Thank you both Mr. G & Ninurta for your respective views on this complicated subject.
I appreciate the delicate nature of the topic and the willingness of putting biased opinions
to one side for a more fair and 'open' answer.
That's why it seems universally-agreed that Clapper is a prick.
I don't have an informed view on who is pulling the strings, providing the dubious infromation
and for what reason, but as my wife has commented many times 'I always want to know the
far-end of a fart' -or the core reason for anything!
And it's that -that has always intrigued me.
Can an organisation that is constructed for a particular reason, morph into a entirely different
set-up because of the complicated maze of global sea-changes it dabbles in?
A name is just a name and it only serves as a temporary salve to a public who eats blame
like chocolate. To perceive global control in the form of a James Bond movie is far easier than
looking into the abyss of what maintains a society that wallows in such an infantile perception.
The confused machinations of individual factions that Ninurta commented on, is something my
personal make-up struggles with because of the sheer selfishness to gain, occasionally seems to
outweigh the original goal of national/international security and the accountability gets lost in
the lofty discussions of general governing.
If one believes that many of the agencies (not the silly seventeen that the MSM proclaimed)...
conduct themselves without concerns for that original goal and brings collateral problems to the
country they're alleged to serve and those problems are judged as to be acceptable by that
agency alone, then is it possible to 'switch off' that agency by the system most of us deems
in control?
Without belabouring Kennedy's 'break the CIA into a thousand pieces' quote, can such an act
take place this late in the game...? Or have the guard dogs become more powerful than their
masters up to the point that they know it?
The 'little' things like 'would an official security arm of a Government blow-up an entire
building to eliminate one person or gang-rape a child to force it's parent to disclose certain
information' is disturbing. But again, these acts go on in order to preserve a way of life that
the comfortably-sitting public have the luxury of not dwelling on in their old age.
My concern is the 'why'... is the reason today, still to maintain that which the agencies
were created for or by expansion and obligation of financial businesses and long-term
agreements in wealthy activities, now work with a diluted and stained 'overcoat' of chivalry
to protect, that the public occasionally frown at?
It's something I find fascinating.
(A bit long-winded and I apologise!)
I appreciate the delicate nature of the topic and the willingness of putting biased opinions
to one side for a more fair and 'open' answer.
That's why it seems universally-agreed that Clapper is a prick.
I don't have an informed view on who is pulling the strings, providing the dubious infromation
and for what reason, but as my wife has commented many times 'I always want to know the
far-end of a fart' -or the core reason for anything!
And it's that -that has always intrigued me.
Can an organisation that is constructed for a particular reason, morph into a entirely different
set-up because of the complicated maze of global sea-changes it dabbles in?
A name is just a name and it only serves as a temporary salve to a public who eats blame
like chocolate. To perceive global control in the form of a James Bond movie is far easier than
looking into the abyss of what maintains a society that wallows in such an infantile perception.
The confused machinations of individual factions that Ninurta commented on, is something my
personal make-up struggles with because of the sheer selfishness to gain, occasionally seems to
outweigh the original goal of national/international security and the accountability gets lost in
the lofty discussions of general governing.
If one believes that many of the agencies (not the silly seventeen that the MSM proclaimed)...
conduct themselves without concerns for that original goal and brings collateral problems to the
country they're alleged to serve and those problems are judged as to be acceptable by that
agency alone, then is it possible to 'switch off' that agency by the system most of us deems
in control?
Without belabouring Kennedy's 'break the CIA into a thousand pieces' quote, can such an act
take place this late in the game...? Or have the guard dogs become more powerful than their
masters up to the point that they know it?
The 'little' things like 'would an official security arm of a Government blow-up an entire
building to eliminate one person or gang-rape a child to force it's parent to disclose certain
information' is disturbing. But again, these acts go on in order to preserve a way of life that
the comfortably-sitting public have the luxury of not dwelling on in their old age.
My concern is the 'why'... is the reason today, still to maintain that which the agencies
were created for or by expansion and obligation of financial businesses and long-term
agreements in wealthy activities, now work with a diluted and stained 'overcoat' of chivalry
to protect, that the public occasionally frown at?
It's something I find fascinating.
(A bit long-winded and I apologise!)
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.