Has the CIA or FBI ever been accused of partisanship in the past?

[Bandit]

I see the occasional post about the Clinton CIA or the Reagan CIA and got to wondering if they are or have been partisan. I know beyond any doubt that Louis Freah was a partisan but historically has it ever been an issue? I may be completely naive but I've always considered them to be totally non-partisan and only keeping the countries interest and not a political parties but this Cabal in power now has completely changed all the rules. Now the military is being politicized and the Supreme Court is blatantly partisan now. Is the CIA and FBI soon to follow that course?

[blm]

1. The establishment turned its back on Kerry.

Kerry was ostracized by most of Washington for his dogged investigations.

>>>>>
Kerry and the Iran-Contra Fight
Before the conventional wisdom sets in on Kerry as some kind of careful pol with no bite, folks should reach back and remember his role back in the 1980s in challenging the whole Reagan administration ties to money laundering, drug running and the Contras down in Central America. Kerry was willing for years to face down the CIA, the Justice Department and narco-terrorists in pursuing the dirty dealings of the Reagan-North network of rightwing drug-linked paramilitaries.

http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/000945.shtml

[Virgil]

5. What spin

If Kerry did so much to expose the USG role in actively bringing cocaine into the country and sending arms out that would end up in Iran, why do people not know about it? He has had 20 years to expose it and nobody knows exactly how the USG/CIA is involved in the drug trade.

We know the US had an illegal invasion to get Noriaga (terrible spelling) out of Panama because he wanted a higher cut of the drug trade. Prohibition is all about driving up price. It also creates a reason for forfeiture, which is legalize for seizure, of vast lands in Colombia at the expense of 35,000 Colombian lives last year.

Prohibition of cannabis is nothing short of insane to the power of infinitiy, but even cocaine prohibition as the US has imposed it insane squared. Very few people would die at all if purity were regulated and there would not be a US civil war on Colombia that has raged for more than 30 years.

In Bolovia, they imprison people on cocaine charges and make them prove they are innocent to get out. It is unbelievable and it is all because of a US drug war. It is South America that the drug war can be seen, that is if the media would report it. Media outlets throughout South America are just as bribed as media outlets in the US in propaganda efforts to make Americans see a false reality.

You can go to JohnKerry.com right now and read where he says we must attack the source of supply. That is saying we need to get down to South America and steal us some land. I am going to say that I regard John Kerry as a drug warrior. He sat in Congress for 24 years while we were fed slogans like "Just say no." They could have been telling us some truth.

NarcoNews.com will be resuming reporting in a few days. I suggest that you read some of the past articles and read the new ones. I will be mentioning things they say, as the truth will set us free.

NarcoNews is a group of people on a mission to bring the world truth. They played an instrumental role in saving Chavez in a US supported coup by reporting the truth. The big money in Venezuala locked workers out so all they could do was protest. I saw pictures at FreeRepublic where the truth inverters said they walked out on strike and were trying to Chavez was not popular. Chavez is popular and the media was interested in creating a false reality.

You can bet there are paid federal agents to monitor the debate of this drug war situation and even the election debate itself, at DU and other forums, as they are not going to let any media alone in an organized disinformantion campaign.

NarcoNews says that truth will bring in real democracy to South America. They will expose forces that oppose true democracy and a true democracy will end the drug wars that have so corrupted their countries.

In my book Kerry is a drug warrior. The drug wars and disinformation campaign are most easily seen with cannabis that should be legalized if only to reduce the harms of alcohol. They talk drug abuse, but it is disingenuous. Legalized cannabis would reduce drug abuse because there would be immediate harm reduction due to less alcohol abuse. On Super Sunday taxpayers will pay to demonize cannabis, while alcohol pushers will bombard us with a real killer.

Harm reduction is the banner of the reform movement in South America. It is policy in Brazil, but entrenched powers have stopped Lula from full implementation of what he knows best. Gary Johnso who was Governor of New Mexico until last year called for the legalization of cannabis and a harm reduction strategy under a health care model instead of a criminal justice model which is really militarization.

John Kerry is not a drug warrior because I say so. I say so because he is a drug warrior. If your government were telling the truth to you, I would not even have to say this.

Look for this to be attacked and I will not respond. Look for disinformation and things that ask you to look at a weird perspective like the gut that asked "Were you sure 100% that there were no WMD in Iraq?" It is question inversion and absolutely senseless. The electability issue is a diversion from talking about issues and getting the truth out there about Busch.

There were bound transcripts of this important Kerry Commission. They are important enought to be online. One guy a few years back said he would put them online as he stumbled on a copy of them. Never happened. Where is a transcript and why are they not on line. Kerry has not exposed anything. He is a drug warrior.

[denverbill]

6. This has nothing to do with the post.

But thanks for your incessant posting of this article. It's almost as helpful as your obsessive Dean-bashing a few months ago.

[bryant69]

2. Well for one thing

Every single damn government agency has been "accused" of partisan ship at one time or another, most from both sides. The FBI is particularly vulnerable to such charges because they are a law enforcement agency (and because, they have acted in a partisan way a few times in the past). The question should be phrased are they guilty of partisan ship. I know this seems a small thing, but the burden of proof to be accused of something is practically non-existed compared to the burden of proof to be "convicted."

Secondly, Both organizations are large and have thousands of employees. It's clear in the CIA, for example, that there are some employees who are frusterated or even angry with the Bush Adminsitration's lack of respect for their intelligence.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[NWHarkness]

3. Watergate

The partisanship of both agencies was very much a part of the Watergate mess.

[library_max]

4. Three words.

J. Edgar Hoover.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

7. The CIA has been Bush turf for decades...

Bush snr was a director, and possibly an agent of the CIA. There was NO Clinton CIA, it was always the Bush CIA. Why do you think they kept giving Clinton such bad info?

For example, the pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan. Clinton was told it was a chemical weapons plant. The reality as the CIA KNEW was that it was not. But it sure did make Clinton look bad when he bombed it.

The CIA's headquarters is called the George Bush Center for Intelligence, even though he was only a director for just over a YEAR! Doesn't that speak volumes?