What he does, not by what he says. That's about the only thing I remember from my high school civics class (back when they used to teach civics). But it was a useful bit of advice.

This is a particularly useful maxim with our new president. At least with Bush it was painfully clear when he was agitated and, hence, lying through his teeth. (Yes, you might say he was in a permanent state of agitation.)

But Obama...the guy, I think, can deftly spin anything to contain some half-truth. HE should be heading an intelligence agency, rather than taking his marching orders from them.

Kitt said: You must be a little slow on the uptake then because Sarah Palin was chosen by McCain in late August. In October you were still posting about a nearly definite CIA Osama type terrorist attack in the works.

Though I realize it's an important part of the technique of defending an indefensible argument, personal insults are not necessary, so why not agree to leave those out of the discussion, okay?

While it is now clear that Palin's an incompetent, babbling idiot, it wasn't so in the beginning. In fact, McCain's choice of Caribou Barbie was initially painted as a stroke of brilliant political maneuvering by many a media celebrity.

But at least we agree: the CIA has a long history of aiding and instigating false flag attacks.

Surely, that option is still in the playbook of the Spooks and their lesser known pals in more insidious intelligence agencies like the NRO and NSA.

Speaking of the NSA, Obama's flip-flop on FISA presents even better evidence that his agenda for "change" does not apply in any way to his intentions with the intelligence agencies.

There are only two explanations for Obama's special treatment of this group: 1) he is threatened by them, and 2) he is a closet "unitary executive" power monger.

Either way, Obama the President is an entirely different animal from Obama the Campaigner.

rrhead said: Any high-up CIA/NSA/[insert alphabet intel agency shows up in the President's office and attempts to blackmail him (a crime by the way), which is likely being recorded, and assuming the President isn't on mushrooms, gets asked to resign or is fired on the spot (civil service rules be damned).

The president doesn't have a "need to know" for every intelligence activity. Hell, the black budget, for which congress writes a blank check and looks the other way, is at least $100 billion a year. The president is an afterthought to these guys...he'll be gone in four or eight years anyway. Why clue him in on any operational plans extending beyond his limited tenure? To do so is to rob him of plausible deniability. They're doing him a favor. And I'm sure he doesn't want to know, given that much of it is just plain illegal and/or unconstitutional.

The blackmail I'm suggesting occurred is precisely the kind recently doled out by Hillary Clinton, in Obama's and our name, against the Brits. Greenwald has covered that travesty extensively. If Britain didn't help cover up torture activities, our intelligence agencies might just "forget" to share crucial terrorism intelligence with our neighbors across the pond. There's no difference here, except that BHO is the one being blackmailed, rather than the one blackmailing our allies.

No tin foil hat required to believe what's out in the open and obvious for all to see. This is how it works inside and outside, and between, governments.

The alphabet agencies have just as much to lose if it happens as the President. People would see it as just as much their institutional failure as the President's.

Tell me, who's been held accountable for these institutional failures? Anyone? Do you think the CIA--universally known for its reliance on deception--cares about its reputation? All it needs to know is that its budget is being increased year after year. Thanks to 9/11, the alphabet agencies that we can actually get budgets for have increased from some $30 billion to somewhere around $60 billion. A few black eyes in the reputation department, no convictions for any lawbreaking or negligence, and a 100% funds increase.

That's the kind of "collateral damage" the CIA surely was willing to accept.

Kitt said: Are "terrorist attacks" for blackmail your version of the Freidman [sic] Unit?

You're right. I was convinced that a "terrorist attack" would occur to save McCain. Of course, after his idiotic choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate, almost anybody paying attention rightly wrote him off as a serious contender, including, apparently, the intelligence agencies. They would merely have to make do with Obama, whose penchant for "pragmatism" plays right into the hands of those who wish for the boat not to be rocked.

Sadly, Obama has been more than accommodating in the "national security" arena. I think the alphabet agencies got an unexpected windfall with the election of BHO.

Are you suggesting that intelligence agencies don't have a long history of lawbreaking, including "false flag" attacks, to achieve their ends?