UFOs Are Back, Ho Hum

 

I'm not a UFO expert, and I don't play one on TV either. But for some reason, UFOs are in the news again, and this time it's not just the usual suspects – you know, the stereotypical tinfoil-hat wackos who claim to have been abducted and subjected to bizarre surgical procedures, etc. – but, arguably, establishment types like the U.S. military, which has quit referring personnel who claim to have seen a UFO to the post psychiatrist but is now, apparently, taking these things seriously. Of course there's a long and colorful history of the whole UFO matter which, among other things, has inspired great numbers of sci-fi movies and TV shows – and the military, especially the Air Force, has always been depicted as the “bad guy” – skeptical, dogmatic, conservative, secretive, and so on. And the popular culture – not limited to sci-fi fans – has generally assumed that whenever the Air Force denies that something exists, that automatically means it does exist, and that the military is “hiding something” – advanced weapon systems or actual aliens, or both – from the American public and from our enemies.

One overarching theme over the years (decades) has been that UFOs, in some mysterious way, were part of the Cold War. This notion was supported by the fact that most even semi-credible sightings were in the vicinity of military installations, test sites, military aircraft, or warships. So the idea was that UFOs were, indeed, either data-gathering instruments or advanced weapon systems – but whose? If ours, the military wanted to disguise the fact, understandably. If someone else's, the military wanted to keep whoever it was from realizing that we had detected their advanced systems... or, the government wanted to keep the public from being upset by the thought that the Russkies might have weaponry far superior to ours. So in that sense, the “little green men” thing may have been no more than a red herring (so to speak) – a harmless diversion that was allowed to run its course, and an excuse to shut down all inquiry and speculation (because “only a nut would believe...” etc.). (Now why the specter of being invaded by Martians is less scary to the public than the notion of the USSR having weapon systems far superior to our own is another matter. But that depends to some extent on one's view of what aliens from another planet represent.) (See my post, “Jonesin' for Aliens”, July 25, 2015.)

But then the Cold War ended – or so it was assumed – back when the Soviet Union broke up. But did UFOs disappear? Apparently not. They keep coming back, like those cohorts of locusts – they're in the news, then they aren't. They generate societies, meetings, publications, then the whole thing fades away. Pop culture gives us “The X-Files”, then ratings fall off and the show closes. And then the whole thing starts over again. And so on. So yes, the UFO thing comes and goes, and the military can never seem to make up its mind as to whether they're real or just a symptom of Air Force pilots suffering from oxygen deprivation leading to hallucinations. So years go by when they don't talk about it, and then you get the kind of revival of interest we're seeing now.

But then we run into another interesting angle – one that has been part of the story since the first “flying saucers” were sighted soon after World War II. And that is what I'll call the quality of evidence. Now, it was easy enough to understand, in the early days, how photos or films of alleged UFOs were always grainy and blurred (not unlike photos of the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot) – whoever was taking the pictures (and they were nearly always photos, not radar captures) was probably using a Kodak Brownie or 8mm home movie camera, and was trembling with excitement (or fear) (or dreams of collecting big bucks from the National Enquirer for exclusive rights to the footage).

But that was then. Nowadays, the military has optics so advanced that they can read someone's poker hand from 50,000 feet (or so I'm told). Add high-speed cameras, digitization which yields extremely fine-grained images, and other improvements – and yet the imagery we see in the news is still as grainy and blurred as anything that came out of the 1950s. There's obviously something wrong here. And this is just traditional optics – hasn't radar made just a few advances during that time as well? And then you have infrared optics. And so on. And yet, the level of ambiguity of UFO images (whether moving or still) doesn't seem to have advanced much beyond, once again, the Loch Ness or Bigfoot stage. Are you really going to declare a national emergency based on images resembling first-generation arcade games? Hopefully not.

Then we have the “noise” factor when it comes to electronic systems. Yes, they are sensitive – almost too sensitive at times. They pick up everything, the way microphones used to do in movies before voice-over and Foley artists took over. Now, you might say, isn't static just the same as white noise – i.e., chaotic and incapable of generating anything resembling an actual image? Not necessarily. (I commented to someone recently that I can see stuff resembling UFO footage when I drive with a dirty windshield (especially at night).)

And what if... just what if somebody or something is “trolling” us and generating signals made to look like supersonic, ultra-agile UFOs when in reality it's coming out of some guy's garage in Lubbock, Texas? I mean, there are plenty of geeks out there with time on their hands – what could be more fun than coming up with something that will freak out the military? Not actual physical objects, but signals aimed at the electronics of military aircraft (or ships, in some cases)? Or -- any chance that the Russkies are back to their old tricks and just want to distract us from focusing on whatever they're up to in their own weapon development programs? Make us distrust our lyin' eyes and radar, in other words? And as far as our “system security” goes, well... if you can hack into a system in order to steal information, you can hack into the same system in order to generate fake information.

And now Congress, waking from its usual slumber, is demanding – OK, asking – OK, politely requesting – the intel community to tell them all it knows about UFOs. Riiiight. When's the last time the intel people told anyone in Congress all that it knows about anything? I mean, would you? Might as well relate your history of STDs to the town gossip. The intel people have been down this road before – they'll blow smoke up the appropriate butts, toss out a few bones, and we'll wind up with a bigger nothingburger than the Durham Report. And so it goes. “Nothing to see here, dumb asses – go back to your silly power games.” And the amazing thing is, everyone in the establishment will be satisfied. Another round in the endless game, now let's head for the nearest watering hole.

There are so many possibilities here, but the main point is that if the military, or anyone else, wants to convince anyone in the public, or in Congress, on this point they'd better come up with something better than a handful of glowing green Fritos floating around against a noisy black and green background – or a black jellybean dropping into the ocean. But this isn't going to happen, because – for whatever reason – those in charge prefer to keep things ambiguous and mysterious – interesting, a bit scary perhaps, but not enough to cause mass hysteria like Orson Welles' “War of the Worlds”. In this sense, it's like everything else in government – if you're being paid to solve a problem, the very last thing you want to do is actually solve it.

There are political games – and mind games as well – being played around this issue, but there's nothing really new about it and we don't seem to know any more than we did 70-plus years ago. Or if we do, no one can be bothered to tell us.

 

Russian Gossip

Senator Harry Reid is not exactly enamored of the truth, but he let something slip the other day that is more significant than it might sound. If a Republican had said it, it would be called a “gaffe”, but since the Democrats/liberals invented the term and have declared themselves the sole authority on what is or is not a gaffe, we can't expect the label to be applied in this case.

So according to a Washington Post article (published on July 30), “...Reid has suggested that Trump's murky ties to foreign interests and general inability to not speak his mind should be reason enough for the people briefing him to make things up.” The briefings in question are those provided to presidential candidates by the intelligence community, and supposedly include “classified information about the government and our foreign policy efforts.”

