feb. 1981 meeting in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House which I attended, and I immediately told my close friend and political godmother Senior White House Correspondent Sarah McClendon, who then went public with it without naming the source.”~Barbara Honegger

        The other two quotes are rather ubiquitous to their profiles, and may indeed be artistic license in characterizing the people thus quoted. Further research may verify them as actual quotes. It is up in the air at this point for me. You can dismiss them as hearsay if you wish, I however see them as good characterizations of the state of mind of the cult of intelligence.

        1. The Casey quote is by Barbara Honegger, a women who claimed that there was a October Surprise and was completely disproven by a multimillion dollar congressional investigation and multiple other authors. She also claimed that the Pentagon on 9-11 was damaged by 2 bombs in the building and that it wasn’t hit by the 757 that actually crashed into it. She has further claimed that the pilot of the hijacked plane was secretly an agent of Dick Cheney. In short, she has no credibility- why use her as a source?
          You admitted that your other two quotes have no basis in fact aside from being repeated on the Internet. In other words,you are willing to post as fact quotes with no real evidence that they had ever been said.
          If you deny that there was a KGB disinformation campaign against the notion of Oswald as the lone assassin you are ignoring historical fact. How you go from that to claiming that I inferred that Warren critics where ” in the main ‘Communists’…” Is beyond me. Who is using McCarthyite tactics here?

          1. I don’t believe Soviet officials ever used their findings on the assassination as propoganda. The following FBI document shows how the KGB’s findings were a closely guarded secret amongst top government officials, known only to the FBI through a source in the KGB residency in New York City. After a 21-month investigation, the KGB came to the conclusion there was a domestic conspiracy to effect a ‘coup’ with LBJ involved:

            FBI Memo – 12/1/66

          2. I gave you the source for the Angleton quote on another thread, and trust you will find it on your own as easily as you find my comments on this thread. But for the convenience of others:
            “Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the State.”
            ―James Jesus Angleton
            ‘Deception: The Invisible War Between the KGB and the CIA’
            — By Edward Jay Epstein
            Epstein’s books Legend (1978) and Deception (1989) drew on interviews with retired CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Jesus Angleton
            . . .
            Your framing of Barbara Honegger as simply a “crazy conspiracy theorist” and therefore unreliable as a source, is simply not a viable argument.
            Honegger was indeed part of the staff and present at meetings on the topic of national security. Fact: Honegger worked as a researcher at the Hoover Institution before joining the Ronald Reagan administration as a researcher and policy analyst in 1980.

      2. I’m still waiting for you to provide a motive for your claim that Lee Oswald, acting alone, killed Jack Kennedy.

  5. Hi all

    I do think it is time to review the role of the CIA. Please see the article below. The relevant bit is

    “it is instructive to note that no other Western liberal democracy has an organisation that matches the CIA in the scope of its powers or the extent of its resourcing. Nor do equivalent intelligence agencies have a remit that is so expansive and therefore so ill-defined.”

    I would argue that no other Western liberal democracy has the level of paranoia that is prevalent in the US either. Some scepticism is healthy in a democracy but the birther/truther level of doubt is toxic.

    Is it unfair to say that the paranoia and the CIA might be linked?

  6. “The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”
    – William Colby, former CIA director

    “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
    – William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting, 1981)

    “Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the State.”
    James Jesus Angleton, head of CIA counter intelligence from 1954-1974


    1. Willy:

      I am going to repost two comments by my e-friend Bill:

      [Bill Clarke wrote:]

      (1) “I wouldn’t be messing with the CIA at this time of great danger from terrorists”.

      (2) “I agree with Ben Franklin”.

      Is it just me or we have here the most fundamental contradiction being faced by the American people?

      1. Well Ramon,

        All I can say is that I agree that there is a contradiction, what might be called cognitive dissonance; that of holding two divergent thoughts and not being consciously aware of how they collide one with the other.

        This is an epistemological malady which seems to be pandemic in modern culture. I see it as a product of the over arching ‘Public Relations Regime’. I have spoken to this previously here, when advising a study of the works of Walter Lippman and Edward Bernays. Of course that is simply PR 101. From that point there is much to follow. I think grasping Antony Sutton’s popular works (and if you can understand it his more scholarly studies) is essential in coming to grips with the psycho-social conundrum of the modern pathological society.

