Mike Baker, a former CIA covert operations specialist, debunks myths like the Kennedy assassination conspiracy and domestic drug trafficking claims, insisting Oswald acted alone and the agency avoids political agendas. He criticizes Edward Snowden’s leaks as reckless, citing risks to national security from adversarial nations like China and Russia, while defending the CIA’s forensic review of Senate computers as counterintelligence—not hacking. Baker contrasts intelligence work with private-sector tech, highlighting its origins in Cold War problem-solving, including recruiting Nazi scientists like von Braun, and dismisses UFO-focused shows like World Access as oversimplified, advocating instead for exploration-driven content. [Automatically generated summary]
This episode of the podcast is brought to you by Stamps.com.
Stamps.com is a website that allows you to send things from your home using your home computer, your home printer, printing up official U.S. postage, never have to leave the house again to send things.
If you go to Stamps.com, click on the old school microphone in the upper right-hand corner and enter in the code word JRE. You will get a $110 bonus offer, which includes a digital scale, up to $55 in free postage, and a no-risk trial.
And what this means as far as what you have to do, if you have a home business or if you send things out of your office, It's a huge pain in the ass to have to send someone to go to the post office, weigh each individual package, print up postage for each individual package at the post office.
It's just very annoying.
And you don't have to ever do that again with stamps.com.
With stamps.com, the digital scale that they provide you Weighs out the package.
You print the exact postage from your home computer, official U.S. postage, boom, on the package.
Mailman shows up, you hand that to him, and you're done.
It really, truly is that simple.
If you go to stamps.com, before you do anything else, click on the microphone in the upper right-hand corner and enter in the code word JRE. Can't recommend them enough.
I know a lot of folks who use that.
Brian uses it for deskquad.tv.
Bert Kreischer uses it for BurtBurtBurt.com.
Tom Segura and Christina Pazitzky use it for the Your Mom's House podcast.
It's an excellent, excellent service.
Makes things way more convenient for you.
Go to Stamps.com.
Before you do anything, click on the upper right-hand corner microphone, the old-school microphone, and enter in the code word JRE. For your special offer.
We're also brought to you by Onnit.com.
That is O-N-N-I-T. At Onnit, we have a new version, a new and improved version of T +, along with a new study that came out about T +, that increases strength up to 36% faster than placebo.
One of the things we try to do at Onnit.com, or one of the things we do do, is anything that we have that's controversial, first of all, we provide, if you click on any of the links for any of the supplements, click on the research page, everything is thoroughly researched and put on Onnit.com with references to all the tests that have been done on all the various supplements,
double-blind, placebo-controlled tests on both Alpha Brain and now on T Plus and also all the tests that we didn't do that already exist on supplements like New Mood.
All the research is available online and Onnit has a 100% money back guarantee on any of the supplements that we sell.
You don't have to return the product.
You have 90 days for the first 30 pills.
When you buy a bottle, the first 30 pills, you have 90 days to try it out.
Try it.
You don't like it.
Just say, this stuff sucks.
You get your money back.
What we're counting on is that we're providing you with excellent supplements that are going to enhance your life.
That's all we're trying to do.
And if we do that, then we got a customer.
And if we don't do that, then we both part our separate ways and everyone's good.
Go to Onnit.com, O-N-N-I-T. And if you use the code word ROGAN, you will save 10% off any and all supplements.
We got...
All kinds of shit at Onnit.
If you're thinking about getting your life in order, we have strength and conditioning equipment, kettlebells, battle ropes, steel maces, steel clubs.
We have everything you can think of.
Medicine balls, chin-up bars, weight vests, along with a lot of exercise DVDs, including the excellent Keith Weber Kettlebell Cardio Extreme Workout DVDs that I swear by.
I use these all the time.
Keith will be on next month.
Very excited to have him back on.
Or have him on, rather.
And all the other exercise videos that we have are excellent as well.
There's a gang of them online, too.
If you don't feel like buying a DVD and you're thinking about starting a workout program, there's plenty of stuff on YouTube for free.
The one thing that I recommend, I always do, and I can't say it enough, start slow.
If you're the type of person that just isn't...
You haven't exercised before, you're kind of lazy, and you're like, this is it.
I'm getting my shit together.
Please don't rush it.
Start slow.
Let your body build up.
Write down your progress, and if you can, if you can afford it, go to a trainer.
Go to a trainer, at least at first, and have someone film it, just to make sure you're doing the proper form.
The last thing you want to do is hurt yourself when you're trying to get your shit together.
Alright, fuckers?
Go to Onnit.com, O-N-N-I-T, use the code word ROGAN again and save 10% off any and all supplements.
You were the former covert operations officer for the CIA? Yeah, I went in, I was recruited into the agency, and the CIA is divided into a handful of directorates.
You've got the Directorate of Operations, which is pretty much what it sounds like.
You've got the Directorate of Intelligence, which is where they put all the smart people, and they do all the reports writing.
They take all the raw intelligences coming in from the field, And they put it into some usable form that can then be kicked out the door to the National Security Council, the White House.
It's used by the other agencies in the intel community and primarily by the White House.
So a lot of smart people sitting over there.
Then they've got S&T, which is science and technology.
That's where you get all the gear.
So that's where they develop all...
I mean, they've developed in the agency over the years everything from the U2 to...
You know, stealth technology, drone capability, a lot of the drone technology came right out of the agency.
They've done a tremendous number of things right there in-house.
And then we have the administrative logistics group, and they're incredibly important because they keep money, gear, and everything else flowing out to the field.
What is the biggest misconception about the CIA? You being a guy who worked with them for years, I know that there's all sorts of wacky conspiracies out there about everything.
Anything that there is where people don't have all the facts and information is going to be wacky conspiracies.
Look, I know a bunch of wacky conspiracies just about the UFC. They're ridiculous.