Let's dissect this statement by Dingy Harry (Rush Limbaugh's apt nickname) for a moment. “Murky ties to foreign interests”? I guess that doesn't include the countless millions the Clintons have received from foreign governments in order to gain “access”, whatever that entails. “General inability to not speak his mind”, means, in language used by most humans, that Trump speaks his mind. Imagine! A politician actually coming out and saying, in public, what he really thinks. Pass the smelling salts. No wonder the Washington establishment is worried sick; in the unlikely event he becomes president, he might carry this unsavory habit with him into the White House. It could, for starters, be the death of diplomacy (a skill which Hillary Clinton demonstrated so well as secretary of state, ahem).

But the real gem in all this is the idea of the intel people making things up for consumption by the president, or by a presidential candidate. One would almost think that this is a new idea, and that it's never been done, or even tried, before. Never mind mere candidates; my theory is that, on the contrary, most presidents in our time, since they are figureheads and empty suits more than anything else, have been deceived on a regular basis by the intel people, and probably a lot of others as well (the military comes to mind, but also “lifers” in the State Department and elsewhere). Do you honestly think that anyone is going to share information vital to national security with the likes of George W. Bush? (And what would he have done with it if he'd had it?) I imagine similar things about Clinton (soon to be known as Clinton I) and Obama. Contrary to Bush's self image as “the decider”, I don't think presidents in our time “decide” squat, basically. They are front men... scapegoats, when necessary... and sock puppets for the Regime. Whatever they think they've “decided” has already been decided; the trick is to play along with the game and not let them in on it (although I suspect that some of them finally start to catch on, but by then it's too late). (And what are they going to do, go on live TV and announce to the nation, “I'm nothing but a stooge”? That's not the way their minds operate; delusional systems are way too powerful to put up with a dose of reality of that sort.)

I've long been convinced that the last president who had any real authority, and who exercised it, was Lyndon Johnson. He always seemed to be in charge, and always seemed to be willing to do pretty much anything to get his way... and he had an unmatched ability to intimidate -- in other words the ability to scare everyone else shitless, basically. He was America's last true tyrant. All of those who came afterward were organization men at best, heads of committees, and spokesmen for the Regime... and they were studiously kept away from real people... from the masses, the hoi polloi, the unwashed – just as Trump and Clinton are at present. They are kept in their respective bubbles until the election, at which point one of the bubbles will burst and the other will become even more impenetrable as the next administration gets under way.

So why not tell our illustrious candidates even a little bit of the truth – just a harmless secret or two? You know, to keep up appearances. Well, Dingy Harry's fear is that Trump might blab it to the Russians, and the Republicans' fear is that it might wind up in Hillary's e-mail, and thus in the hands of the Russians. So the Russians are behind both of these people's perceived vulnerabilities when it comes to keeping secrets! Who said the Cold War was over with? Maybe I'd better clear the scrap lumber out of my fallout shelter.

Point of Ordure, Mr. Chairman

First we had the journalism profession up in arms because the FCC was going to assign someone to every newsroom in order to keep the hired help in line. That was good for a few larfs. Now we have the Senate and the CIA standing toe-to-toe and arguing about who has been spying on whom, and who hacked who's computers, and who has, or thinks they have, or pretends to have, oversight over whom... and so on. This is one of those cases where, quite frankly, I don't care who wins because both sides deserve to lose, and lose big. It's like what happens when two schoolyard bullies get into a fight – everyone else wants it to keep going until both of them have to be carried out on stretchers.

Another way of putting it is that the Senate (and Congress in general) and the CIA (and the intelligence community overall) deserve each other. The rise of the intel cabal to its place of preeminence in the government was aided and abetted by Congress, which has been only too happy to give up its Constitutional prerogatives, one by one, almost since the founding. It seems to have started with war powers, but has escalated more recently to the point where Congress is as ignored and left out as the proverbial wallflower at a high school dance. The Executive Branch does as it damn pleases, and the courts reverse all the hard work of Congress on any whim that strikes their fancy. In fact, one could seriously question whether we need the Legislative Branch at all – except that they do the donkey work on laws that the Executive Branch wants, because the latter have better things to do with their time. You could say that Congress is little more, on any given day, than an extension of the White House staff – and you'd be right. And I say this fully aware that we still have, allegedly, a two-party system, and that the two parties in question are at perpetual knife-points about just about everything... except that they're not. As I've pointed out before, all the debates are about trivial and marginal issues, and are staged primarily as demonstrations that the Legislative Branch is not obsolete. (And when you have to stage meaningless debates about trivia, that's the best indicator that said branch is, in fact, obsolete.)

One could ask, plaintively, at what point did legislators cease to represent the people in any meaningful way? And I guess one would have to attribute this to things like bribery, lobbies, interest groups, special pleading, etc. -- in other words to things that have been around since the day after the Constitution was ratified. But again, the trajectory has been a long, slow curve upward – correlated, roughly 100%, with the portion of our gross national product, i.e. our productivity, that was confiscated by Congress and turned to dubious uses. When tax rates were low they had less to play with, and hence were less besieged by people wanting a handout. As, over time, they took a bigger bite out of the flesh of the hapless working American, they had more to play with, and hence were the targets of more, and more irresistible, temptations – not only in the form of money per se, but even more in the form of power. Power, and glory – or, maybe power without glory. Isn't that just as good? And this actually brings us back to the intelligence complex.

You have to admit, at least the hard-core intel types aren't in it for the fame – unless you count strictly intramural reputation as fame. And they aren't even particularly in it for the money. No, it's all about power, which is, supposedly, a product of knowledge, AKA intelligence. The spy has power simply because he can find things out about other people without them knowing – i.e. it's an asymmetrical relationship. He can exploit people without them knowing they're being exploited – sort of a sophisticated, high-tech version of a peeping tom. And that seems to be enough for these characters most of the time. They are content to live – and occasionally die – in obscurity, because they hold the power... the golden keys... the combination to every lock. They are people for whom secrets are like unto pearls of great price, and for whom secrecy, and the arts and crafts thereof, comprise their highest-valued skill.

Now... certain of us are occasionally fooled and misled by the notion that the intel agencies are somehow working for the good of the American citizen, or to protect our way of life (whatever that entails these days)... that they are super-patriots, willing to sacrifice anything to keep the wolf from the door. Well, no. OK – there may be a few genuine patriots slaving away in the bowels of CIA or NSA or some other intel headquarters, but they're either deluded or in denial as to the true agenda and priorities of those for whom they slave. (And they'll never get a corner office, I guarantee you that.)

