Why Counter-Terrorism Is In Shambles

Early last week several questions were submitted to former CIA analyst Ray McGovern about the sad state of counter-terrorism in the United States, and he has answered frankly and in-depth. In addition, McGovern solicited former FBI attorney/special agent Coleen Rowley to review his answers and provide her own comments. Ray's biggest tip to the intelligence community was to "HOLD ACCOUNTABLE THOSE RESPONSIBLE. More 'reform' is the last thing we need. Sorry, but we DO have to look back. The most effective step would be to release the CIA Inspector General report on intelligence community performance prior to 9/11. That investigation was run by, and its report was prepared by an honest man, it turns out. It was immediately suppressed by then-Acting DCI John McLaughlin — another Tenet clone — and McLaughin's successors as director, Porter Goss, Michael Hayden, and now Leon Panetta."

Comments

The best way for the USA to stop terrorism

[Ralph Spoilsport]

is to renounce empire. To become 5% of the world's population, no more no less, consuming 5% of the world's resources, no more, no less.

Do that, and it is very likely Al Qaeda will stop fucking with you.

Re:So essentially...

[infinitelink]

I have this vague memory about some color coded threat level that was never green, and seemed to go from yellow to orange any time there was an election...

What you're trying to imply is idiotic (and really, no offense, it's just bad reasoning). OF COURSE it won't go green--you don't want everyone to think all is fine and dandy when it's not, (as green implies to the dumb dumbs out there), and elections are ALWAYS major events most convenient and useful to disrupt the affairs of a country, create paranoi, and even internal turmoil to the extent of internal conflicts. Why do you think there was so much security surrounding Obama, for instance, so much angst over the prospect of him getting elected among security personnel, etc.? Because if someone did anything to him, among all people, it would not just be a crime, or crimes but one that could strart race wars, etc.. I know 'gung ho' types 'good 'ol boys' who are all for 'defending the constitution with a gun' (that is, after all, the reason for the second amendment among other things), and yet they're not so fanatical as to think what so many people did in fact suggest towards Obama--political assassinations. 'That would (1) cause too much internal strife and (2) wouldn't be right and (3) violate process', they say. Yet people did suggest just such things, I've heard. Moreover, imagine how opportune such a thing is to external enemies of the state? Just imagine? Elections, in any country, are always times for heightened securities and alerts--it wasn't just a convenience thing for the Bush admin, even if security was something he could stress often for political advantage. One honestly just has to look at the guy and how he aged, though, to get an impression that such things (keeping the people of the nation really secure) were dear to him: seems like he stressed majorly over it, though it's also true that most presidents seem to age quickly: we shouldn't be too quick to point unappreciative fingers at either friend, or foe, mortal or political. And before the partisan finger pointing begins (though perhaps the following could be construed to start it), I'd like to 'point out' that the current administration was eager to zealously take advantage of all the political powers and authority Bush did accrue for the Executive Branch, and zealously use they have done--with much less restraint. The pointing out Bush's official really does seem like a convenient diversions. On top of all this: I dislike both political parties with passion, so don't take that as partisan.