And me knowing the actual inside truth, I hear these things and I go, what the fuck are What are you talking about?
Things that I'm supposed to say, the things that I had to do because, you know, the UFC made me or they said you have to say this, which is all 100% bullshit.
It attracts sort of the Byzantine theories and the conspiracy theories and all that.
Because, again, there's a reason why you have secrets.
There's a reason why you protect sources and methods.
And so because you don't have transparency that people would like to see, they assume that you're out to fuck them over, you're out to screw the world.
And that's just not the case.
So I guess the number one conspiracy is that somehow the CIA and the intel community of the U.S. is involved in some one-world government, that they're basically out to fuck everybody, and they're not.
The agency is an incredibly apolitical organization.
It doesn't matter who's in charge in the White House.
You get your task and you march on, and that's a really good thing because a lot of other countries over there, including a lot of our allies, they have very politicized intel communities.
So every time you get a change in leadership, out go some people, and come some new people, and they're beholden to the White House.
So that's one of the things.
I suppose the other thing would be that we've got nothing but hot chicks walking around the building.
And if you walk in, we've got wonderful people, but we don't have that many hot chicks.
You bring up an interesting point about being apolitical.
Now, that's one thing that a lot of people worry about when it comes to organizations, that they may have more power, in fact, than the political governing body that controls the country.
One of the big theories about the CIA was the CIA had Kennedy killed because Kennedy was trying to get rid of the CIA. Wasn't that one of the big ones?
But as far as the Kennedy assassination goes, again, it's one of those things, you could see why at the end of, I don't want to disappear down that rabbit hole, but you could see why at the end of that story, that episode when we talked to a lot of people, we did a lot of research, you could see why the theory still holds, the conspiracy still out there.
I think that once you get inside there, we got really good access into that, and that's part of what the show's about.
But we had really good access into that window, that very spot where he took the shots.
Now, he wasn't Lex Luthor, but he had enough training.
And when you look at the distance involved, the line of sight, the weather conditions, the lighting conditions, the fact that he reconned that site beforehand because he worked there.
He had every advantage he needed.
And so the idea that he could make those shots with the training that he had received from the Marines...
Again, was he the world's greatest sniper?
Of course not.
But he had enough.
And also he had an element of luck going for him, which you always need in operations.
So I think he took the shots.
Now, I also think that he was, in his mind, he felt he was doing this because he was desperate to join, at that point, he was desperate to join the Cuban Revolution.
He had been very disappointed by his time spent over in Russia, and he had come back and he was looking for something.
And he felt, this is my theory, he felt that this was going to get him in with Castro by doing this.
And I honestly believe that.
Now, here's the other part that's a bit of a wild card.
The Cuban Intel Service had a file, a massive file, on him, courtesy of the Russians.
Of course, I mean, the Russians trained most of the Cuban Intel Service at that time, and they had provided a great deal of information because Oswald had been living in Russia for all that time.
He married a Russian woman, you know, worked in a radio factory, and again, had a very disappointing experience.
And the Russians were pretty much happy to get rid of him at that point, because he was, you know...
He was serving no purpose.
And so by the time he had gotten back to the States, the Cubans already had a big file on him.
Now, he had also gone to Mexico.
There was an unexplained trip that he had taken down to Mexico City.
So do I think that there's a potential that, probably not directed by the Cuban government, but probably in his mind thinking, this is how I do it.
I think one of the things that bugs me about people, the way they look at the Kennedy assassination, is that it's either Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, or it was a conspiracy and Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't a part of it.
And my thoughts are always like, why would you assume that he wasn't a part of it just because people said there were shots from other directions?
First of all, we all know that eyewitness accounts are some of the most unreliable accounts ever.
Well, that's another, we'd go down that rabbit hole too, but the thing that drives me crazy about the Kennedy assassination too is when they show Lee Harvey, when they try to disprove it, like Jesse Ventura did a show where he tried to disprove it, he was holding a rifle in his arm, he was cocking it and firing it, but he was standing holding it, and I'm like, you got a windowsill.
If you're trying to hit something accurately, why would you hold it in your arm?
What bothers me about it, there's a bunch of things that bother me about it.
The single bullet theory, without a doubt, bothers me.
Because that doesn't make any sense at all.
When you see that bullet showing up on Connelly's gurney, it's in pristine condition, it's supposed to have gone through two bodies, there's more, there's bullet particles, fragments that are in Connelly's body, they showed up on x-ray, they're not missing from that bullet.
That seems a little wonky.
And the whole reason Arlen Spector concocted that in the first place was because They had to account for a bullet that hit a curb stone under the overpass.
Guy got hit with a ricochet.
Now they've attributed three bullets to this one guy shooting.
They have to attribute all these wounds to one bullet for this theory to make any sense.
That, to me, is the biggest hole in the conspiracy.
But, yeah, and it was, again, so I think the conspiracy things, going back to your original point, the agency is always sort of ground zero for people's conspiracies.
Yeah, well, there's so many people involved in it, too.
One of the things that I found completely fascinating about this whole thing with Petraeus is Petraeus got in trouble with the FBI, was investigating the CIA, and, you know, the whole thing with the emails.
Like, That seems to me to be so crazy, that agencies investigate other agencies.
Is there really competition between the CIA and the FBI? Well, you know what?
When the Bureau started going overseas, when they started getting involved in terrorism issues overseas, they would send their people out.
And I remember I was operating overseas, and I remember we had a meeting one time, and I went into an embassy.
Because they said, look, we're going to have a meeting.
I said, okay.
We were doing something out on the street.
So I remember going in there and looking at our guys.
Taking down maps and photos and charts and everything of this thing that was going to happen and stuffing them in a desk.
I said, what's going on?
They said, well, the Bureau's coming in.
So, you know, we've got to take all this shit down.
We don't want them to see this stuff.
But the idea was we were, you know, working together.
And if you're out on the street, I mean, our natural response was, well, I thought we're working together because I don't want to get my ass caught out there if, you know, if we could tell them something that would make sense.
But, you know, also at the same time, the Bureau was telling us about 50% of what they knew.
And so there was a lot of...
Difficulty.
Some of it highlighted after 9-11.
That was talked about a lot, so I don't want to go into that.
Everybody talked about the need to play well with others.
And so it has gotten a lot better.
We've got a much better relationship.
And I personally, because I've worked with them a lot in the past, I have a great deal of appreciation for the Bureau.
And so that side of things has gotten a lot better.
The thing about it is, is it because everybody wants to take credit?
Is it like the FBI wants to take credit for catching bad guys, and the CIA is going after the same people, and they're competing to reach the finish line first?
When you talk about straight-up tradecraft, when you're talking about old-school espionage, then things like Smiley's People, some of the old sort of BBC shows.
The Good Shepherd, I thought, was very interesting.
It kind of dragged on for a while, and honestly, who could believe that if you're married to Angelina Jolie, you're going to want to go away all the time.
They did a show, and full disclosure, I worked on the show from its inception called Spooks in the UK. And it was called MI5 over here in the States.
And it aired for several seasons.
It was actually, I think, probably the most successful show in UK television.
years as a drama more successful in top gear well yeah no no no not that but I mean like a drama oh yeah typically what they do is if they get success with a drama or a comedy they just stop it because they feel guilty because I don't know it's a British thing but they this thing ran for eight seasons they did a very good job of you know not focusing on the explosions and the car It was more about tradecraft and things that were going on to accomplish an operation.
But I like the Bourne series.
I think, you know, I know that that's not realistic.
It's so unrealistic.
I know, it's so unrealistic, but I like the pacing of it.
I like that, you know, usually the filming is great, the movie.
So as a way to just, because it's so obviously not realistic, it's great.
You can get immersed in it.
The ones I have trouble with, where they throw a little something in, they try to make it look like they know what they're doing, and then you think, oh, for fuck's sake.
The last one is fucking ridiculous, because he's with this chick as hot as the fucking sun, and she's fawning over him, and at the end of the scene, the end of the movie, they're sitting apart from each other.
He saved her life about 150 fucking times.
He's handsome, he's a stud, he's kicked 150,000 people's asses in front of her.
And if you got an indication that he might have just been banging one of the girls that was in the movie, he seemed like he was sorry about it and he was depressed about it.
Yeah, they're trying to mute male sexuality when you're dealing with trained killers.
It doesn't make any sense.
I mean, it's like the polar opposite of what we consider.
If you think about ancient warriors, think about Gladiator or any of these ancient warriors, you connect these ancient warriors with they would fight and they would fuck.
But these Bourne Identity guys, there's no fucking.
So, you know, if you get a wolf problem, shoot the fucker.
But it's, you know, people don't understand that.
It's just like people, you know, people trying to dictate what you do with public lands when they have no experience dealing with public lands in their state, you know?
I met her out there when she was working with a lobbying firm and And I came home one day from, we were living in New Canaan, Connecticut, which is a nice little town outside of New York.
But I was on Metro North riding the train back and forth where my office is in Midtown.
Walked in the door and said, you know, I don't think I have to be here to do what I do, which is basically just travel for the business.
Folks that are, like, stuck in the rat race of L.A. or in New York or anywhere where there's unbelievable, like, the peace that you can get in a place like Montana or Idaho.
Like, the level of intelligence and awareness of the average folks, like, just in the middle of the country is way different than it was 20, 30 years ago.
The flow of information, much better, and that's helping.
And then, but you can, you know, I spent, what, about seven years in the Northeast, in the New York City area, and You know, people in that area, you know, I got wonderful friends there, but a lot of folks can believe that the rest of the country thinks like they do, or that they should, because they just don't know any better, because they're not right there.
They're not in the heartbeat of America, as they would refer to it.
You know, you get outside that northeast corridor, and in Washington, D.C. in particular, and Washington, D.C. is so far up its own ass, that, you know, you realize that all this country, and that's one of these things with this Travel Channel show.
That's a pretty good plug, wasn't it?
The great thing about that is being able to just go out and travel and see how great this country is, and how, like you said, how many places there are to see.
And, you know, I spent most of my life overseas.
And so, for me, it's a real treat because we're going all over hell and back.
I got a great relationship with them, and I'm one of those guys that, you know, I have a hard time being objective sometimes about it, although I try not to, you know, look through rose-colored glasses every time I'm talking about operations or things that they're doing, but I had a great time, and I got a lot of respect for the people there.
And so when I got ready to leave, and I left for a pretty simple reason.
I've got a daughter who's in college, terrific, terrific kid, and I was just never home when she was growing up.
And so we got to a certain point where...
I didn't have any choice.
I had to be home.
And so I walked in and I was overseas at the time and I walked into my boss who was very senior.
In the operations group, and I said, I think it's time to leave.
And he said, what are you going to do?
You can't leave.
Just stick around.
And he knew I was getting antsy, and he said, stick around.
It's going to get better, because we had gotten a little bit risk-averse at that point.
And it gets a little wearing after a while to be working on operations, and then all of a sudden, at the last minute, people say, no, we can't do that.
Too much blowback.
And then you pull back and think, well, what the fuck was that all about?
Yeah, I mean, a lot of times it's just political blowback, concern over what a host country might say if something went south.
No, if something went south.
If you're operating in another country and something you're about to do blows up on you, and then the political blowback from country to country dealing with that.
And so...
That oftentimes is the sort of thing that people think about.
But anyway, so this guy, a great, great, great character and terrific experience with the agency.
He said, stick around.