        Lol, to make a short answer long!

      2. Ramon F Herrera December 24, 2014 at 9:02 pm

        Sigh! Okay Ramon, tell me the last time the CIA relieved you of your freedoms. How about the last time the CIA attempted to liberate your soul from your body as you mentioned before.

        Details please. Dates would be nice. References would be be nice also.

        1. Now now Bill,
          This “It never happened to you, so it can’t be true” is a silly and fallacious argument.
          You are hand-waving the reality of Full Spectrum Dominance. Have you never read; ‘They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45’ by Milton Mayer?

          Naivete is not innocence.

          1. Willy Whitten December 26, 2014 at 8:09 am

            Well Willy, Ramon just graced us with a couple of post but no comment on what freedoms the CIA had taken from him and no comment of the CIA liberating his soul.

            I thought so.

          2. Bill Clarke,

            You, “I thought so.”?

            You didn’t understand a single point that either of us were making.
            The SYSTEM, has indeed taken all of our Liberties, and incarcerated us in a Panoptic Maximum Security State – and you believe we are free!

            “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.” ~G.Santayana

          3. Willy Whitten December 28, 2014 at 9:22 pm

            No Willy, I understand you and Ramon very well.

            And no Willy, the system (remember when we called it the “Establishment”?)hasn’t taken all of you freedoms. If they had you would be in the gulag without your laptop. You would be, as they say, off line. Can you understand what I’m saying here.

        2. “When the Nazis came for the communists,
          I remained silent;
          I was not a communist.

          When they locked up the social democrats,
          I remained silent;
          I was not a social democrat.

          When they came for the trade unionists,
          I did not speak out;
          I was not a trade unionist.

          When they came for the Jews,
          I remained silent;
          I wasn’t a Jew.

          When they came for me,
          there was no one left to speak out.”

  7. Washington Post Staff Writers
    Saturday, March 23, 2002; Page A01
    “Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtu, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $51 million on the university’s education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994.

    During that time of Soviet occupation, regional military leaders in Afghanistan helped the U.S. smuggle books into the country. They demanded that the primers contain anti-Soviet passages. Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines, agency officials said. They acknowledged that at the time it also suited U.S. interests to stoke hatred of foreign invaders.”

  8. I have to pop in here as far as moving outside of the JFK assassination to the modern era and the issue of “the War on Terrorism”

    The concept of ‘the controlled enemy’ is as old as the ancient Roman Empire. And certainly a known part of the workings of the British Empire.
    As far as the so-called ‘American Empire’, it is established historical fact that “al Qaeda” is a subsidiary “cut out” of Western-Intelligence, created to undermine the Soviet proxy government in Afghanistan. Brzezinski was deeply involved in this operation, and has been very candid in speaking to it.

    The Taliban (Pushtu for “student”) were also a product of US Intel, having their original “extremist” textbooks actually written an produced in the US by the auspices of the The National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

    “The War on Terrorism” is in fact a hoax, and a vehicle for world conquest.

    1. I would submit that the families of over 100 children slaughtered in Pakistan would disagree with your concept of ” hoax”.
      The actions of the CIA , NSA and FBI are the only reasons why we haven’t had another 9/11. The only movement for ” World Conquest” actually in progress is the attempt to establish a World Caliphate by ignoring that reality you are essentially supporting it.

      1. Nothing seems to sink in with you Photon, not the fact that the US is a militarist police state, technically erasing all of your natural rights as an individual. You seem blissfully unaware that torture is condoned officially, in that those who admittedly did it, and those who instigated it’s use enjoy absolute impunity. The fact that the President can kill anyone on the planet with a drone strike without even the pretense of due process.
        You miss the fact that the US is a Panoptic Maximum Security State that has declared that you have no right to privacy whatsoever. And all of this is okay with you because you fear some sword wielding Muslim in going to sneak into your bedroom some night and cut your head off!
        More people have died choking at a meal than have ever been claimed to have been killed by a terrorist.