Am I saying that this is the age of cynicism? Yes, to a great extent. The average citizen may be harboring some residual feelings of patriotism – love of country – but his leaders have grown way beyond such childish, grade-school and social-studies-class foolishness and have acquired a new respect for milking the system for all it's worth. “Intelligence” is no longer, assuming it ever was, about patriotism, any more than “defense” is about pursuing the ideals of the Founding Fathers. And again, I suppose that this is inevitable given the universal concupiscence of politicians when it comes to money and power (sex being a sub-category of power, note). Even the few with good intentions who are sent to Washington by starry-eyed supporters come down with “Potomac fever” the minute they get inside the Beltway, and never recover – nor do they want to. What, after all, is fragile human nature when confronted with that much confiscated wealth, the levers of power, the (kind of pathetic, when you think about it) “perks”? The reason power and money corrupt is that human beings are corruptible – and nothing lends itself more to this process than big government. It would be like expecting dictators to be philosopher kings; it just ain't gonna happen. Fallen human nature is against it. Thus, the folly of ever expecting the sins and offenses of big government to be cured by more government (an affliction which befalls “conservatives” from time to time). No, the idea is: Less, or none. Line up all the government agencies like ducks in a shooting gallery and start plugging away. I guarantee that the more that fall, the more refreshed and liberated and energized we will all be.

Consider, for a moment, how the omnipresent, omniscient intelligence complex came to be. It started in earnest – and by necessity, assuming the war was necessary, which Pat Buchanan questions – during World War II. For two decades up to that point, our unofficial policy when it came to other countries was: They don't bother us, we don't bother them. But all that was to change, and permanently, on that “date that will live in infamy”. So along came the intelligence agencies, and they multiplied like rabbits – internal, external, one for each armed service, overlapping missions, the occasional gap (which 9/11 was not, BTW)... and, like any other government entity created to deal with an emergency (war or otherwise), they turned out to have everlasting life. They could not be killed, because “mission creep” is always way ahead of whoever it is that doles out funding (Congress, for example). World War II was followed in close order by the Iron Curtain, and the Cold War, and all the other artificially life-extending circumstances that required us to keep armies of spies fully deployed around the globe as well as internally, because there are enemies everywhere, don't you know. Add to this our expanding economic and political empire, and you have the perfect formula for the dominance of “intelligence” over all other functions of government. We did not give up on military conquest, but preferred the economic kind – less messy, more efficient. But for economic conquest to work, one must have information, and the intimate symbiosis between the intelligence community and the business community arose quite naturally out of this necessity.

Now, I'm not saying, as some do, that the rest of the government actually works for the intelligence complex. It would be more accurate to say that they are all employees of a higher power. The intel side only seems to have more power because it keeps secrets and can get away with more. But are they running the whole show? I doubt it very much, and one reason is simply, why would they? Why bother? They have their empire – their “parallel government” -- and they don't need to waste time bossing the tools on Capitol Hill or in the White House. Those latter entities have their uses... and the appearance of separation of powers helps when they're dealing with the citizenry (not that there aren't plenty of chuckles and guffaws in Langley or Ft. Meade at their follies). One could almost say that Congress and the White House pretend to be in charge but aren't, whereas the intel agencies pretend to not be in charge, but are. But again, being in charge, I suspect, is secondary to playing the game.

And this is the real key. Intelligence is a game, and ultimately it doesn't even matter who wins or who loses. Losers can write memoirs too, after all. The appeal is that of action – of manipulation – of being in the midst of it all – of knowing what really happened and why, and who did it. Imagine spending a lazy Sunday afternoon riffling through the Top Secret/Kill Self Before Reading files in the basement of the CIA. Wouldn't you then have all the answers – about JFK, 9/11, Jimmy Hoffa... and so on? The great mysteries of our time, revealed? It's tempting to think so. But again, is the ultimate truth really what it's about? Remember, it's a game. Old CIA and KGB guys get together and reminisce over vodka and Cuban cigars: “Ah yes, those were the days. And I'm sorry about poor Percy, but he had to go, you know.” “Think nothing of it, old friend, we got back at you with Ivan, remember.” “Oh yes, I do remember – good show.” (chuckles all around) So when anyone is “eliminated” it's, basically, because they got in the way – not of national security but of the game, like some pinhead running onto the field during the Super Bowl. They get due diligence – but the game goes on. (I imagine this is a major aspect of the JFK story – he was done in by a cabal of cold warriors, intel game-playing types, plain cynics, opportunists, sociopaths, and maybe one or two genuine patriots. Sort of a dream team, if you will. But mainly, he got in the way of the game.)

So the intelligence cabal was partly created (by the Executive Branch and Congress) and partly self-created. It grew and multiplied like the brooms in The Sorcerer's Apprentice. And because it dealt in secrets, everything about it had to be secret as well – budget, staffing, operations, influence on foreign governments, and so on. And... now this is where it gets weird (or pathetic)... Congress is, allegedly, charged with “oversight” when it comes to intelligence operations. Well, who charged it? Itself, of course. So every once in a while a few intel bigwigs trek up Capitol Hill in order to provide a briefing, behind closed doors, to one or more Congressional committees – but how do those committees know that the intel guys aren't just blowing smoke up their butts? They don't, obviously – how could they? What are they going to do, go up to Langley or Ft. Meade in a motorcade with flashing lights to see if the intel guys were telling the truth? “Trust but verify?” How about “Don't trust, and afraid to verify.” Even if they were shown all the secrets down to the third sub-basement, what about the fourth and fifth sub-basements? If someone tells you they've told you all there is to know, how do you know? So it's really impossible. Add to this that the intel agencies have secret budgets (all approved, sight unseen of course, by Congress), and probably take a good chunk out of other budgets as well. How about a personnel count? You've got people on the books, people off the books, contractors, informants, deep-cover operatives, moles, rats, stool pigeons... every species, from high fliers to bottom feeders. “Oversight”? It's a total joke. And yet Congress, in its infinite narcissism, insists on keeping up the pretense, and all is well until they get too close for comfort, and then you have the current situation, with the very people who created the monster now in high dudgeon because said monster is galumphing through the formal garden.

And what's most delicious about the current hostilities is that it's largely Democrat members of the Senate who are feeling victimized -- yes, the same people who will use any means at their disposal to increase the size of government and the extent of its reach into the lives of private citizens – but their own hallowed halls are to be kept sacrosanct, right? Sorry guys, that's not the way it works. Cookie Monster want more cookies, and it doesn't care where it gets them.

