I have never met or known a bureaucrat who did not think they were the foundation of government and knew more that of the common folks who paid the bills for their misdeeds and screw-ups.

For all practical and fiscal purposes, Bureaucrats are no more than "Wards of the State".

And it�s the natural response of security agents to get people perceived as threats

I don't know if you have actually seen/heard the exchange. You can find it here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/04.html#a8164

But if we have reached a point in this country when a citizen is "perceived as a security threat" simply for respectfully and rationally trying to get an honest answer from a shamelessly prevaricating public servant, then we are in a pretty sad state as a country. This is especially the case when the "preceived security threat" is a harmless old man like McGovern.

I'm more of a lurker than a commenter, and I lean more left (lately) than I do right, but I generally enjoy your blog. Good stuff.

The end of the cold war eroded the CIA�s code of silence in two important ways. First, it dampened some of the urgency CIA hands felt in their workaday lives. During the cold war, �the danger to agents and people operating overseas was clear,� says Dick Kerr, the CIA�s deputy director in the early �90s. �Today�s world is more cloudy, ambiguous.� Second, the aftermath of the cold war brought political considerations closer to the CIA�s doorstep. The embarrassment of the Aldrich Ames espionage scandal, congressional scrutiny of the Agency�s shady friends, and a general impatience with government secrecy all nudged the CIA toward greater transparency.

[�]

[W]hile the early, Ivy-dominated CIA really was a bastion of liberalism (albeit one tempered by devout anti-communism), the demographics of the Agency shifted dramatically between the late �60s and the late �70s. The churning over Vietnam made cold war liberals a dying breed; in their place came a generation of New Left types skeptical of the CIA�s shadowy m.o.

Basically, just a radical shift in org culture aided by a sense that the old cloak and dagger routine didn't matter as much anymore.

Bhoe: Fair enough on the "shouting match" description. "Heated discussion" perhaps? And it's the natural response of security agents to get people perceived as threats to the boss out of range; that Rummy stopped them indicates that they weren't his "henchmen" and that nothing sinister was involved.

who famously got into a shouting match with Don Rumsfled

I am not sure how you can characterize McGovern's questioning of Rumsfeld as a "shouting match." He asked very reasonable questions without raising his voice during the scheduled Q&A. Rummy didn't "shout" either. Rummy's henchmen, however, did surround McGovern and were about to kick him out of the lecture hall before Rummy called them off.

And on a side note, I've seen a number of people deride the CIA for being 'too liberal' due largely to their lack of 100% support for action against Iraq (I'm sorry James, I can't remember your own position on this). But the timeline you present - Bush Sr good! Clinton bad! Bush Jr good (until Iraq)! - doesn't match up with a CIA 'swinging left'.

CIA is a complete loss. The retirees know this and are trying to avoid ending the agency.

Yes, we all studied groupthink that started at the CIa and, no, I don't think it is okay CIA accessed everbody's phone records through NSA/DIA.

pragmatism: A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.

realism: An inclination toward literal truth and pragmatism.

Sounds like the antithesis of ideology (a set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system) to me. But then, seeing things the way they really are and dealing with problems practically with a consideration of the ramifications of any action is so out-of-the-mainstream today, what with everyone filtering everything through their own personal bias and belief system, that I can understand how shocking and even frightening the practice might seem to those on both sides of the political divide. Better to label it an ideology (or "hardly a non-ideology," which is the same thing) so it's more easily dismissed.