      2. We shouldn’t have had the FIRST 9/11 attack. Had Gore won (well actually he did win the popular vote) Richard Clarke’s warnings would have been better heeded, and we would have done more wagging the dog with attacks on Bin Laden’s organization. I would submit that all this bloated intelligence has been overkill, from a spending point of view. And the torture we absolutely did not need. John McCain has said that, and he experienced it firsthand, in North Vietnam. I’d like to see CIA reorganized and brought back to intelligence-gathering. If we want covert activities, we should give that capability back to the military where it belongs, and where it can be better monitored by Congress, instead of CIA running spy operations on our own legislature. That’s abuse of power.

        1. Sam,
          To believe in the public myths created by the Public Relations Regime, is as dangerous as believing any organized religion or other crisis cult. The crisis cult of the national security state is the largest and best funded that the planet has ever known.

          1. I don’t believe, I check my sources and facts. I think this is what separates me from most tin foil hat wearers. And yes, I do think JFK was killed by enemies within, not from outside the Republic. I’d like to see CIA cough up its files. I don’t trust CIA farther than I could proverbially throw them. But that doesn’t mean I have to buy into the 9/11 paranoia either.

          2. “the Republic”~Sam

            What Republic Sam? You aren’t under the delusion that the Constitution is still in effect are you?
            If so, then you believe in public mythology.

      3. A year ago, Pakistani representatives had managed to form a dialogue with a Taliban leader in the interests of creating an accommodation through negotiation and begin a path towards some semblance of peace in the area. As these negotiations began to show promise, the CIA sent up one of its drones, targeted the Taliban leader, and blew him to bits along with other Taliban negotiators riding in a car with him. End of the negotiations and the start of yet another senseless round of violence – the terrible attack against the children included.

        Beyond the alleged Caliphate, there is another movement for world conquest and it has been known as The Project For A New American Century. They are a little further along than the caliphate, as can be seen in the headlines every day.

      1. Like any good politician, JFK dodges the more controversial aspect of the question — what did he think of Dulles’ critique of his Vietnam policy?

        Dulles obviously represents a sizable chunk of CIA officers at the time who cannot publicly confront the president.

        Did a fanatical element of those officers participate in the assassination because of these and other JFK’s perceived “sins” in regards to communism?

        We don’t know because the CIA has “feloniously obstructed” every government investigation into the case and got away it. Those are the words of Robert Blakey this past September on the 50th anniversary of the Warren Report.

        Just like with the recent torture report, it ran a domestic operation against the HSCA in the 70s and still illegally maintains documents they hid from the Warren Commission, the HSCA and the AARB.

        The mass media has managed to keep those uncomfortable facts from the citizenry for 50 years. Something that you and I and every American citizen should be ashamed of and battling against.

        1. Bogman,

          You say:
          “Like any good politician, JFK dodges the more controversial aspect of the question — what did he think of Dulles’ critique of his Vietnam policy?”

          But JFK did answer the question.


          [16.] Q. Mr. President, former head of the CIA Allen Dulles said in an interview in the Journal American today that reports of disputes between the CIA and the State Department and various branches of the government in South Viet-Nam have arisen because “of a lack of a clearcut operational policy in Washington.” And he goes on to say that he thinks what is needed is less backbiting between U.S. agency officials. In view of the defense you just gave CIA, would you care to agree with the Dulles charge or contest it?

          THE PRESIDENT. I would agree with the last part of it, that the agencies–as we all know, they are faced with a very difficult problem in South Viet-Nam, which we are all familiar with, both on the military and political side. Men have different views about what actions we should take, and they talk to members of the press, to all of you, in Saigon and here in Washington. But I must say that as of today, and I think this is particularly true since General Taylor and Secretary McNamara came back, I know of no disagreement between the State Department at the top, CIA at the top, Defense at the top, the White House and Ambassador Lodge, on what our basic policies will be and what steps we will take to implement it. Now if down below there is disagreement, I think in part it will be because they are not wholly informed of what actions we are taking. Some of them are necessarily confidential. But I think our policy, though we can’t say what effect it is going to have, I think we are in agreement about what we ought to do. I would think that Saigon, and personnel in the various agencies, should support that policy, because that is the policy we are going to carry out for a while.

          1. In an answer to the first part of the question, I supposed you can infer that JFK says there’s a clear-cut policy that Dulles doesn’t know about.