So anyway, long story short, I went back to Virginia, resigned to start a business.
I woke up the next morning, and the guy had said, you're going to feel terrible if you do this.
If you go back and you resign, you're going to feel terrible when you wake up.
And so I woke up, and I felt pretty damn good.
So I called him overseas.
It was towards the end of the day at his time, and I said, I got to tell you, I'd feel great.
And he said, what a dick.
But he's gotten out since.
He's retired, and now he's in business.
And we get together a lot, and he says, yeah, that's some of the worst advice I ever gave anybody.
If there's one bit of controversy or the main controversy, the main conspiracy when it comes to the CIA, it's drugs.
The main evil conspiracy is that the CIA was involved in selling drugs in African-American communities to fund foreign wars, the Contras, the Nicaragua, you know, the whole thing with Oliver North, you know, with Freeway Ricky Ross, the guy who's out now.
He was involved directly with selling drugs.
The money went straight to the CIA. The CIA used that money.
No, look, I... I spent long enough time behind the curtain.
And I mean, of course, what are people who are down that road are going to be listening to this?
Of course he's going to say that.
I mean, what else is he going to say?
But honest to God, I spent enough time behind the curtain in operations the whole time to say that we've got a lot of restrictions on us in terms of what we can do, who we can deal with, and what you're able to accomplish.
Yeah, the whole concept of the drug thing, I don't know when that got started.
I don't know how it sort of popped up initially, but it takes on a life of its own, like everything else, like theories about the Kennedy assassination, like we were talking about.
And you're never going to let him go away.
And sometimes saying that, you know, if I sit here and protest, people are going to say, well, of course, that must be true because he's protesting.
But the Iran-Contra thing is directly connected to selling drugs in poor neighborhoods in L.A. Freeway Ricky Ross literally sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of drugs.
Freeway Ricky Ross didn't even realize he was selling drugs for the CIA until he was in jail.
He didn't know who the connections were that he was getting.
What's interesting about Barry Seal, the guy who died, is that he was an informant for the DEA. The DEA, as you were talking about, the CIA and the FBI have a little combative relationship.
So do the DEA and the CIA. There's all sorts of interagency relationships.
I work with the DEA. I work with the DEA overseas in counter-narcotics operations.
And again, yeah, part of it is...
Going back to the same thing we talked about with the Bureau, relationships during those early days, starting out working with them overseas, there's a lot of kind of peeing on each other's turf.
Relationships are much better now.
But I guess all I'm saying is, and I'll leave it at that, is that the agency was not in the business of selling drugs.
If we wanted money to fund operations, we had other recourses to gather that money Rather than narcotics and selling drugs to lower income neighborhoods in the United States of America.
It's just, to me, I understand you're never going to shift people off a certain position and people are going to believe what they're going to believe.
But it kind of goes back to what I said at the very beginning.
The number one misconception is that this agency is out to fuck people over.
Yeah, this Barry Seal one is a very interesting one because he had so much information about the CIA and so much information about the Medellin cartel and drug dealing in the first place.
What he had actually said led people to believe that he was a guy who was very knowledgeable about the actual operations.
It's the number one...
A piece of evidence that points to the CIA. And then what happened with Michael Rupert.
Michael Rupert was a former L.A. narcotics officer of busted people.
And Michael Rupert, who was a former LA narcotics officer, who was an officer at the time, confronted him saying that...
In his experience as an LAPD narcotics officer, he had seen evidence of the CIA complicity in drug dealing and that the confrontation was handled so poorly by Dush, it resulted in him being terminated from the CIA. It resulted in Deutsche being terminated.
I will tell you, Director Deutch, as a former Los Angeles police narcotics detective, that the agency has dealt drugs throughout this country for a long time.
Director Deutsch, I will refer you to three specific agency operations known as Amadeus, Pegasus, and Watchtower.
I have Watchtower documents heavily redacted by the agency.
I was personally exposed to CIA operations and recruited by CIA personnel who attempted to recruit me in the late 70s to become involved in protecting agency drug operations in this country.
I have been trying to get this out for 18 years, and I have the evidence.
My question for you is very specific, sir.
If in the course of the IG's investigations and Fred Hitz's work, you come across evidence of severely criminal activity and it's classified, will you use that classification to hide the criminal activity or will you tell the American people the truth?
I look at it, and I see the same thing I see in a lot of other cases.
You have sort of a delusion thing going on, a delusion of grandeur.
You've got sort of...
We see it all the time in guys like, I'm not putting them in the same category, don't get me wrong, but guys like Hanson, guys like Jim Nicholson, Ed Lee Howard, all these things.
People never listen to me.
If they just listened to me, things would have been better.
So therefore, the man's out to fuck me, therefore I'm going to fuck the man.
And that's...
Typically, and the agency is a beautiful shining light up there on the hill to take a shot at because it's so intriguing.
Nobody fights back.
That's one of the reasons why the agency is always getting kicked in the ass up on Capitol Hill.
We don't push back because you're not in a position to.
What are you going to go back up there and start talking about sorts and methods?
Again, getting back to this guy, yeah, I hold absolutely no credibility in it.
I can guarantee you that Deutsch was not let go because of his response or lack thereof.
To that particular rant.
But it doesn't matter.
I'm going to sit here.
It's just like me saying this is how Kennedy was killed.
It's not going to make any difference, so everybody's going to believe what they're going to believe.
Again, I go back to the same thing.
Somebody pushing that theory has their own life experience.
I've got a life experience which I was fortunate enough gave me access inside an organization that I think gave me an understanding as to how they operate and the ethics with which they have, even though people say ethics, the agency.
Again, as an example, people went nuts over the interrogation thing.
If anybody had taken the time, all those critics who had taken the time to read the DOJ memos that Holder's Justice Department decided were great to release, then you can't not come away from reading the Seriously, the DOJ memos, and not say, well, shit, every little thing, they were going back and forth, trying to see, is this appropriate?
