The estimated total cost of the US war against Afghanistan is now running $13 trillion, enough to pay off all debts of all Americans. Why didn’t the CIA, which the media trusts implicitly these days, warn us that we’d lose after spending all that money and destroying hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides?
If the CIA Had Been Right, They Would Have Told Bush That Invading Afghanistan Would Cost $13 Trillion and Another Defeat
24 Comments. Leave new
Exactly why do the Democratic Party partisans and the corporate media have such explicit faith in the CIA (to the extent that the “opinions” it expresses are held to be facts) in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are unworthy of it?
Perhaps, because Americans demonstrate this stupidity by their faith, they prove that they are indeed worthy of the abuse this government inflicts on their well-being.
As evidenced by the undeniable fact that there were WMD’s in Iraq, in spite of the CIA saying that there weren’t. Oh, and UBL never attacked the US with planes, ‘cuz the CIA said he would. The CIA said Kasshoggi was murdered, so we can be certain he’s alive and living in Bolivia.
Somewhere, some day, some CIA agent will predict that the sun will come out tomorrow and all life on earth will cease to exist.
OR, perhaps, possibly, maybe, just maybe, they occasionally get things right and it’s still not about Hillary.
More Conservative Hocus Pocus Spin.
Put your Demo lies in, take you Demo lies out, and shake them all about…
How to Do a Pirouette
Learning Proper Position
Wear the appropriate footwear.
Practice your retire position before you turn.
Keep your ribs closed and your shoulders back.
Check your hips.
Arrange your feet in fourth position.
Position your arms.
Then swear the opinions of the CIA are true facts
without any evidence because rabid Democrats
say so.
Then swear Trumps Wall is needed to end a National Emergency.
The Demo’s Russia-gate and the Repub’s Border Wall are all it takes to distract simple fool Americans en masse.
Don’t be stupid.
So, I take it you believe there were WMDs in Iraq and 9/11 never happened?
There’s some good advice right there in your last sentence. You’d be well advised to follow it.
“So, I take it you believe there were WMDs in Iraq and 9/11 never happened?
Idiot.
At this point, Glenn, you’re arguing against yourself.
Tell ya’ what – you make up your minds, then we’ll talk.
You have bad breath.
Suggestion:
Stop talking out of your ass, you crazy clown.
Are you sure you want to use the term ‘crazy’ after that psychotic episode above ?
I mean, seriously, I’ve heard winos muttering under their breath make more sense.
So … CIA? Trust? Aye? Nay? ootFray oopsLay?
Between the MAGAs and the new McCarthyites (like you) there is plenty of crazy going around.
And it’s not me.
Where is a popular Left to balance these two crazy strains of the Rampaging Right?
Let’s see if I understand:
I think that the CIA was right about 9/11, therefore I’m a McCarthyite.
Yes, that’s very sane. You’re a very stable genius. (smiling, nodding, backing away slowly without making eye contact.)
@CrazyassHole
You are such a dumb ass.
You don’t remember that CIA director Tenet made his infamous Oval Office remark that it was a “slam-dunk” case that Saddam Hussein’s government had banned weapons.
You have to work harder on your Conservative Hocus Pocus pirouette, asshole.
So Tenet was wrong … and that proves the CIA is always wrong and 9/11 didn’t happen and it’s all about Hillary and we never went to the moon? Is that it? “cuz I’m having trouble following whatever it is you use in place of logic.
FYI, the CIA’s official report was heavily edited to make it sound more definitive than it actually was.
Let me remind you of my original statement, which you are epically failing to disprove: “they occasionally get things right ”
For each and every time you cite a case where they were wrong, I can cite one where they were right. You’re only proving my point.
Thank you.
50-50. It’s sort of random with respect to physical facts. What it lines up with perfectly is the need to justify imperialism.
@Anarcissie:
100% agreement, and I like your phrasing, “What it lines up with… ”
Yep, whenever we talk about groups as large as duh Gubbmint, we see an equally large number of motives.
It’s ridiculous to assume that every person in any one organization is working from the same assumptions towards the same goals. However, they do tend towards some general alignment.