What do I recommend? Well, it's too late to get rid of the intel cabal – might as well try to get rid of an inoperable tumor once it's taken over every organ system. It would actually be easier – and more fun – to get rid of Congress, but since they apparently have their uses even in the midst of appearing useless, that seems unlikely as well (not to mention that it would require some minor modifications to the Constitution – but it's widely ignored anyway, so I don't see that as as a major issue). No, I really do think that there is no solution short of waiting for the system to collapse of its own weight – but that could take many more lifetimes even though the process seems to be accelerating. Better to focus one's serious attentions elsewhere, and just let these sorts of controversies serve as comic relief.

Neither Dumb Nor Dumberer

There's a person (gender unstated, but I suspect male) who writes a regular column under the pseudonym “Dateline D.C.” His (let's assume) column from last Sunday is worth reading simply because of the extensive laundry list he provides of various CIA mistakes, snafus, screw-ups, and spasms of cluelessness over the years. It can be found at:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_728120.html

After providing the first part of the list, he comments that “this goes from being embarrassing to the disastrous”, and traces many, if not all, of the CIA's problems to the fact that one of the people most influential in its organizational design was a British agent – one Kim Philby, who was later found to be a spy for the Soviets. The implication is that the CIA was designed with intentional flaws, weaknesses, and loopholes that made it vulnerable to exploitation... or to chronic failure. And sure enough, “mission accomplished”, and he observes that “(Philby's) planning for the CIA had stood up to hundreds of inspections and has never been changed.” Implication – even though the CIA knows it was designed to fail, it has spent good money after bad and fortified those failures.

This would all make perfect sense as what I call a Level 1 Analysis (one based on generally-agreed-upon facts) if the mission of the CIA were as stated – the protection of America and America's interests through intelligence gathering and analysis, and, as needed, counter-espionage and covert action. But let's think for a minute. Here is an organization that has had privileged access, since World War II, to the most secret and sensitive information obtainable on all aspects of every foreign country, political body, or activist group – especially information with military, political, social, and economic implications. If any organization were in a position to know what's happening in the world at any given time, or what's about to happen, it would be the CIA. Right? Not only that, but the agency at least claims to be apolitical, so that its judgment cannot be accused of being clouded by partisan or idealistic considerations.

It's worth noting at this point that all of the offenses against reason and sanity listed by DDC should be considered “alleged”, since, to my knowledge, the CIA has never – at least in any public forum – admitted that these mistakes occurred. Oh, they will freely admit to the events in question, no doubt – but then stop short of acknowledging them as “their” mistakes. Presumably the detection and/or prevention of events of that sort does not fall under their mission... and if so, one might well ask, then what does?

Now, one fairly easy explanation for the CIA's failures would be the same as the explanation for the failures of any other government agency – namely that it's little more than a massive jobs program, and the mission (if one even exists) is incidental. In other words, the agency is not really doing its job at all, but just pretending to – or (more likely) pretending to do one thing while actually doing something entirely different. And that might be a tempting model because it does appear, historically, that the CIA, while not necessarily doing the job it's supposed to do, most definitely does _something_ – and a lot of it. So then we have to ask, with all that information at its disposal, and all those resources, and all that apparent power and energy... why does it keep (allegedly) failing?

This is where we get into what I call Level 2 Analysis, which often involves “thinking outside the box”, as they say, or reversing figure and ground. But in order to do this we have to throw out the premise that the CIA's mission is as stated. We have, rather, to ask: What would the real mission be if, with all those resources at its disposal, the CIA nonetheless exhibited what most people would consider a record of stupendous failure? Another way of saying this is, let's say that all of those failures are really successes. What would the mission have to have been for this to be the case?

First of all, it's clear that the reputation of the U.S. -- diplomatically, militarily, intelligence-wise – has nothing to do with it. Whatever the agenda is, it does not involve “saving face”, or avoiding embarrassment – at least not if we're talking about the visible, elected leadership – the president, Congress, the military, and so on. Well then, “image” aside, does it involve the tireless pursuit of the American Empire – something our visible, elected leadership won't admit to in so many words? In other words, is someone intent on empire-building in spite of all public claims to the contrary? True – but not, perhaps, in the way you might think.

If you look at the laundry list of complaints, the vast bulk are incidents that made us look, as a nation, like a bunch of fools, dolts, and clods who were constantly stepping on our schvantz. Well, in whose interest would that sort of image be? Our enemies, certainly – and of those there is an ever-increasing number. But it's also true of our “friends” and “allies”, who always feel a bit crowded and claustrophobic when we're in the room. We're the big kid – but like a lot of big kids, we're hard to control and tend to be a bully. We use up all the oxygen in any meeting with our "allies", and I daresay they wind up feeling somewhat intimidated, and even offended -- for there is no pride like the pride of the little man, fallen from great heights. So it's good to take us down a few pegs once in a while, and what better way to lay a trap for our clueless and deluded politicians that to assign that task to the CIA, which is, after all, part of an even more vast international intelligence network – that is to say an entirely separate world, in which the delusions of nationalism and the petty interests represented by national boundaries are to be despised rather than promoted and defended.

According to this model, the international intelligence community is one arm of the globalist cartel, AKA the Regime. Some would say that it _is_ the globalist cartel. I don't think this particular chicken-and-egg problem is all that vital, as long as we understand that there is an “entity” that cares not for the security, well-being, and prosperity of the U.S. and its citizens per se, but only as an instrument of a larger, more encompassing agenda. And we have to understand that it already controls many of our leaders and politicians, large sectors of our economy, and exerts great influence on our culture. So why would they stop short of infiltrating our intelligence apparatus as well?

So according to his model, the CIA succeeds by appearing to fail – this is if its loyalties are truly on the side of the globalists and in opposition to any kind of patriotism or nationalism. And what this means is that it's an alien force – an invader that has penetrated to the heart of the holy of holies, and is sabotaging things from within – the ultimate “inside job”, if you will.

But this is not the only possibility. There are also ways in which each individual failure can be turned around and counted as a success – but again, we have to allow for a radically different agenda than the one we've become accustomed to. Take communist revolutions, for example – and DDC implies that the CIA has missed them all. But wait! What if it knew about all of them in advance, but held back that knowledge in order to amplify the “shock and awe” effect, and thus make it more likely that their funding and power would actually be increased (by a duped Congress and executive branch)? Don't we have a habit of throwing more money at failed enterprises? Think of the public schools, for instance... or labor regulation... or farm subsidies. Why should intelligence be any different? Plus, think about it – the CIA has certainly done its part to nip plenty of communist and/or popular revolutions in the bud, and once in a while has actually succeeded. The ones they've “missed” have been the bigger ones that are harder, or impossible, to stop – so rather than letting a perfectly good crisis go to waste, they leverage it to their advantage.

He mentions the Bay of Pigs – but if any operation in American history was designed to fail, it was that one. Why? Because it would make Kennedy look bad, and the CIA already had set their sights, ahem, on Kennedy. The chances are that the ill-starred invasion could not have been designed to succeed anyway... so the way to, again, exert the right kind of leverage was to have it fail in the most spectacular way possible.

Vietnam? That was the first of our wars that was designed to fail – the current examples being Iraq and Afghanistan. Or maybe “fail” is the wrong word. “Not succeed” is a better term, since it implies that we would invade, occupy, and then have a continuous fight on our hands for years. But who benefits from that sort of thing? Anyone with a vested interest in the military, that's who – and if you combine them all you have the largest industrial entity in America, which obviously has to exist in a kind of symbiosis with the “intel” community; there is no other possibility. It's no accident that we now speak of the "military-industrial-security complex".

Bombing the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade – I believe I've covered this previously. It was a distorted way for the Clinton administration to show that it wasn't in China's back pocket, despite all the campaign contributions. Crazy, yes – but it worked. We bombed, they protested, we apologized, and the heat was off.

“Total cluelessness about the 9/11 attacks” -- au contraire! But we've covered that ground, including, once again, those who benefited (including the intelligence community, which got its biggest budget boost in history as a result of this so-called “failure”).

Regarding Afghanistan, “Washington did not remotely suspect that it would get bogged down in a decade of war.” Au contraire with earlaps! It had to be obvious to anyone with a grain of sense that this was inevitable – and yet did the intelligence community do anything to discourage George W. Bush? What I suspect is that they fed him precisely what he and his cronies wanted, and egged them on. We've already covered the waterfront in terms of who is benefiting from that war, and why they would just as soon it never ends.

“The CIA has been utterly ineffective in finding Osama bin Laden...” Right, because his continued freedom to oversee “terrorist” operations is the single best piece of pro-war propaganda we have. His is the face we love to hate, and his capture (or confirmed death) would be an absolute catastrophe for the Church of Perpetual War. Bottom line – either they really haven't found him (unlikely) or they have found him and are seeing to it that no one else does... or knows that they have. They're about as likely to bring him in to Guantanamo in shackles as O. J. Simpson is to find “the real killers”.

The current rebellions in the Arab world “took our spooks by surprise” -- no, again not if you figure that the long-term result of those revolutions will be an even stronger mandate for perpetual war, since those countries are likely to become more militantly Islamist, rather than the “cooperative” tyrannies they've been for these many years. (“Cooperative” translating to “willing to leave Israel alone in exchange for billions in foreign aid, i.e. bribes.)

See the pattern here? If it's really all about power, and resources, and enriching those who own and operate the war machine, then these failures actually amount to successes – and a bit of embarrassment during Congressional committee hearings is a small price to pay. After all, someone has to take a hit for the team once in a while – and as we have seen, there is never any permanent damage. I don't think Congress could get anyone in the CIA fired even if they wanted to. All they have to do is eat a bit of crow up on Capitol Hill then scoot back out to Langley and hide where no mere Congressman may enter.

I'm not claiming that I've made an airtight case here. After all, there has to be some room for human error – even in an organization as “perfect” as the CIA claims to be. (They always say that there are perfectly good reasons for their mistakes... but that those reasons are classified. Implication – if we knew the reasons, we'd realize that the mistakes weren't really mistakes at all. And I agree!) But just asking the simple question, “cui bono?” can provide, if not the answer, then certainly a strong clue. Because there is always someone out there who is making money, or increasing in power or status, or gaining some other benefit from any “mistake” on the the part of the CIA or any other government agency. These “mistakes” enrich more people more rapidly than any “success” would – such is the perversity of government programs and their funding. And what this means is that a great many of these so-called mistakes may be quite intentional. Or even institutionalized, as appears to be the case with the CIA.

So, with all due respect to “Dateline D.C.”, which really is a good column, I say that the writer is grossly underestimating his subject, and how clever they are, and how wildly successful they really are when it comes to their true agenda.

Clappy the Clown

Among the many buffoons, hacks, incompetents, and shlimazls stumbling across the stage that is the Obama administration – and we have to include its ardent facilitators in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting – one of the more prominent in current news is James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence. Now, I've already commented on what an impossible job – therefore a non-job – this is, back at the time of his confirmation hearings:

http://zarathustrasoldman.blogspot.com/2010/08/clap-on-clap-off.html

And apparently not much has changed, except that LTG (Ret.) Clapper has shown even greater-than-expected ability to step in dog do, wherever and whenever it can be found. And admittedly, life in the civilian, i.e. “public service”, sector is much more demanding in many respects than life in the military. In the military, your job is to follow orders, and the greatest risk you face (besides what happens when you don't follow orders) is getting killed or crippled for life. Compared to that relatively simplistic mode of existence, life in the bureaucracy is raw, nasty, and brutal in the extreme, where the law of the jungle rules. There is nothing like a soft, pink, out-of-shape bureaucrat to wield a knife and thrust it gently between your ribs when you're not looking... and the reason for this is that, in Washington and its outlying extensions, power is not “a” game, it's the _only_ game. Where profit is not a motive, and performance as a basis for promotion is, well, overrated at best... what's left? Raw power – intimidation, social dominance, backbiting, blackmail, character assassination... all sorts of lovely things that take the place of the much purer, more respectable motives of money, sex, and drugs in the private sector.

Now, how that power is expressed is a many-variegated thing. It can be about the number of hapless underlings one supervises – although, to be fair, most of those hapless underlings just thirst for the day when they too will get a chance to wield the whip. It can also be about the amount of resources one controls – real estate, territory, supplies, “materiel”, money. Or, it can be about how close one is to the “flagpole” -- i.e. to the big man, the man in charge. (One common metric in the bureaucracy is how many levels one is below the president – obviously, the smaller the number the more status. The only problem is that you can't get too many levels down before you find that you're only one of about a million people who are all at that same level.)

Oh, and then there are the countless signs and symbols of power. They do not confer power per se, but serve as a kind of sign language as to who's got it and who hasn't. Things like... and I kid you not... the shape of one's wastebasket, and what it's made of (wood vs. metal, round vs. square). The size of one's desk, and what it's made of... and how clean and uncluttered it is. Whether one's furniture is made of wood and leather, or some composite plus Naugahyde... or, worse yet, metal and plastic. How many “direct reports” one has... and how many of them have jobs that, in the private sector, would be called “personal assistant”, “lackey”, or “gofer”. (Does someone else get you your morning coffee? That's huge. And if they also pick up your dry cleaning, well... you are da man, bro!) And then there's the ultimate in bureaucratic status symbols – the hallowed corner office... and it's always been rumored that the Pentagon was built with five sides – i.e. five corners – to increase the number of corner offices available to the god-like beings who sit at the top of the Defense Department heap.