Can we do this?
We can't do that?
Okay, can we do this?
Okay, can I push him against a fake wall?
Oh, I can't?
Can I do the following?
And there's back and forth and back and forth and back and forth, and it belies this notion That somehow we're just out there fucking over the world and acting like a bunch of cowboys.
But again, it's like the agency going up on Capitol Hill and trying to defend itself.
If I was going to give you advice, though, in the future, I mean, obviously you don't need my advice, but when someone brings up something, even if it's ridiculous, don't laugh while you discredit it, because it makes it look like bullshit.
You know, like when people do that, they go, what, that's ridiculous.
I'm saying based on my experience, based on a lot of time behind the curtain and working in a lot of operational environments and dealing with a lot of people over 17 years, No.
To me, I don't buy it.
It doesn't make any sense.
I don't believe it.
But, you know, again, I got to leave it at that because, you know, anything in this world is possible.
Is there always an issue as well with, in order to adequately protect the United States' interests, in order to adequately...
Act in secrecy in the interest of the United States people and government.
There's always going to be walls that people come up against where to do your job, I would imagine, if you're involved in something that requires a certain amount of secrecy, you can't discuss certain things.
So when things come along, when Congress wants to have answers to questions, do you know what Glomar is, like a Glomar response?
They were trying to pull this thing out of the ocean, but it was an incredible operation.
Miles deep, there's millions of pounds of metal, and they had to pull this nuclear sub up, and they were trying to get all this information about The capabilities of these Russian subs, what kind of documents were on board.
And it was right after Watergate.
So because there was so much blowback against secrecy because of Watergate.
Because everybody had assumed that the United States, well now we found out that Nixon was spying on people and he's kicked out of office.
So the global marine response to this was, we can neither confirm nor deny.
And that's where that term came from.
We can neither confirm nor deny.
It came out of them having to come up with some sort of a response because of the Freedom of Information Act.
It required them to do so.
So they came up with this way to respond, but not respond at the same time.
Doesn't that kind of highlight how difficult it is?
I mean, look, that's a perfect example.
You're dealing with a Russian submarine.
It's during the Cold War.
We're worried we're going to go to war with Russia.
Why do we have to tell you if we found a fucking Russian sub that's got nuclear missiles in it?
Why should we have to tell the American people and also inform the Soviet Union, and then they go and find out where we're doing this, and then they find out that we have their sub?
Well, again, everyone's going to disagree over this.
I'm a small government person, so I agree that you've got to have checks and balances.
And I believe a handful of things, one of them being that, and people aren't going to believe this because they watch a lot of movies and beach books and shit, and down a lot of rabbit holes, but the U.S. intel community is the most transparent intel community on the planet, right?
Maybe that sets the bar pretty low, you know, compared to other services.
And so I think that it's, for me, You know, the idea that Snowden had signed agreements and then chose to do what he did disappeared into the PRC and then now is over in Russia.
And despite people wanting to wave the flag and saying he's a hero, on a certain level it's caused a great deal of damage.
And I think that if he was that distraught over this Then there were other avenues that he could have pursued to bring this to light.
And I think that what he's done is very damaging.
I understand why people beat the drum for him.
I get that.
Again, my opinion is based on certain life experiences.
We're never going to meet in the middle on this one.
The sort of damage that some of this information actually does out in the field in terms of what that means.
And so, yeah, again, I'm kind of conflicted in a way because I agree.
You've got to keep things in check.
And you've got to have the ability to understand what the government is doing in this regard.
I think that the best way to do that is have a very inquisitive and proactive political base.
Congress and Senate should do their jobs.
And part of it is, you know, there's a game that goes on in Washington where every time something like this comes out and it's politically expedient for them to do so, they express outrage and angst and, oh my god, I can't believe this is happening.
There's a well-worn path between the intel community and Capitol Hill, with people going up and briefing these people all the time.
But in Edward Snowden's case, what he's talking about is them spying on every single American.
That's essentially what it is.
Don't you think that people have a right to privacy if they're just innocent folks that are taxpayers and they're not breaking the law, they're not doing anything?
There's a lot of characteristics of Snowden that remind me, again, of some of the other characters in a counterintelligence world that we dealt with that...
I don't take everything, just like this character that we watched on the video.
You know, Glenn Greenwald and Snowden, these guys, they all want to, you know, talk about how, no, no, we've safeguarded it.
Well, if they're smarter than the fucking PRC and the PLA out in China and smarter than the FSB in Russia, then winged monkeys on unicorns are going to fly out my ass.
From a counterintelligence perspective, all that shit that he's walked out the door with is in the hands of people who don't have our interests at heart.
Meaning not just what's been released, the concerns about the American people, about privacy, but some other stuff that is totally unrelated to privacy that is very important.
Well, that can't be argued.
In my opinion, that's very tricky.
I mean, if that is the case, then the data isn't secure, and it can compromise people in the field and all sorts of other things.
But Americans, their number one concern was that this is what is an ongoing situation.
Like the NSA... The facility that they're building in Utah where they're going to store all the data.
That scares the shit out of people.
Every single phone call they make is being stored somewhere.
Yeah, that one is, you've got to kind of reverse engineer that story.
They had set up a shared network system.
uh...
between uh...
the senate staffers who were busy writing what took them over five years uh...
and they had a preset agenda on on uh...
the interrogation history of interrogation by the agency so it took them over five years to write but during the course of that they set up a shared network shared system uh...
for the agency and the senate staffers who were writing this thing to use So, at a certain point it became clear through the course of that process that Senate staffers had acquired documentation that they weren't supposed to have, that was above their parameters, their classification.
That is what, then what happened was, on this shared system, not in the Senate computer system, nobody in the Senate is arguing that.
