There have been full disclosures. It didn't happen. It was mainly lies spread about an organization that can't defend itself publicly. The people spreading the lies knew this.
The time period you are talking about - the beginning of it is covered by the FOIA. It was honest (a rarity) media persons that uncovered the fact that the 'allegations' of 'a CIA funded crack cocaine epidemic' were lies plain and simple, thanks to access to FOIA cleared files.
And while we're on that topic, it was the dumb ass, clueless, knee-jerk reaction to events that those lies were based on (after all, the best lie contains a little truth, no?) that caused the 'brilliant' restriction to be applied to U.S. intelligence agencies - you know the one...the one that says U.S. operatives can not have anyone on any payroll (as an agent, informant, etc.) who is a known criminal, suspected of war crimes, etc. Here's a clue - when you look at the types of people that intelligence officers deal with - they are either:
1. Foreign military personnel, who are willing to become agents of the U.S. (not applicable to religous back terrorists in general).
2. Foreign intelligence officers, who are willing to become agents of the U.S. (not applicable to religous back terrorists in general).
3. Foreign politicians, who are willing to become agents of the U.S. (not applicable to religous back terrorists in general).
4. Mercenaries (not allowed due to the 'rule' mentioned above, as almost all available mercenaries have at one time or another worked for an 'opressive regime').
5. Rogue intelligence officers (not allowed again, these guys are hired for counterintelligence usually, so they are known to be 'torturers').
6. Drug dealers, black marketeers, etc. (not allowed again, too busy selling crack on the street in L.A. to keep the po' down and in their place - NOT).
So, who does that leave? Achmed the AK-47 polisher, who doesn't believe in Al-Qaeda but they let him sit in on all the planning meetings anyways?
And one of the major results of that directive was the death of HUMINT resources available to U.S. intelligence agencies...
...which made penetrating the cells working on the 9/11/01 attacks nearly impossible. But then, somehow, the CIA, FBI, and NSA were simply 'incompetent', and that's why the attacks managed to be pulled off. Yeah - it was incompetence alone. No chance that dumb bellybutton resrictions, instigated and forcibly applied by people who have no real-world knolwedge or experience when it comes to intelligence related work, contributed to the 'intelligence failure'.
I just wanted to get this straight (again), Heaven knows I've heard it enough:
1. U.S. intelligence agencies should be heavily curtailed, because they 'can't be trusted'...wait...I meant 'because some reporters and some U.S. citizens' groups *who are financially backed by governments hostile to the U.S.* don't think they can be trusted'.
2. When intelligence failures occur, mainly due to stupidly curtailed agencies not being allowed to do their job/do things that every other intelligence agency in the world does, it's the fault of the agencies in question.
The bottom line is this - most citizens of a democracy *do not like spies, even their own*. Because the world that spies live and work in is 'distasteful'. You never see one of James Bond's contacts in a movie come out of a room after 'raping' a 14 year old 'prostitute'/slave and shake Bond's hand. Contacts in the movies are always affable old Russian guys who serve as comic relief. Sorry, that's not how it works.
Here's a good article to read that explains the 'Americans don't like spies' topic - sadly it's a sort of obituary for one of America's greatest intelligence officers:
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley021502.shtmlFrom that article:
"We have a great ambivalence toward intelligence. The average American thinks it's something that isn't very clean, it isn't very American and the Founding Fathers wouldn't like it. Well, I have news for them. George Washington was one of the most prolific readers of other people's mail. Benjamin Franklin was assistant postmaster of British North America before the Revolution when we were all loyal subjects of George III. He was busy opening all the British mail. They caught him. They sent him to London to stand trial before the Privy Council. They found him guilty. Before they could sentence him, he skipped off to France to conduct the covert operation that was to bring France into the war on the side of the Revolution. Now this was a remarkable achievement, seeing that Anthony Eden's great-great-great-grandfather had fully penetrated Benjamin Franklin's office. Franklin's valet was a British agent, his secretary was a British agent, and we have some doubts about one of the three commissioners."
There's alot of 'reports' about the 'evil CIA'. Well, there's a book, written by a 'hostile' reporter - who was given access to the CIAs history files under the FOAI. It goes into great detail about the first 25 years of the CIA. If you want to know the truth (well, some of the truth) check it out. It's called 'The Very Best Men'. It's not pro-CIA. Some of the biggest screwups by the CIA are examined in great detail. It's a history book. Anyone who reads it and doesn't like it, I'll buy you a beer at the next AH con (assuming I'm home by then).
Mike/wulfie