(&btw I’m impressed that you waded through this slappy-fight. I admire your tenacity. (although perhaps not your choice of literature. :-D))
No, CrazyH, the history of the CIA (and the U.S. government) lying about and exaggerating various threats that didn’t exist to justify spending more on defense and intelligence means that one should be skeptical of our government sources and look for corroboration from other more neutral sources. And in the case of Russiagate there’s plenty of evidence that once again the National Security State is hyping a threat that doesn’t exist. But we know you’ll keep playing that Fleetwood Mac song until the Mueller report shows he didn’t find Russia collusion.
@austerlitz99
> the history of the CIA lying …
… is still a fallacious argument unless and until you’re willing to stipulate that they *always* lie, at which point I will mock you just as thoroughly as I do Glenn.
> … and look for corroboration …
Okay. How about every other intelligence agency on the planet, every cybersecurity agency in the country, congressional democrats and republicans both, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, Google, industry experts & insiders, Maria Butina, Natalia Veselnitskaya, Trump, Jr, Manafort, Cohen, and a cast of thousands.
> And in the case of Russiagate there’s plenty of evidence that once again the National Security State is hyping a threat that doesn’t exist.
Documentation requested, specifically in amounts plenty heap big greater than these
Healthy skepticism is always warranted, but there’s a fairly large difference between “reasonable doubt” and “selective perception.”
As for background music, there many fine songs about that ol’ River in Egypt.
@CrazyassHole
I could give you a list of statements, from just this one comment, that I never made and that you attributed to me, but you know them as well as I do ( if you are not, in addition to being an asshole, also mentally ill) so what would the point be?
I met a guy on the street in my neighborhood a couple of years ago, obviously mentally ill, who was accusing passersby of being “Russian”.
It’s sad that so many should succumb to this “viral” malady, but not unexpected.
R and D party fanatics will eat up all the shit tossed to them.
I heard that Dick Durbin is on board with Trump’s plan to steal Venezuela’s oil.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article225071465.html
Perhaps I’m going too fast for you, allow me to spell it out:
IF the CIA is always wrong
THEN
9/11 never happened.
The astute student will recognize this as reductio ad absurdum. I have shown that if we accept your premise, we must also accept an obviously absurd premise. As this cannot possibly be right, we conclude that your original premise must be wrong.
To put it another way: I agree that your argument is the result of mental illness, and as soon as you stop making it I’ll stop mocking you for it.
> I met a guy on the street in my neighborhood a couple of years ago, obviously mentally ill, who was accusing passersby of being “Russian”.
Funny, I had a similar experience with a guy calling me a ‘McCarthyite’
@CrazyassHole
Really.
How dense do you expect me to think you are, that you would continue to pretend not to know what I’m talking about here:
“I could give you a list of statements, from just this one comment, that I never made and that you attributed to me, but you know them as well as I do ( if you are not, in addition to being an asshole, also mentally ill) so what would the point be?”
Respond to the fact that the highest ranking Democrat Senator is on board with Trump’s plan to steal Venezuela’s oil.
You are outed as a lying corrupt Democrat troll.
Can you take out your crayon and circle the part of the following YOU don’t understand?
“IF the CIA is always wrong
THEN
9/11 never happened.”
You didn’t say that. I said that. It’s in my post. I said that. Not you. You didn’t say that. m’kay? Can we all get over it now?
You have repeatedly, incessantly, obnoxiously argued that the CIA always lies and therefore Trump is innocent.. (#include IF … THEN above)
You obviously want to prove me wrong, so why don’t you – you know – prove me wrong. Here, I’ll give you a hint: All you have to do is to type the following sentence:
“The CIA might be right about DastardlyRussiansGate”
Isn’t that easy? Even a caveman could do it. But you won’t.
> Respond to the fact that the highest ranking Democrat Senator is on board with Trump’s plan to steal Venezuela’s oil.
Okay, here ya’ go, “What the fuck does that have to do with the conversation at hand?”