It's a shared network that was set up specifically for this process of sharing documents.
So the agency ran what is basically a forensic effort, a keyword and phrase search.
It happens every day.
I've got a company diligence for all your information and security needs that, you know, we've got a computer forensics group.
So keyword phrase searches is a standard forensic tool.
So they went through that to try to figure out how did this document and did others go walkabout.
So that's what that whole hoo-ha was about.
But again, it points to Even at that level, even with the Senate Intel Committee, which, you know, again, they've got the ability, if they would use it, if they would stay inquisitive, if they would stay proactive, they've got the ability to pursue things, but there's a level of distrust.
Sometimes it goes on, and it kind of comes back around to this whole transparency issue.
Yeah, conspiracy, I don't know.
There's always been, and I keep going back to that same thing.
You asked me that question at the very beginning, which was terrific, which, you know, what's the number one misconception?
So your take on it was just that the CIA was trying to figure out how the Senate acquired these documents that they were not supposed to be in possession of?
Yeah, the point of their exercise was, from a counterintelligence perspective, then you have to start figuring out what else has walked out the door.
And what the Senate interpreted it as was that I guess the agency was pushing back in an attempt to What?
I don't know.
Stop the reporting?
The reporting had already gone out.
This massive report that they've already written had gone out.
It had already gone out to the community for a review.
It had gone to the White House for a review.
So it's not as if they were going to try to stop that flow of information.
They've already done that.
They've already released it.
They haven't released it to the public because they're now waiting from the White House for a review.
So I don't know.
You know, there's...
The agency has a long history of being a lightning rod for things because of the nature of its business.
And that's understood.
People who work inside the organization understand that.
And I'm outside it so I can express a little frustration.
But I guarantee you when you're inside...
And you're constantly being thrown out there as, you know, an evil cabal or selling drugs to low-income neighborhoods or fucking over, you know, everybody else or doing, you know, working against the interests as opposed to White House delivers tasking and says, get this done.
The job of the agency is to march forward regardless of who's in the administration.
And it doesn't matter whether it's President Obama or President Bush, President Clinton, President Carter.
So when you see a situation like this where Dianne Feinstein says that the CIA may have violated the Constitution, do you think there's a lot of political grandstanding going on?
So when they're making these big speeches, it's like to set them up in a position where it looks like they're looking out for the American public, when in reality, if they looked at the actual circumstances and the actual facts behind what had gone on, it would have been far less...
Or if in other cases where they were expressing, oh my god, I can't believe this interrogation program was doing this, well, fuck that.
We've got briefers that, like I said, march back and forth and back and forth and explain what's going on and answer questions.
I mean, the agencies, from the church committee on and even prior to that, you know, there's a long history of sort of this game that goes on.
If I'm a politician up on Capitol Hill and I see that this is not going to look good from my constituency back home, then I'm going to express surprise, even if I sat on that intel committee and listened to what was going on.
I was supposedly listening to what was going on.
So, again, I'm not saying the fucking agency is perfect.
And again, I'm also not saying I can be objective about it.
I'd be lying if I said that.
I am subjective.
I got a great deal of respect for them.
My experiences with them were extremely positive.
I saw people stand up with really sound moral compass and always try to do the right thing.
So that's what I took away from it.
That's how I then process all this other crap that's out there, this noise.
So, you know, if I'm wrong and I die and I find out I'm wrong, well, fuck me.
It's possible to know everything that's going on in any organization.
I mean, you can't, no matter what it is, if it's a police department or if it's the CIA or the FBI or the United States Army, every general doesn't know about every single action that every single soldier is involved in.
So my feeling about it is the commonality there is that you initially agreed to keep your mouth shut, to protect the information that you were given responsibility for having access to and to do your job.
I think if you sign up to commitments, if you make a promise, if you sign that promise, that contract, then you've got to stick with it.
And if you decide at some point that you can't because you're just so fucking morally opposed to it, Then, you know, man up and find a way to do it properly.
I mean, what does someone do if they feel like they're being ignored and they're on the inside and they honestly feel like some horrible things are happening and they have no recourse?
At what level though, at what level can the crimes be?
I mean, what if you found out, like let's go deep, like what if you found out that there was some sort of a false flag operation that was going to result in the death of a bunch of American lives, including American servicemen, including American officers and enlisted folks?
I mean, if you found out something along those lines...
That's a thriller movie concept, but yeah, and there's never the ticking time bomb scenario.
I mean, by the way, that was never a good defense of sort of like the interrogation program, the ticking time bomb, you know, that always saying, well, I've got five seconds, so therefore I've got to hit this guy over the head with a car battery.
But you almost always have more than five seconds.
Again, it's a hypothetical that doesn't make any sense in the sense that what am I going to do?
I'm worried that I'm going to go and I'm going to tell my superiors and it's all a cabal and they're all working together and the whole organization is going to suddenly...
And I'm the one who's going to be fucked and the next thing I know I'm being chased to the basement of the organization by all these people and it's a cabal.
No.
I mean, if you find out that there's something...
There's one thing to say...
I haven't seen any indication of breaking the law, but morally, I don't know, this bothers me.
That's different.
Then, okay, that's one case you've got to deal with.
If you find a case where there's something illegal going on, well, then fine.
Bring it to light immediately.
There's no other choice.
It's like I used to tell my guys, you make a mistake, you do something wrong.
You know, tell me immediately.
And, you know, that's the way that you resolve problems.
That's how you fix things.
That's how you make sure that things don't go off the rails.
And the agency does operate under that.
You know, again, people aren't going to buy it.
But, you know, I saw it time and time again.
Somebody would make a mistake.
Someone would make a bad decision.
And the first thing they would do was march in.
They would tell their supervisor or chief of station or whoever it was.