            My take is Dulles is hearing from his CIA buddies that they don’t believe there is a cohesive policy, or at least one that they agree with.

        2. How can they be “illegally maintaining documents” if every legal decision regarding their release has supported the CIA position? Bogman,can you tell us what law school you graduated from that makes you a legal expert?

          1. You’re right. “Illegally maintaining documents” is my interpretation. You’re wrong, though, that “every legal decision” has supported the CIA. Jeff Morley’s case has resulted, for instance, in the CIA’s confirmation that Joannides was a case officer in Miami at the time of the assassination.

            My interpretation comes from statements made by Judge Tunheim of the ARRB, and Blake, Sprague and Tannenbaum of the HSCA that the CIA has not followed the spirit of the JFK Record Acts law by hiding their knowledge of Joannides from the ARRB.

            Your constant defense of the CIA, though, makes me ask these question:

            Is there anything the CIA has done that you, as an American citizen, disagreed with?

            Are you outraged at all by their domestic operation against Congressional investigators in the torture report scandal? Does it bother you that no one was prosecuted for that operation? Same with the operation the CIA ran against the HSCA with Joannides in the JFK investigation?

            None of that gives you pause?

          2. No, because the CIA carries out the orders of the administration in office.The Company didn’t just ” decide” to assassinate Castro ; they attempted to carry out the directives of the Kennedy administration. CT theorists tend to forget that. The last time that we had a witch hunt against the CIA was during the time of the Church investigation. The damage from that fiasco was tremendous and probably cost thousands of lives-in operations,failed intelligence and actions taken by our adversaries . It so damaged the CIA that even its analytical sections missed the greatest geopolitical event of the second half of the twentieth century.
            Joannides had nothing to do with Oswald, JFK’s assassination nor any “coverup”of CIA actions in the case. There still isn’t a single piece of documented evidence that Joannides had even heard of Oswald prior to Nov. 22, 1963. Prove me wrong by posting evidence, not innuendo or wishful thinking.
            Facts matter.

          3. Facts do matter. And the fact that the CIA never told the WC about their control of the DRE, and successively lied about even the existence of “Howard” after the DRE told investigators they had a CIA agent handling them, is highly suspect.

            Then the CIA illegally ran the operation against Blakey and the gang, placing Joannides himself in as the liaison to obviously cover up the trail that would lead to his role with the DRE.

            The CIA obstructed the investigation into the assassination of a president, says Blakey, the “Warren” of the second investigation and not some crazy CTer, and should be investigated by Justice, Congress or both.

            It’s outrageous in a democracy that the authorities have let the CIA’s malfeasance around Joannides and the DRE stand for 50 years.

            You’ll never get me to believe the CIA endangered its standing all these years for nothing.

            The obvious supposition is that their concealment has nothing to do with national security but with saving the CIA from embarrassment or worse.

            Tell me how often an average person, or a lone “nut” like Oswald, runs into covert CIA assets who end up getting that person highly inflammatory media coverage. And tell me it was all happenstance. And I’ll tell you about a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell…

          4. Well David, RFK went to his grave wondering if the Castro assassination attempts were responsible for his brother’s murder-and that has been reported by several historians.
            Besides, are you implying that JFK was too dumb to know what was going on, while his brother certainly did?

  9. We already have more than enough “purely intelligence” groups. Someone has to do the covert and I don’t think the military is equipped or qualified to do it.

    I wouldn’t be messing with the CIA at this time of great danger from terrorist.

    1. [Bill Clarke wrote:]

      “We already have more than enough “purely intelligence” groups. Someone has to do the covert and I don’t think the military is equipped or qualified to do it.

      I wouldn’t be messing with the CIA at this time of great danger from terrorists.”



      Replace the word “terror” with “communism” and you could very well be Mr. Allen Dulles, William K. Harvey et al. as they prepare the details of “The Big Event”.


      ”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”

      -Ben Franklin

      1. Ramon F Herrera December 22, 2014 at 5:35 pm

        Point taken Ramon but we take our enemies as they come. And the communist were big users of terror themselves. That is where I got my first taste of terrorism and I have nothing for them. Scum of the earth in my book.

