Ron Paul has said indirectly, and probably directly, that he would want to eventually get rid of that agency.
And Ron Paul is a threat to corrupt big government. And endless wars. And the drug war. All the things the CIA makes billions off of. So, why has the CIA not killed him yet? I’ve heard interviews with someone in government, perhaps ex-CIA on coast to coast, and have seen video of a congressional committe talking about CIA’s ability to shoot some type of injection into a victim and then about 24-48 hours later, they would have a fatal heart attack.
Because he doesn’t really pose a threat to them? I know people that have said they want to get rid of the CIA too. Doesn’t mean they ever can or ever will.
Perhaps you’re overestimating A) the power of the CIA and B) the influence of Ron Paul
Springboarding of BP’s post… RP is not yet a threat sufficient to merit direct action which is always risky and often leaves loose ends that keep raising uncomfortable questions for years or decades (cf the murder of JFK). I think there’s truth to what Bill Hicks says here:
TPTB understand the folly of directly confronting the will of the people… look at Egypt, for example. They foment revolutions in other countries by utilizing the very popular discontent which RP symbolizes in the US. Assuming, by some miracle, he were to be elected President, a better approach than assassinating him would be to sit him down and make him understand that closing down Federal agencies, cutting $1T from the budget, closing overseas military bases and withdrawing the troops is simply not part of his “job description”, whatever illusions he may have had to that effect while seeking the job. And, of course, if he gets too far out of line, a “crazed, attention-seeking gunman” is on stand-by at all times.
I don’t think a lone individual can change the system, even if elected President. I think an political entire machine is required and that machine has to already have a presence within the existing Establishment. But once you go down that path, you’re just talking about politics-as-usual.
First, evidence. Watch the Men Who Killed Kennedy Series on YouTube to see evidence of a conspiracy to kill JFK. In the 1991 conspiracy-laden film JFK, there is a scene explaining the military rationale for JFK’s death: Meeting Mr. X
Assuming the CIA had a role in JFK’s death, they likely feel differently today.
The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign raised “more campaign donations from active military than all other presidential candidates—Republican or Democrat—including having raised more funds from this segment than all other GOP competitors combined, and more than incumbent President Barack Obama.”
The vague War on Terror, which has kept the ACLU busy for a decade, is less of a threat than the Cold War, so I speculate there is less of a we-must-do-anything-to-win mentality.
Any CIA Cold Warriors involved in domestic assassination are likely dead or retired by now.
Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer (can’t find the link) said that most of his former colleagues agree with his assessment that U.S. foreign policy instigates Islamic terrorism.
Thus, there is likely an understanding by the CIA that the War on Terror is more for show. It is real, but its primary purpose is to scare the electorate for the benefit of political parties.
To speak of the CIA as a unit is very misleading. The CIA is compartmentalized. One may be ignorant of what colleagues are doing or even who works for the CIA. If a CIA subsection does something without approval from the top, the CIA is not fully responsible.
the fact that some of yall can even have this discussion with me and take the question a little seriously just shows how badly we need to get rid of an agency like the CIA.
I think the knee-jerk reaction would be if Ron Paul did die all assumption would be that the CIA was behind it, even if they didn’t. CIA might keep tabs on Paul, but it’s probably on the idea of keeping him secure to protect their asses for the time being. As stated, he’s not a real threat at the moment.
See, Bert, I thought for a few minutes that the CIA wouldn’t dare kill him, but I soon decided that it could easily be spun to be some deranged criminal who was living off of welfare or something. The CIA severs all ties with him, covers its tracks, and anyone who claims conspiracy is a kook.
Not that I predict a threat on the doctor’s life, but this is my assessment.
Kill him? If he ever wins it will be party time for the shady would-be dictators: they just incite him to actually cut big time, and then the US will find itself chocked by huge strikes on the streets and some major terror attacks (even harder to dismiss as covert ops than 9/11 was, but anyway), “proving” that calling back the troops would be suicide. If Ron Paul ever wins, he may be the last President of the US, all military commanders form than on.
Because the CIA was forced to stop their domestic assassinations in the 1970’s.
Now, they are gonna straight let the military do it. Ron Paul will be sitting in the White House drafting Executive Orders and the JCoS will drone bomb the Lincoln Bedroom.
Fidel Castro survived over 400 attempts on his person. Some where aimed at eliminating him, other at discrediting him (for example by tricking him into taking LSD before a public speech). Old Fidel buried five US presidents and countless CIA directors and executives and is still kicking around.
The CIA may be good at squandering billions to murder farmers and shepherds in the Hindu Kush and Somalia but one thing is surely not: efficient.
I suppose it’s easier if you have you own island fortress.
Anyway, it’s not just the CIA Ron Paul has to worry about, if I were him the Secret Service would be a concern. Should he accept their ‘protection’ if and when they offer it to him as a frontrunner?
Lol… That explains some of his more epic speeches.
I have wondered the same thing myself. Is there an extant conspiracy theory that involves the secret service actually maintaining ironclad control of the chief exec?
This only matters because of the “internationalist” (aka imperialist) orientation of our media.The message of political isolationism is simple and resonates with a lot of Americans, even those on the “left”: Let the local people sort out their own social problems… however bad their social problems may be, we can only make them worse by interfering.
Of course, this has been turned on its head by the incessant drumbeat of imperialist propaganda drilling into our heads 24/7 that America “cares” and America “will not stand by”. Wherever the poor and weak are being trampled, America will “reach out” to relieve their plight by opposing immoral and evil dictators, thus freeing people from the “tyranny trap” so they can establish democratic governments.
The transparently self-serving nature of US presence on foreign lands is rarely, if ever, discused. Iraq has the world’s 4th largest oil reserves? Pfff, that means nothing, just like our long-term incestuous political relationship with Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with it sitting on the world’s largest oil reserves; our constant saber-rattling against Venezuela has nothing to do with its sitting on the world’s second-largest oil reserves; our war drumbeat on the march into Iran has nothing to do with it sitting on the fifth-largest oil reserves; our border shenanigans with Mexico and Canada to set up a North-American Union have nothing to do with Canada sitting on the world’s third-largest oil reserves.
You don’t have the option to turn down Secret Service “protection”. Remember RP’s comment about how fences can keep you in just as well as keep others out? Same applies to the Secret Service.