And, you know, there's that type of culture in there.
They have a lot of avenues that they can go to that wouldn't be walking into your immediate supervisor in the military.
Because, yeah, sure, maybe that's not the best thing to do.
Maybe you're concerned it's all, you know...
I'm going to be punished for stepping out of line.
Well, they have practices in place that you go to, just like in a corporation.
You've got compliance officers, you've got an ombudsman, whatever you want to call it.
So, I don't know.
Again, I'm not smart enough to be able to address issues like that, but I do think if you make promises and you agree to protect and serve the interests of the United States, Don't break the fucking law.
That this is what you're dealing with when you're dealing with any agency or the military.
You're dealing with a group that you've agreed to be a part of.
It's a sacred oath that you've taken.
It's very important that you keep that oath.
And isn't what we're seeing with all these leaks and all this different stuff sort of a...
It's also...
It's an excellent example of the times that we live in, that when you're dealing with something so sensitive and so difficult, it's very hard to get people to just keep their mouth shut now.
And part of it is, again, part of it is all the anonymous quotes in...
In the newspapers, and oftentimes attributed to senior military officials, senior administration officials.
Part of it is the books that get written.
You know, sort of the idea that I'm going to finish up as, whatever, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I'm going to write a book.
And that filters down to the junior officers.
They see that, or people in the organizations, and they see that, and they think, well, what the hell?
What's sacred then?
You know, you're going to get out after 30 years, and you're going to talk about all the...
You know, the various things that, you know, were done and, you know, you're going to give a maya culp over a couple of things and you're going to talk about shit that, you know, all that time you knew you weren't supposed to talk about.
So it's, yeah, I think there's a slide there in sort of the cultural understanding of what is and isn't acceptable.
You can't swing at the cat most days without hitting a major newspaper that's dealing with anonymous sources.
I'm just talking about in terms of all the general use of it.
I mean, remember, I don't think you could, in the past, I don't think you could write a major story if you had more than one anonymous source.
Maybe you couldn't even have an anonymous source, but now it's just an accepted fact.
And I guess the point being is that people just feel more comfortable speaking out of turn.
And that filters down to all the younger members of whatever organization it may be, whether it's a company, whether it's a hedge fund, whether it's the agency, a military, whatever it may be.
That is a very interesting situation when it comes to protecting sources.
It would almost be if we had a lie detector test, like an infallible lie detector test, where you can say, did these sources actually tell you this information?
Were these sources really CIA deep undercover operatives?
Were they legit people?
And, you know, and then the guy, it turns out he's lying.
Well, then you throw the book at him.
But if he's telling the truth, then it seems like the onus is almost on the CIA. Well, yeah.
So do you think this is sort of a battle between the idea of protecting sources and the idea of protecting America, that these two things, maybe the oath that a person takes is equally important as the laws that are in place to protect sources, and this is just duking it out to see which one holds precedent, what's more significant in terms of the repercussions on the American people?
Yeah, I mean, I think I could see where journalists would hold this up as an example of saying this is the same thing.
You can't argue the difference.
Right.
Is there a national security element to this that takes precedence over a journalist's right to publish something and not disclose a source?
That's a court decision.
What do I know?
Again, no one's going to ask me for my opinion on that, but I can see where people could draw the comparison and try to argue one side or the other, frankly.
I think if there is a legitimate national security issue, you've got to weigh in on that side of it.
I mean, that's the issue that we have with law enforcement and everything.
You're dealing with the human element.
You know, I'm a big fan of law enforcement.
I take a lot of shit from people for saying that because whenever someone says we shouldn't have cops, I'm like...
I know bad people.
I've met bad people.
You're fucking crazy.
When people say that we shouldn't have military.
In your utopian world, and the world would be beautiful and charming, and everybody would be growing flowers out of their ass, yeah, that would be nice.
But that's not the world.
Look at what's going on with ISIS right now in Syria.
Anybody who doesn't think that you need military to deal with people like that, you're fucking crazy.
If you look at the potential and if you look at the possible future of humanity once we evolve past where we are now...
1,000 years from now, 10,000 years, wholly 100, maybe a decade, who knows?
But the reality of right now, if you look at the rest of the world, look at what's going on with Israel and Gaza right now.
Anybody who thinks you shouldn't have some sort of method of protection, some sort of method of intelligence, information, and ability to operate militarily, they're crazy.
I feel like this is probably, at least in America, as fucked up as it is, this is probably the safest time ever for people.
I really do believe that.
As far as violent crime, as far as worried about being attacked by another country, I think it's probably the safest time ever.
And I would hope that that trend would continue, and that this would continue all across the world, and that human beings would slowly but surely sort out all their bullshit and figure out a way to have a cohesive, nice, civilized world that we could all live in.
I've seen some folks do some pretty iffy things out there.
I'm sure you have.
I'm not as optimistic that human nature will change.
I think that it's possible.
But I think that oftentimes we, you know, I get asked this question all the time from folks that are trying to manage security, you know, work on crisis management, that sort of thing, for their companies, for their families, whatever it may be.
And, you know, I'm not one of those preppers.
I'm not one of those people who think, oh my God, it's all going to fall apart and we're going to be dealing with zombies.
She refuses to watch 28 Days of Life because it freaks her out.
So anyway, but I think that, you know, this idea that one of the biggest crises we actually do face in the short midterm is to our power grid.
So as an example of what I mean by human nature...
I lived in New Canin, Connecticut.
It's a very nice little town in Fairfield County when I was working out of my New York office.
And one of the things I didn't know about New Canin was if you buy a house there, then you have to assume that in town You'll lose power at least every week during winter because everything's above lines, above ground.
And so one time, after about a year there, I didn't have any generators.
I'm not smart.
I'm not a handy guy.
And so my wife looks at me and says, are you ever going to go out and buy a generator for us?