CrazyH,
Maybe all that time in the computer industry has gotten you to see everything in 1s and 0s, but this isn’t a binary statement. No one (with the exception of Wikileaks, which has NEVER been caught lying) in the international media arena has ever been always truthful or always lying, that’s the point. So we always need to analyze a particular set of evidence presented by anyone.
And your “every other intelligence agency on the planet, every cybersecurity agency in the country, congressional democrats and republicans both,” of course should read “every other pro-American intel agency, cybersecurity agencies that have been caught creating fake anti-Roy Moore accounts and have mission statements describing how they’re profiting from Russiagate, and democrats who don’t want to have to take a hard look at how Hillary lost to an Orange-haired reality TV show host and republicans who are no longer in office.”
We saw with Iraqi WMDs that MI-6 and GHCQ went right along with the CIA/NSA frame job, so if it’s happening again no reason they wouldn’t join the lie again. Therefore they cannot be a trusted source either. Ditto with Corporate Media, which has the further motive of enjoying high ratings/subscriptions based on Russiagate. Unless you agree with Maddow that Russia is one step away from shutting down the national power grid. At the same time, I wouldn’t rely on the FSB saying Russiagate is nonsense unless it could be corroborated elsewhere.
Therefore one has to go to truly neutral observers- first, CIA, NSA whistleblowers who have been willing to speak truth to power. There you have right and left-wing whistleblowers (Bill Binney, Ray McGovern, John Kiriakou, Kevin Shipp) who’ve analyzed Russiagate based on their knowledge of how a collusion operation would be conducted and have concluded the Russians would never be as obvious as the allegations presented, and that the NSA would already have the evidence necessary to prove whether or not it had happened, you wouldn’t need a 2-year investigation to find it. There’s also the work of VIPS to analyze the metadata from the “hack” that contradicts the Russiagate narrative, the questions about Guccifer 2.0 leaving clear signs of a Russian connection when any competent government hackers would’ve been able to hide their origins, etc.
Second, alternative media- here I’d single out Aaron Mate and Glenn Greenwald who have maintained skepticism throughout and have poked many holes in the narrative. You even have had some previous Russiagaters like Isikoff back off once they saw how Mueller’s indictments were worded, giving few signs he had found genuine Russia-Trump collusion, just the usual corruption and lying under oath.
Just take a look at the recent CBS article interviewing the head of the Senate Intel Committee who states he hasn’t seen any evidence of Russia-Trump collusion so far after interviewing 200 or so people under oath connected to the investigation. I’m sure you’ll say he’s a republican, can’t trust him, blah blah blah, but Richard Burr is regarded by the Democrats as having conducted a fair investigation that’s even led to some indictments.
Every single cybersecurity agency in the US hates Roy Moore.
Every single cybersecurity agency in the US has a mission statement about Russia.
Every single cybersecurity agency in the US has been bribed by the Democrats.
Every single cybersecurity agency in the US has also been bribed by the Republicans.
Every single cybersecurity agency in the US is very sad Hillary lost.
Every single cybersecurity agency in the US is telling the exact, same, big fucking lie; perpetrating the exact, same, big fucking hoax; not a single one of them has an ounce of integrity; not a one of them has broken Omerta; and if if all that wasn’t hard enough to swallow … not a single one of them has figured out that they could corner the market by exposing all the others as frauds.
Oh, and 9/11 never happened …
It’s NOT about objective, demonstrable accuracy.
Let us disabuse ourselves of this counterproductive notion.
It’s about empire.
Or perhaps James Earl Carter, who, unlike most of the other occupants of the office, seems to be a decent man, back on 3 July 1979, wouldn’t have allowed himself to be fooled by Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeziński, and would instead have refrained from signing the order which formally allowed «aid» to be provided the Pashtuns fighting against the Afghan government in Kabul (which no doubt deserved no less ; after all, they had made primary education of all children, even those of the (gasp !) female persuasion, mandatory). I hope I shall be pardoned for suspecting that the CIA had been providing such «aid» long before the formal decision was made. Be that as it may, the latter was a watershed for US involvement in the destruction of Afghanistan ; now 40 years later, little has changed in that respect….
Henri