And lest one think that what I'm describing here is strictly a “mano a mano” situation, nothing could be further from the truth. The skirmishes, battles, and outright wars that roil through the bureaucracy on a daily basis are not just between alpha-type individuals; they are also fought between organizational units of all sizes, from the lowliest print shops right up through the directorates of the military services. Everyone's trying, at all times, to get not only their piece of the pie, but the other guy's as well. So a manager or supervisor will enlist his subordinates in a raid upon the territory and resources of some other manager or supervisor, and shamelessly make off with whatever booty is captured. This can include, once again, resources of any sort, including actual human beings – i.e. “personnel slots” and “bodies”.

And one might well ask, where in all of this is the actual prescribed mission? Where does it stand? Well... the first thing that has to be understood is that most of the bureaucracy operates in a mission-free environment. Oh, I suppose that, at one time, there was some mealy-mouthed statement put down on paper about what a given agency or office was supposed to do to earn its keep... but the day when that had any impact on actual behavior is long past. So what you have in Washington, basically, is an entire city populated by people with idle hands – which only aggravates an already-intolerable situation. As I've said quite a few times, every government program is a jobs program – no exceptions! And once those jobs are created and filled, the mission is accomplished. From that point on, the job holders can do pretty much as they see fit... and of course the Internet has been a terrific boon to government workers, vastly outperforming the old water cooler, hiding in a rest-room stall, roaming the corridors, two-hour lunches, shopping trips and other errands, etc. Now, within the cozy confines of his or her own cubicle, a government worker can while away the hours like one of the idle rich lazing about in a summer cottage, and no one is the wiser (or if they are, they don't care).

So... with that as preface, we return to LTG (Ret.) Clapper and his problem. No, not the problem of his “frequent gaffes”, as the media put it – but the problem of how those gaffes come to be. For this is, presumably, not a stupid gentleman. I found, in my experience with the military, that there are no stupid generals. Some may be maniacs... delusional... hyperactive... sociopathic... bullies... but stupid they ain't. The last of the "stupids" usually get sloughed off somewhere between the ranks of lieutenant colonel and colonel (or the Navy or Civil Service equivalents), although on occasion one will occupy a "bird colonel" slot for a short while, on the way out the door. The problem is, the senior guys can only operate on the information they are given by their underlings – since another of the many signs of status in the bureaucracy is that, beyond a certain point, one ceases to gather any of one's data first-hand. You have to rely completely, and totally, on other people – and there's the rub. If they are on your side, that's good news – they will feed you the best, and most complete, and most useful, information they can get their hands on. But if they're in the mood to do a bit of sabotage, subversion, and chops-busting... well! Then you can expect to be set up, on a daily basis, with flawed information that, when you attempt to use it in public, will make you look like an idiot. This, I believe, is what has happened to Clapper. He is being undercut by the very people, agencies, offices, and entities he is supposed to be supervising... or overseeing... or coordinating... or whatever that job description (and where did that piece of paper go, anyway? I haven't seen it in months!) calls for.

So what we've seen for a while now have been some delicious “oops!” and “never mind!” moments... and the general has wound up looking like a fool in some very public forums. But... why would anyone want to treat him this way? Simply because the various entities he is supposed to supervise, oversee, or coordinate don't want to be supervised, overseen, or coordinated. No way, Jose! They want to do as they have always done – have their fiefdom, their rice bowl, their private kingdom... with no accountability, unlimited budgets, and all sorts of magical secret powers granted to them by the dark forces of primal evil. And just the thought – the very thought – that someone would come in and expect them to toe the line – any line – is offensive in the extreme. So how do they fight back? Well, they could pull some dirty tricks on the president, I suppose, since he's the one who appoints the DNI. Or they could pull tricks on Congress, since they approved the creation of the office and approve its funding on an annual basis. But heck, that's no fun... and it might be risky besides. Better to keep the action confined to the home front – keep it “in-house”, as the saying goes. So to prove how silly the whole DNI idea was, and is, they keep setting the poor sap up for failure, hoping that eventually someone in the White House or Congress will get the word and do away with the office, allowing the countless intelligence entities to once again roam wild and free like the mountain gorilla.

It's not Clapper's fault – unless you blame him for having had the poor judgment to accept such a job. But there really are jobs in Washington that are impossible – they cannot be performed well, if at all, by anyone, regardless of qualifications or good intentions.

Actually, the presidency comes to mind as well, now that you mention it...

The Walls Have Oys

If I were a true-blue conspiracy theorist, I'd be mightily upset right about now. And it's not about something that could be considered “national news”; no, rather it's actually “state news” -- and I depart from my usual national (or global) emphasis to report it nonetheless... even though, on an average day, anything having to do with the state government of Pennsylvania is about as scintillating as clothes dryer lint. But on this occasion, there are national – yea, global – implications... so I don't feel that I'm lowering my standards by reporting it. And it is, after all, the talk of Harrisburg (which is the state capital of Pennsylvania, for those of you in Rio Linda).

It seems that a private contractor hired by the Pennsylvania Department of Homeland Security – and did you know that every state has its own DHS? I sure didn't – has been issuing “bulletins”, for many months now, warning government agencies, police forces, and “the private sector” as to the potential of various activist groups for provoking, inciting, or performing terrorist acts. Among the suspects are: gay and lesbian groups, G-20 protesters, Marcellus shale activists, Quakers (they might actually have a point in that case), tea partiers, anti-war demonstrators, environmental activists, animal rights advocates, tax protesters, gun owners, advocates of public education reform, and anti-abortion groups. (It would almost be easier to list the kinds of groups that _weren't_ included!) And of course the groups in question, once they found out that they were on the “watch list” for terrorism, immediately responded with indignation, dismay, the threat of lawsuits, and what not. And in response, the state government has awakened from its customary slumbers and has started to hold “hearings” on the matter. The result, so far, is that no one seems to know who hired this outfit or why – and, as I'm sure you've already guessed, it was on the basis of a no-bid, sole-source contract. For all anyone knows (or admits knowing), these people just, one day, up and started gathering data on the honest, hard-working citizens of Pennsylvania... and then reporting it to anyone who they thought might be interested. No authority, no accountability, no nuthin'. Just like the Soviet Union.

But here's what would have my “conspiracy detector” screeching like a Geiger counter at Chernobyl. The private firm in question is headed up by two individuals – one a “former policeman from York (Pa.)" named Michael Perelman (now how big a demographic do you think he represents?) -- and the other "a former Israeli police captain" named Aaron Richman. And it “has offices in Washington and Jerusalem”.

