• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Abolish the CIA?

Virus said:
No he didn't.
Click to expand...

No, he's become even more strident that he was correct on the Iraq War. In his memoir he does concede that not everything went swimmingly or cakewalky but makes the excuse that he felt the military would be more competent and would have thought of all the private reservations he had.

The article in which he calls for the abolition of the CIA is one where he blames the CIA for allowing the Bush administration to look silly or add weight to the international charge that the Bush administration were behaving badly which in Hitchens' mind is "treason"! Oh, and not providing the supportive propaganda on Iran's nuclear weapons programme!

Mutiny! Treason! Abolish the CIA!
 
His argument was that Iraq was a genocidal fascist state that had seized a keystone region in the world economy. A situation a lot of people were stupidly tolerating. That was completely true whether Saddam happened to have WMD or not.
 
Last edited:
Virus said:
His argument was that Iraq was a genocidal fascist state that had seized a keystone region of the world economy. That was completely true whether Saddam happened to have WMD or not.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was agreeing with you that Hitchens has not "acknowledged that all of his justifications were incorrect".

In fact, moreover, he argued that Saddam Hussein's regime would do one or both of two equally undesirable things. Either be passed on to his psychopathic sons or simply collapse anyway, descend into civil war and be fought over and annexed by Turkey and Iran. The annexation by Turkey meaning the end of a possible autonomous region for the Kurds and the annexation by Iraq meaning a further Islamization of Eastern and Southern Iran and no doubt a very tough time for the Sunnis indeed.

As it happens something similar to the annexation of Iraq by Iran has happened anyway, although Hitchens would likely disagree, and Iran has been handed a near-hegemony in the region without having to fire a shot. Some of this can be attributed to his erstwhile ally Ahmed Chalabi who seems to have more than a few ties to Iran and even, somewhat more embarrassing, quite a bit of friendship between President Talabani and the Islamic Republic.

Nothing goes exactly to plan but I am pretty sure the massive bloodshed in Iraq has given Hitchens a number of second or third thoughts. The problem for Hitchens is that he cannot readily admit to this because he knows just how stridently he attacked those who were against the Iraq War as being objectively pro-Fascist. His only recourse is to continue blustering that he was absolutely right and the cost of removing Saddam Hussein was worth it.
 
Last edited:
Just out of curiosity, exactly how many of the accusations against the CIA have been proven? Especially regarding Latin America.I've found a lot of what people seem to believe about Iran is wrong and that books like "Tales of an Economic Hitman" lack actual proof.
 
Donal said:
Just out of curiosity, exactly how many of the accusations against the CIA have been proven? Especially regarding Latin America.I've found a lot of what people seem to believe about Iran is wrong and that books like "Tales of an Economic Hitman" lack actual proof.
Click to expand...

Economic Hitman is essentially deranged fiction. For a laugh go to Amazon, look up that book and then see what other works this author has produced.
I'm amazed that so many people think this stuff has any credibility.

The coups that the CIA was involved with seem to have become simplified in the public mind. The CIA supported political forces that were already there, they did not create them.
That doesn't change the fact that the populations of the affected countries feel very strongly about American meddling.
How would Americans feel if the Chinese started bankrolling the Tea Party?

The criticisms that really hit home are the intelligence failures.
Telling Kennedy that the Bay of Pigs invasion could work.
Telling the white house that the Soviet Union was heading for a new golden age, when it was in fact about to fall flat on it's ass.
Assisting the Bush administration in putting together a "sexed-up", PR-driven report on Iraqi WMD's.
Not seeing the Iranian revolution coming.

For the record: I don't think the agency should be abolished. But it certainly looks like it could use some re-organizing.
 
Last edited:
The Bay of Pigs wasn't really the CIA's fault. There were leaks all over the place and Castro had all the time in the world to prep for it.

The problem seems to be too much political jockeying.

Could they perhaps set it up to be run like the Federal Reserve?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom