Ahhhh, now it's tha "Deep State"! Oooooo..............

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/...ts-deep-state/

Move aside, Bilderbergers and Rothchilds. Soros, you're not scary enough. Shadow Government, you have new competition.........

The GOP has a new Boogeyman to scare the rubes into the voting booth.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you "THE DEEP STATE"!!!!

Fugging lunatics. Why does anyone take these jackasses seriously anymore?

Sorry, that term is "old news". Its use pre-dates Trump and the 2016 election. Here's an example from one of your pal bloggers at HuffPo, describing the deep state as he saw it in 2011:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-t...b_3569316.html

Bill Moyers seemed to be able to find it again in 2014, and was apparently aware of it when he worked as a congressional staffer:

The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street. All these agencies are coordinated by the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council. Certain key areas of the judiciary belong to the Deep State, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose actions are mysterious even to most members of Congress. Also included are a handful of vital federal trial courts, such as the Eastern District of Virginia and the Southern District of Manhattan, where sensitive proceedings in national security cases are conducted. The final government component (and possibly last in precedence among the formal branches of government established by the Constitution) is a kind of rump Congress consisting of the congressional leadership and some (but not all) of the members of the defense and intelligence committees. The rest of Congress, normally so fractious and partisan, is mostly only intermittently aware of the Deep State and when required usually submits to a few well-chosen words from the State’s emissaries.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/ana...he-deep-state/

So, if it was around as recently as 2014, I guess it's still around now, right?

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Sorry, that term is "old news". Its use pre-dates Trump and the 2016 election. Here's an example from one of your pal bloggers at HuffPo, describing the deep state as he saw it in 2011:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-t...b_3569316.html

Bill Moyers seemed to be able to find it again in 2014, and was apparently aware of it when he worked as a congressional staffer:

The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street. All these agencies are coordinated by the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council. Certain key areas of the judiciary belong to the Deep State, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose actions are mysterious even to most members of Congress. Also included are a handful of vital federal trial courts, such as the Eastern District of Virginia and the Southern District of Manhattan, where sensitive proceedings in national security cases are conducted. The final government component (and possibly last in precedence among the formal branches of government established by the Constitution) is a kind of rump Congress consisting of the congressional leadership and some (but not all) of the members of the defense and intelligence committees. The rest of Congress, normally so fractious and partisan, is mostly only intermittently aware of the Deep State and when required usually submits to a few well-chosen words from the State’s emissaries.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/ana...he-deep-state/

So, if it was around as recently as 2014, I guess it's still around now, right?

Why stop there? Ike warned everyone about the MIC back in '59, IIRC.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

So, if it was around as recently as 2014, I guess it's still around now, right?

It seems to me that Moyers' piece states the obvious (and reflects what I posted above that everybody below the top political levels at Federal agencies are there before a new President arrives and remain after he leaves (by design, might I add)). In other words, without the experience and institutional knowledge of career professionals, there would be nobody left to run the agencies because the political appointees are largely figureheads (do you really believe that Ben Carson and Rick Perry know the slightest thing about their respective agencies?)

Trump's take on it, however, are the ramblings of a paranoid, uniformed lunatic.

[Tom Joad]

The Deep State is real and it's very dangerous.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-a7616031.html

It includes software that could allow people to take control of the most popular consumer electronics products used today, claimed WikiLeaks.

"'Year Zero' introduces the scope and direction of the CIA's global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of "zero day" weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, include Apple's iPhone, Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones," the organisation said in a release.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

The Deep State is real and it's very dangerous.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-a7616031.html

You obviously have no understanding of what the "Deep State" is.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You obviously have no understanding of what the "Deep State" is.

What were you expecting?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

It seems to me that Moyers' piece states the obvious (and reflects what I posted above that everybody below the top political levels at Federal agencies are there before a new President arrives and remain after he leaves (by design, might I add)). In other words, without the experience and institutional knowledge of career professionals, there would be nobody left to run the agencies because the political appointees are largely figureheads (do you really believe that Ben Carson and Rick Perry know the slightest thing about their respective agencies?)

Trump's take on it, however, are the ramblings of a paranoid, uniformed lunatic.

So you're suggesting that Moyers agrees with you? That the "deep State" really is, as you put it, nothing more that the "career professionals" inside government agencies?

I'm pretty sure that NOT what Moyers is saying here, for example:

[I]We are faced with two disagreeable implications. First, that the Deep State is so heavily entrenched, so well protected by surveillance, firepower, money and its ability to co-opt resistance that it is almost impervious to change. Second, that just as in so many previous empires, the Deep State is populated with those whose instinctive reaction to the failure of their policies is to double down on those very policies in the future. Iraq was a failure briefly camouflaged by the wholly propagandistic success of the so-called surge; this legerdemain allowed for the surge in Afghanistan, which equally came to naught. Undeterred by that failure, the functionaries of the Deep State plunged into Libya; the smoking rubble of the Benghazi consulate, rather than discouraging further misadventure, seemed merely to incite the itch to bomb Syria. [/I

EDIT: the essay is by Mike Lofgren, not Moyers, but appears on Moyer's web site.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

So you're suggesting that Moyers agrees with you? That the "deep State" really is, as you put it, nothing more that the "career professionals" inside government agencies?

I'm pretty sure that NOT what Moyers is saying here, for example:

We are faced with two disagreeable implications. First, that the Deep State is so heavily entrenched, so well protected by surveillance, firepower, money and its ability to co-opt resistance that it is almost impervious to change. Second, that just as in so many previous empires, the Deep State is populated with those whose instinctive reaction to the failure of their policies is to double down on those very policies in the future. Iraq was a failure briefly camouflaged by the wholly propagandistic success of the so-called surge; this legerdemain allowed for the surge in Afghanistan, which equally came to naught. Undeterred by that failure, the functionaries of the Deep State plunged into Libya; the smoking rubble of the Benghazi consulate, rather than discouraging further misadventure, seemed merely to incite the itch to bomb Syria.

I'm not a Moyers fan, a person I find to be a far left alarmist for the most part. I'll watch some of his feature shows on PBS, knowing full well the POV he has.

I disagree with his point above. Those screw-ups he notes were not the fault of the "Deep State." They were the fault of the political leaders in power at the time. Blaming the Iraq War or our Libya misadventures on the Deep State is a cop-out for those who held political power.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I'm not a Moyers fan, a person I find to be a far left alarmist for the most part. I'll watch some of his feature shows on PBS, knowing full well the POV he has.

I disagree with his point above. Those screw-ups he notes were not the fault of the "Deep State." They were the fault of the political leaders in power at the time. Blaming the Iraq War or our Libya misadventures on the Deep State is a cop-out for those who held political power.

So you agreed with him until you disagreed with him???

By the way, it was the "deep state" folks - at least the article defines them - that assured Bush that the intel on Iraq was "a slam dunk".

Not to get off track here, but it was my point - in opposition to the OP - that the term "deep state" was not somehow an invention of the current admin or its flack catchers. It has been around a while, and likely comes from the Turk expression "derin devlet", so it's likely not a term that even has its origin in the US.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

So you agreed with him until you disagreed with him???

By the way, it was the "deep state" folks - at least the article defines them - that assured Bush that the intel on Iraq was "a slam dunk".

No, it wasn't. It was CIA Director George Tenet, a political appointee, along with a cabal of other political appointees (e.g., Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz). The career analysts in the CIA was highly skeptical of Dubya's claims, but were overridden by the Dubya administration (refer to Downing St. memo and the Valerie Plame affair).