        I agree with Ben Franklin. And you?

        1. [Bill Clarke:]

          “I agree with Ben Franklin. And you?”


          I don’t think you do, Bill. The CIA has violated many freedoms, primarily the one that I enjoy the most, namely:

          The freedom to keep my soul inside my body.

          I am reading this book:

          … where its author claims that Mr. Hoover was royally pissed when the CIA was created, because he wanted to become the head of a worldwide organization.

          1. Ramon F Herrera December 23, 2014 at 6:04 pm

            Aw Ramon, you don’t even understand what ole Ben was saying here. He says that if you give up or allow your freedoms to be taken for a little safety then you deserve neither one. The Patriot Act comes to mind here. Are you familiar with it? Homeland Security scares me.

            This news about Hoover is old news. He did all he could to prevent the CIA from happening. He was especially miffed about losing Latin America. Hoover was a very bad dude but no president would fire him. How sad.

          2. JFK would have liked to at least retired if not fired him. Hoover knew this and cooperated accordingly. And he had his files on so many. Hoover made sure JFK never had the chance for either by doing nothing about the plot he knew of and helping the coverup (don’t forget Mockingbird and the cia) and gloating to RFK immediately.
            Just my “theory” from reading Facts, discussing and going to Dealy Plaza multiple times.

      1. lysias December 22, 2014 at 5:45 pm

        Why does someone have to do the covert?

        Because the terrorist don’t form up in the 32nd Terror Division and attack us on the battlefield. Like the rats they are they hide here and they hide there and you have to go find them like rats. This requires covert action and to be successful it requires top notch intelligence work.

        What makes you think the terrorists are such a danger?

        I’m rather at a loss of words here!

        1. I see you believe the government and the media in all they say to scare us about those “terrorists”. I don’t believe a word of it.

          1. lysias December 23, 2014 at 5:03 pm

            No, you don’t see. I haven’t believed my government since the fall of Richard Nixon and Saigon. I haven’t believed the agenda driven new media in at least 25 years.

            I get my fear of terrorism, and it is fear, from my experience with the communist terrorist in Vietnam. The tactic of terror is very effective, it is relatively cheap and it is very difficult to combat.

            If I was you I wouldn’t be so smug in dismissing the threat.

          2. The probability that these terrorists you’re so scared of will do me any harm is vanishingly small, certainly in comparison with the harm a runaway U.S. government might do. And I am not willing to sacrifice any of my liberties because of that tiny danger. That despite the fact that, if anybody is endangered by that small threat, I am, since I work five or six blocks from the White House.

            I see you still believe we were right to fight in Vietnam. I believed in the Vietnam War and the Cold War long ago, when I was young and foolish. But I have learned over time that America was very wrong and foolish to fight in Vietnam. And whatever justification fighting the Cold War may ever once have had disappeared when the Soviet Union died and Russia ceased to be ruled by godless Communism.

        2. I just wonder if the CIA could have prevented 911 from happening. It appears to me that terrorism beat covert on that dreadful day. It’s a damn shame JFK didn’t live long enough to do what he was hoping to do with the CIA.

      2. lysias:

        The enemies of the US and allies can be anywhere in the world. See this, as an excellent example:

        During the celebrations, there were people honking horns, playing trumpets, dancing in the streets, fireworks, etc.

        That was the first -and hopefully the last- time in Venezuela that a death was celebrated with happiness.

        We -the Venezuelan Opposition- distributed this widely:

  10. This is a game-changer. IMO, it’s difficult to consider the U.S. a legitimate democracy with this powerful, mostly autonomous and unaccountable secret spy agency. The CIA was a Frankenstein created in the depths of the Cold War to match the subterfuge of the KGB and should be dismantled and a new pure intelligence gathering group with civilian oversight in its place.

    1. And, after the JFK assassination, Truman concluded the CIA would have to be abolished or fundamentally reshaped to get rid of the covert action capability.

  11. In case you have not seen yesterday’s New York Times editorial:

    “The nation cannot move forward in any meaningful way without coming to terms, legally and morally, with the abhorrent acts that were authorized, given a false patina of legality, and committed by American men and women from the highest levels of government on down.”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top