So what does it all mean? Is it all just a coincidence that, even though our foreign policy is securely in the hands of Israel, there is an Israeli connection to an outfit performing (supposed) domestic counter-terrorism work? And what's remarkable is that the media, while appearing to exert no effort to conceal this connection, have been completely silent as to its implications. But what are those implications? Well... as I said, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I would, first, see what those various “potential terrorist” groups have in common. They do seem to be arrayed across the political spectrum, it's true – but there are some themes, like anti-war and anti-big government. True, each of the groups will tend to be either one or the other – but none of them is both pro-war and pro-big government (as far as I know). And what does being against war and/or big government have to do with terrorism? Nothing whatsoever, except that anyone who is against any government policy these days is most conveniently labeled a “potential terrorist” for reasons which should be obvious. That way, they can be tracked, and, as needed, harassed or even detained. Always remember that the Patriot Act is intended to protect real patriots -- that is, people who always agree with everything the government says and does. Everyone else is automatically under suspicion.

So far, so good. But then why the Israeli connection? Well, who has the most to gain from the U.S. being in a state of perpetual war against Islam? And, in turn, who has the most to gain from the gradual slide of the U.S. into totalitarianism – which insures, among other things, that its perpetual war against Islam will remain unopposed by anyone with any power or influence? Why, Israel, of course! They have far more to gain from the U.S. being in a state of perpetual war than the average U.S. citizen does – or any U.S. politician, for that matter. Who profits from our modern-day crusade against the Islamic/Arab world? The usual suspects – the arms makers, the neocons, the Evangelicals, the Israeli lobby, and Israel itself. And, therefore, who has the most to lose if any of the anti-war and/or anti-big government protest/activist groups gain a foothold? The same people, of course. So it would make perfect sense if an Israel-based outfit was in a position of “helping” state and local governments police U.S. citizenry, to make certain no one wandered too far off the reservation without suffering the consequences.

Another way of putting it is that an Israeli outfit would be doing for us (which means, for various governmental bodies) what we do for our puppets in Iraq and Afghanistan – basically, protecting them from the wrath of their own citizens (and protecting their interests at the same time).

So if our domestic watchdogs – first and foremost being the FBI and the intelligence agencies – are not quite up to the job, our “eternal allies” will step in and fill the gap. That's the implication. Or it would be... if only I were a conspiracy theorist in good standing. But really – by the cold, clear light of morning it will become clear that this is just all a coincidence, and that these guys are just trying to make an honest living by protecting Americans from genuine threats. Surely they can't be taking orders from Jerusalem as to which American political groups are dangerous and threaten their interests. I mean... surely they can't have penetrated that far into our power structure. Right?

One good thing about this story – and the reason why it refuses to just vanish with the next news cycle – is the sheer number and diversity of the groups that were being spied and reported on. Just about everyone in Pennsylvania who is not a brain-dead straight-line voter is going to have a bone to pick with at least one of these revelations – which is, I'm sure, why the state government has decided to pursue the matter rather than just let it wither on the vine as usual. Not that this means anything will come of it – but it will, at least, take a bit longer to disappear down the memory hole. A few people will persist in wondering why one of our “allies” deems it necessary to spy on, and police, American citizens. Well, I mean, if they're better conspiracy theorists than I am.

Clap On, Clap Off

OK, so now we have a guy up for confirmation as Director of National Intelligence – which is not to be confused with director of any given intelligence agency, of which there are literally countless examples (“literally countless” because the existence of many of them is unknown – even to those in Congress who approve their budgets). What's interesting is that this office has only existed since 2005, and it was created in order to improve coordination among the various intelligence agencies, enhance accountability, yadda yadda. In other words, it's the typical government layering effect, where each new layer is promoted as being the solution to all previous problems... and then that layer becomes one of the “previous problems” the next time around, when still another layer is added, ad infinitum. In the case of the Director for National Intelligence, there is also a Principal Deputy Director, a Director of the Intelligence Staff, Deputy Directors, Associate Directors, Assistant Deputy Directors... starting to glaze over yet? Yeah, it's just another bureaucracy, which, far from being part of the solution, simply adds to the problem.

Now, the current nominee to oversee all of this is a guy named Clapper (LTG, USAF, ret.), and when it comes to the massive redundancy in missions among the various intelligence agencies, his excuse is that this represents “the conscious pursuit of competitive analysis”. In other words, let a hundred flowers bloom. The problem is, this assumes that Job One of the vast array of intelligence agencies is to actually gather, analyze, and report on information that could be vital to the nation's defense. If you believe that, I've got a job for you with... the Director of National Intelligence. But the truth is, the number one job of any intelligence agency, or cluster, array, or galaxy of agencies, is the same as it is for any other agency in the government – namely survival, self-perpetuation, and, if possible, growth in both power and resources. This, what I call “organic” model of government growth, seems to have escaped the attention of nearly everyone (those in Congress, for example) – the fact that any organization, and particularly any bureaucratic organization, behaves very much like a living organism. It's motivations are quite simple, really – nourishment (budgets), growth (budgets again), and survival – and the latter, in the case of the intelligence agencies, requires a good deal of secrecy. But the secrecy is not so much a matter of “national security” as one of simply concealing the fact that they don't do much of anything but work toward their own self-perpetuation. And the greatest thing about this secrecy is that it serves as a total safeguard against failure – by which I mean... well, let's say there's a truly catastrophic failure in intelligence. Like 9-11, for example. So right away, the cover stories and red herrings start – we're really doing a great job, but this one just got past us. And we really were keeping an eye on these people, honest. And so forth. So the answer – as with any failing government enterprise (the public schools come to mind) – is more resources! “Mend it, don't end it”, as Jesse Jackson would say. And this turns what looked, at first, like gross and abject failure into success; it has been pointed out how much larger the intelligence community has grown since 9-11... and all based on what is probably the most blatant failure in all of their history. (Kinda reminds me of the banks and the auto industry, actually.)

