The attacks on Tulsi Gabbard are not random. They are defensive fire from a bureaucracy that has spent decades hiding files, laundering narratives, and calling secrecy “national security.” Whether the CIA literally “raided” ODNI or fought a custodial war over explosive records, the core question remains: who owns the truth—the people, or the intelligence cartel? Tulsi stands in the blast zone because she represents civilian control, transparency, and service over institutional self-protection. That is why the Deep State and its useful idiots howl. A decorated soldier threatening the vault is their nightmare. America should want her opening it.
This is not the first time that the CIA has obstructed a Congressional investigation. We interviewed Dan Hardway, an investigator on the House Select Committee on Investigations. He told us about numerous CIA shenanigans. So, while Tulsi's office is denying that boxes were taken in a raid, that the Agency would seek to bury evidence, steal files and engage in all manner of obstructionist activities is part of a patter of decades long behavior. It is time that the Agency is held accountable for ALL it's actions.
But the article really brings out that we are caught in a kind of twilight zone where the difference between transparency and hidden motives and actions is blurred or obscured. The real problem isn't the hiding, but the operant conditions that make it so difficult for us to know what is hidden and what is not.
As I began this article, I affirmed my reading of it with a self-assurance that "this sounds interesting." Yet, as I read it, I began to feel very "emotional" and conflicted. I was gripped by Mr. Stone's wisdom and sensitivity by the way he expressed this conflict between Gabbard and the agency as well as the denials of there being a conflict. My emotions were aching and conflicted because the importance of this intra-agency disagreement seemed to hang on subtle distinctions. Was there full-blown antagonism between Gabbard and the CIA or is it just a minor intra-agency dispute that has been blown out of proportion? Stone is like a careful physician examining a patient to make a correct diagnosis. So much of our destiny as a country really depends on properly understanding and coming through sensitive disputes such as the one described so well in this article. What are we reading that is true, what is partially true, and what is false but masquerades as true? Since high school, I have been concerned with these questions after studying the poem "Richard Cory." Mr. Stone is obviously also deeply concerned with appearance vs. reality issues, and this passionate article clearly reveals that concern. Thank you Mr. Stone. The sensitivity of this piece really makes my day!!
"public skepticism [about JFK] persists because thousands of records remained classified or partially redacted for generations. "
No, public skepticism persists because the official story has so many obvious problems, starting with the Zapruder film clearly showing JFK's head snapping back toward Oswald's location.
There may be classified records about the attempted assassination of Harry Truman, but nobody cares, because the official story makes sense.
The attacks on Tulsi Gabbard are not random. They are defensive fire from a bureaucracy that has spent decades hiding files, laundering narratives, and calling secrecy “national security.” Whether the CIA literally “raided” ODNI or fought a custodial war over explosive records, the core question remains: who owns the truth—the people, or the intelligence cartel? Tulsi stands in the blast zone because she represents civilian control, transparency, and service over institutional self-protection. That is why the Deep State and its useful idiots howl. A decorated soldier threatening the vault is their nightmare. America should want her opening it.
Yes ! Very murky. I have the book : “ Operation Paperclip” by Annie Jacobson I bet you do too ! Keep me posted please. And Thankyou.
“I will splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds” ~ John F. Kennedy
This is not the first time that the CIA has obstructed a Congressional investigation. We interviewed Dan Hardway, an investigator on the House Select Committee on Investigations. He told us about numerous CIA shenanigans. So, while Tulsi's office is denying that boxes were taken in a raid, that the Agency would seek to bury evidence, steal files and engage in all manner of obstructionist activities is part of a patter of decades long behavior. It is time that the Agency is held accountable for ALL it's actions.
But the article really brings out that we are caught in a kind of twilight zone where the difference between transparency and hidden motives and actions is blurred or obscured. The real problem isn't the hiding, but the operant conditions that make it so difficult for us to know what is hidden and what is not.
You are right. The hope is that Tulsi may finally be able to to bring real transparency. The old guard will fight to the death however.
As I began this article, I affirmed my reading of it with a self-assurance that "this sounds interesting." Yet, as I read it, I began to feel very "emotional" and conflicted. I was gripped by Mr. Stone's wisdom and sensitivity by the way he expressed this conflict between Gabbard and the agency as well as the denials of there being a conflict. My emotions were aching and conflicted because the importance of this intra-agency disagreement seemed to hang on subtle distinctions. Was there full-blown antagonism between Gabbard and the CIA or is it just a minor intra-agency dispute that has been blown out of proportion? Stone is like a careful physician examining a patient to make a correct diagnosis. So much of our destiny as a country really depends on properly understanding and coming through sensitive disputes such as the one described so well in this article. What are we reading that is true, what is partially true, and what is false but masquerades as true? Since high school, I have been concerned with these questions after studying the poem "Richard Cory." Mr. Stone is obviously also deeply concerned with appearance vs. reality issues, and this passionate article clearly reveals that concern. Thank you Mr. Stone. The sensitivity of this piece really makes my day!!
"public skepticism [about JFK] persists because thousands of records remained classified or partially redacted for generations. "
No, public skepticism persists because the official story has so many obvious problems, starting with the Zapruder film clearly showing JFK's head snapping back toward Oswald's location.
There may be classified records about the attempted assassination of Harry Truman, but nobody cares, because the official story makes sense.