Sponsor Advertisement
Ex-CIA Officer Discusses "Deep State" Influence Over Presidents

Ex-CIA Officer Discusses "Deep State" Influence Over Presidents

A former CIA officer, John Kiriakou, shared insights with Tucker Carlson, suggesting that career intelligence personnel can exert significant influence over U.S. policy by outlasting presidential terms.

A recent interview has shed light on the often-discussed concept of the "deep state," as ex-CIA officer John Kiriakou spoke candidly with Tucker Carlson on "The Tucker Carlson Show" about the enduring power of career intelligence officials. Kiriakou, who served at the CIA from 1990 to 2004, asserted that long-serving agency members have the capability to undermine elected leadership by simply waiting out their terms in office.

This discussion comes against a backdrop of ongoing debates about the balance of power within the U.S. government. Kiriakou emphasized the problem of continuity within the intelligence community, where career officers serve for decades, as opposed to the relatively transient nature of presidential administrations. "Presidents come and go every four years, every eight years. But these CIA people, they're there for 25, 30, 35 years," Kiriakou stated. "They don't go anywhere. So if they don't like a president or if a president orders them to do something that they don't want to do, they just wait because they know they can wait him out."

Carlson highlighted the contradiction between the organizational hierarchy and the real-world dynamics of power. Kiriakou's remarks echo concerns cited by former President Donald Trump early in his second term, as reported by The Daily Caller. Trump's executive orders aimed at reducing what he saw as the "weaponization" of federal agencies included directives to cut off benefits to ineligible illegal aliens and to prioritize the enforcement of laws to protect American communities from criminal aliens.

Trump also sought to restructure federal leadership by nominating former Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) as CIA director and Kash Patel to lead the FBI. Ratcliffe, who faced resistance from Democrats but had strong Republican backing, vowed to depoliticize the intelligence community during his tenure.

Kiriakou, who became a whistleblower in 2007 by revealing the CIA's use of waterboarding, accused former House Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Jane Harman of dishonesty regarding her knowledge of the agency's controversial interrogation methods. He was later convicted for disclosing classified information and a covert officer's identity, leading to a 30-month prison sentence.

The interview with Tucker Carlson, which included segments on Kiriakou's whistleblowing and the alleged animosity from former CIA Director John Brennan, provided an in-depth look at the internal workings of the intelligence community and the struggles between elected officials and career operatives.

Advertisement

The Flipside: Different Perspectives

Progressive View

John Kiriakou's interview with Tucker Carlson brings to light systemic issues that resonate with progressive values, particularly the notion of entrenched power structures that may operate beyond public scrutiny. Progressives understand that for a democracy to function effectively, there must be a balance of power that includes not only checks and balances but also transparency and accountability.

The idea of a "deep state" steering U.S. policy raises concerns about equity and justice, as the influence of long-serving intelligence officials could potentially lead to policies that do not reflect the will of the people. Progressives advocate for an inclusive government that represents the interests of all citizens, not just those with entrenched institutional power.

Additionally, the progressive viewpoint acknowledges the importance of whistleblowers like Kiriakou in exposing government overreach and unethical practices. The protection of whistleblowers is essential in a system that values transparency and accountability. The criminalization and punishment of individuals who bring to light issues of public concern, such as torture, run counter to the ideals of an open and just society.

The reforms attempted by President Trump, while controversial, point to a need for ongoing dialogue about the role of federal agencies and their alignment with public interest. Progressives would contend that any realignment must prioritize social justice and the collective well-being of the population, ensuring that agencies work toward the common good rather than the interests of a powerful few.

Conservative View

John Kiriakou's revelations to Tucker Carlson underscore a critical concern for conservatives: the entrenched bureaucracy's ability to undermine elected officials. This persistent issue strikes at the heart of the conservative call for limited government and accountability. By their very nature, bureaucracies are resistant to change, which can clash with the conservative principle of responsive and efficient governance.

The fact that career intelligence officers can effectively sideline directives from elected presidents is alarming. It suggests a shadow governance structure that operates independently of the voter's will, challenging the very foundations of our republican system. The conservative viewpoint emphasizes the importance of respecting the decisions made by those who are directly accountable to the American people, not unelected career officials.

Trump's efforts to realign the intelligence community were steps toward reasserting the authority of the presidency and the democratic process. His appointments and executive orders sought to bring the intelligence agencies back in line with the constitutional design, where agencies act as instruments of the elected government, not as independent powers.

The conservative perspective values transparency and the rule of law, both of which are threatened when agencies can ignore or subvert presidential directives. Kiriakou's experience as a whistleblower and subsequent legal troubles also touch on another conservative value: the protection of individuals who expose wrongdoing within the government. It serves as a reminder that those who hold the government accountable must themselves be safeguarded from retaliation.

Common Ground

In examining John Kiriakou's statements and the broader discussion of agency influence in U.S. politics, one can find common ground in the basic principles of democracy. Both conservatives and progressives can agree that accountability and transparency within the government are essential to maintaining a healthy democratic process. The protection of whistleblowers, who serve as a check on potential abuse of power, is another area where bipartisan support is feasible.

Both perspectives share the view that government agencies should act in accordance with the elected leadership's directives, reflecting the will of the people. There is also a mutual acknowledgment that unchecked bureaucratic power can pose a threat to the effective functioning of democracy. Agreement might also be found in the need for reform measures that ensure intelligence agencies serve national security interests without compromising individual liberties or democratic governance.

In the spirit of collaboration, both sides could come together to advocate for clear policies that reinforce the proper role of intelligence agencies, protect against abuses of power, and promote a government that is responsive to the electorate.