It's also notorious that the intelligence budget is top secret. No, it's beyond top secret; no one in Congress knows how much is spent on “intelligence” work, which is pretty remarkable considering that they're the ones who approve the funding. Also true – no one knows how many people (government employees and contractors, plus informers, stoolies, turncoats, etc. overseas) work for the intelligence agencies. The agencies get to spend as much as they like, hire anyone they like, and do, basically, anything they like – including nothing, if they're so inclined -- and no one in Congress has a leg to stand on when it comes to objecting or attempting to reform things, because, after all, they "approved" the top-secret budget. What this adds up to – and this should be no news to anyone – is that the “intelligence community” is, basically, a parallel government, or a country within the country. It has its own resources, its populace, its real estate, its capital property, its armed forces (mostly, but not all, overseas), and it's... call it what you will... culture, way of life, mystique. Yes, there is an intelligence mind set, that is characterized by obsessive-compulsiveness, paranoia, and protectiveness... qualities which might have had some utility during World War II or during the Cold War. But now we have a bigger-than-ever intelligence community dealing with smaller-than-ever problems and issues... or with none at all, I suppose, depending on which arm of the squid you happen to occupy. And is it dealing with these issues well? We'll never know, since, once again, the intelligence community has a way of burying its mistakes (except for the biggest ones) and bragging, in an extremely generic way, about its successes. It's like those messages I keep getting on my computer screen -- “Foxfire has just blocked a pop-up message”. Well, whoop-de-freakin'-do. Maybe I'm glad it was blocked. But at least it didn't cost me a few billion to block it. In the case of the intelligence agencies, all we ever hear about is all the dreadful things that didn't happen because they were on the job, with their all-seeing, never-sleeping eye. Well OK guys, then where the hell were you on 9-10? And has anything really changed? I suspect not. Just more layers. Again, a good crisis did not go to waste; a greater-than-ever portion of our national wealth was turned over to the intelligence agencies – or thrown into a bottomless pit, pick one – but is it really possible that their performance has markedly improved as a result? This stale old alibi of “there haven't been any more 9-11s” doesn't take into account that, as far as the terrorists, or whoever they were, are concerned, 9-11 was “mission accomplished”. They don't have to do it again; they can move on to other things (like bleeding us dry all over Iraq and Afghanistan).

At this point, the typical plaint of the uninformed citizen is, why can't something be done? I mean, if Congress controls their budget, why can't they simply withhold funds until they get some answers, and so on. But you have to remember that the intelligence agencies deal primarily with information – and as knowledge is power, information is power over those who would rather not have that information made public. And, after all, aren't most of our elected officials, let's say, a bit “flawed”? Many of them are moral imbeciles, so have a lot to hide from the voters; others might have some semblance of conscience but still feel a bit apprehensive about all of their dirty laundry being hung out. So what am I implying? That the intelligence community is just one big blackmail operation? Let's just say that they have certain tools and resources at their disposal, and it would by shocking if they didn't use them once in a while. And there is nothing new about this. J. Edgar Hoover was notorious for having a “black file” on virtually every elected official in the land, and plenty of other people besides... and he used this information whenever it was needed, in order to further his mission (which was not all bad – don't misunderstand me on that point). And I suspect that, really, this has been a “bread and butter” part of intelligence operations throughout history. And there might even be some rationale for it if these people were truly mission-oriented, and doing a commendable job. But what I suspect is that the situation has deteriorated, principally because of the breakup of the Soviet Union. The Cold War was at least an object of intense focus; not only that, but the threat was real. Since then, what have we had to deal with? China is more capitalistic than we are, and their main form of aggression is buying up our debt. What's the intelligence angle there? And the best the Russians can do is send a bunch of dingbats over here disguised as American yuppies. No, it has to be about “terrorism” and nothing more – but even there, the idea that “terrorism” is a profound threat to American security and the American way of life is... well, it's propaganda, basically. And this is not to deny the reality of 9-11 or of other terrorist actions or attempted actions – only that it's not really us they're after. The Soviets really did, in their heart of hearts, want to make the U.S. into a people's republic... and so did their agents here (including those in the government, academics, media, etc.). I don't think the terrorists are the least bit interested in converting us to Islam – all they want is for us to get the hell out of the Islamic world (and our little dog too – i.e. Israel). If we were to leave, I suspect that “terrorism” would stop. (Ron Paul said as much.) And if you're thinking, “but what about Europe?”, the answer is that the European countries that are supporting our efforts in Southwestern Asia are the ones getting hit; the rest are being left alone – except Russia, which has a long-standing Muslim minority. But of course this is not going to happen, so we will continue to be confronted by “terrorists”, and completely baffled as to “why they hate us”... and the intelligence community will continue to half-heartedly poke away at the problem while feathering their bed in perpetuity.

Don't Blame Me, I Just Work Here

Herewith, a brief note concerning the “blame line” for the “undies bomber” who threatened to out-Grinch the Grinch on Christmas Day. “Intelligence and State Department officials should be disciplined for their roles in a chain of failures”, etc. And, “... some people have to be held accountable”... and those involved “have to be disciplined so that (the mistakes) never happen again.” So... who are the solons who are making these stern pronouncements? Why, none other than Senator Joe Lieberman, Israel's man in Washington, and Senator John McCain – who would have had us nuking Tehran before he dropped in on his first inaugural ball. Yes – these are what pass for the voices of responsibility these days. Plus – aside from the massive hypocrisy, you would think they would know better than to expect any government official – ever, at any time in history – to take responsibility for anything – I mean anything bad. Either these guys are amazingly naïve, or they're just pretending – the way the Republicans pretended to be upset about Harry Reid's comments about Obama. Is it possible that they think the primary task of the intelligence agencies and the State Department is to protect Americans and American interests? Don't we have sufficient proof that this is not – assuming it ever was – the case? No, these are self-contained empires where growth in staffing, power, influence, and especially budgets is Job One – and the stated mission (you know, the reason they were set up in the first place) is... well, it's not even on the map most of the time. The State Department specializes in getting us embroiled in conflicts all over the world, that have no discernible bearing on national security or welfare... and where they can't get us into an actual shooting war, they manage to offend everyone so severely that it amounts to the same thing. And as for the intelligence agencies, well! They basically constitute a parallel government – the difference being, none of the officials is elected or subject to recall by the citizenry, and the term of office is... however long they feel like staying, basically. They play the intelligence “game” -- but when the bottom line spells disaster, they simply shrug and go on about their business, basically daring anyone to try cutting back on their resources. And this is what has happened again, for the umpteenth time, in Undiesbombergate – it was “oops, my bad”, or not even “my bad”, but just “oops” -- and barely that. And there's nothing like a narrowly-averted disaster (even when they did nothing to avert it) to bring out paeans of praise for the “intelligence community” and its “brave and dedicated personnel” from the president and Congress. (Almost makes you think the intel types “have something” on all these clowns, doesn't it? Well, they do.) So yeah – no one is going to go in and clean house. As a European diplomat once said, “Never explain; never apologize”. Of all the advice ever to come down the pike, this is the one that has been taken to heart the most by the intel and State types. Never explain – because the unwashed wouldn't understand – and never apologize – because that just weakens your position, and what do we want, to have to apologize every time something goes wrong? Forget it! So the wagons get circled, the wall of silence goes up, and goofballs like Lieberman and McCain are left scratching their wrinkled heads. But at least McCain showed a bit of insight when he called the ploy “we're all responsible therefore no one is responsible”. Yeah, John – it's called “the government”. Get used to it; you wanted to run it, remember?