Because we're the only one on a block that doesn't have a generator.
So the power goes out for three or four days, and in wintertime, it's pretty damn cold.
First night, it's fun, right?
The kids are all, you know, I got three boys and a scooter, Sluggo and Muggsy, and they love a camp out.
So first night's great.
Second night, everybody's freezing their ass off.
So it took me the first winter to figure out I should go out and get a generator.
We had a power failure.
So I went to Home Depot and I went in there and I watched a fight break out in a very affluent county of America when the power had really only been out for probably about 36 hours at that point.
And I watched a fight break out of one of the last generators, apparently, that was available.
I mean, I literally just walked up on this scene, and there were people all masked up, and they'd been handing out numbers and trying to get everybody in order in line.
And I looked at this thing, and I thought, good God.
So then I found the manager and gave him $100 and got the last generator.
So my point being is that if the grid goes down, say we've only got three grids, east, west, and Texas, right, around this whole country of ours.
And these grids were never designed, they were never built to withstand a terrorist attack.
That wasn't the point.
And now, you know, the infrastructure is getting old and we're spending a lot of money trying to harden the facilities and trying to improve and provide more mobile generators.
It's a major, major issue in this country.
And you can imagine if the grid goes out or we lose power for say two months.
Everything that drives transportation, trading, banking, just general well-being of society, how we all feel about ourselves every day, water, then we got a problem.
And so my feeling has always been I would like to think that we'll see the best of ourselves during the course of something like that.
Well, people, like, they don't mind talking about kids.
But it's an issue that everybody has.
It has children.
You worry about the future.
You worry about, you know, not just the future because of, you know, bullshit that's going on overseas, but just natural disasters, things that could happen that could wipe out the grid, you know, asteroidal impacts, etc., And you know what I worry about, too?
I mean, all the potential, pandemic, you know, whatever it is.
But I tell you what I spend more time worrying about, because I think it's actually more likely or possible, is most of my time was spent overseas.
Most of my, you know, young and then adult life.
And you could travel to the darkest places out there, the deepest, darkest places out there, and you would find somebody who would think, you know, if I could just get to America and I work hard, then I can do better.
And they honestly believe that.
And people over here used to believe that.
I'm sure a lot of people still do.
We've got great people.
But I do worry about the erosion of that concept of America being a place where they were very fortunate.
And I understand some more fortunate than a lot of others.
That's obvious.
But as a country, I worry more about the erosion of our belief in ourselves and our ability to do great things.
Think about the space program.
For fuck's sake, we put duct tape on a rocket ship and took it to the moon and back.
I mean, we did shit.
And now we're begging the Russians for a ride to the space station.
And the Russians are saying, fuck you.
We don't like your stance on Ukraine, so you can't go to space.
I mean, some people want to live in a community of nations.
That's a lovely idea.
Just like human nature is going to evolve and we're all going to, you know, like you said, have flowers at our ass.
I don't know what that gets us, having flowers at our ass, but...
I think that there's the reality, which is that if you don't have somebody at the top, and during the Cold War, we had this bipolar situation with us and the Soviets, and that worked, as long as there was a balance of power, a physical balance of power.
But if you don't have somebody at the top of the food chain, you're going to get kind of where we're going, which is chaos and people looking to fill that void, and we're not going to be happy with it.
And if you're not in charge, then you're looking at somebody's ass in line, right?
And if we're happy with that, and we're happy with the ensuing potential chaos that that brings, then fine, let's just admit it.
Let's say that's where we're going with all this.
We want to be average.
But I don't believe that's the case with this country.
You know, you're a patriotic guy, and you're looking at the situation at hand, and it's very uncomfortable.
And I think that the reality of what's going on in the foreign crisis is whether it's what's going on in Ukraine or what's happening right now in Iraq, this massive power vacuum that's being filled by ISIS and these militant jihadists.
And if somebody's going to be at the top, better the United States than ISIS. Yeah, no, absolutely.
And you know what, honestly, and I guess maybe that's what I'm trying to say, but I'm not saying it very well, is that I have a great deal of faith in the U.S., no matter which administration's in charge.
Again, I don't like to think I have a dog in the hunt as long as people are working hard and trying to do the right thing.
Whether it's this administration, previous administration, whichever one, I got a lot of faith in the ability or the desire of this country to do the right thing.
Sometimes we don't do it, and it takes us a while to course correct, sometimes longer than we should.
But I do believe that we, and that's something I took away from the time with the government.
What I worry most about when it comes to the United States, when it comes to the future and the direction of things, is the influences that politicians have that are not in the best interest of Americans.
That, to me, is one of the scariest things.
The influences of corporations that only look at things in terms of how much money they can extract from X or Y. Which one is gonna be more profitable for them?
Let's go with Y. We're gonna make more money.
Fuck the American people.
And the politicians tend to lean towards that because those are the very people that put them in office in the first place.
They're beholden to them once they get in there.
That, I think, is one of the biggest threats.
The fear that people have of money overpowering the greater good of the actual citizens of the United States.
And to that I would say, what I always say, which I've been beating on this stupid drum for a while, is term limits.
I don't think we get big, brave decisions in Washington anymore until we get term limits.
This system, which, quite frankly, the Founding Fathers never imagined that anybody in their right mind would want to stay in Washington for 36 years.
You know, who would want to do that in their mind?
So they didn't put that in there, and that's the one thing I think that would make a difference.
You know, give congressmen two four-year terms.
Give senators two six-year terms, and get the fuck out.
And rotate that.
We got some great people in this country that could step up and be terrific leaders if given the opportunity and if we didn't have to pay a couple hundred million dollars every time we want to run a campaign.
So put finance limits that actually mean something in there and bring that down.
If you can't get your point across in a Congressional or Senate campaign for say, you know, a million dollars, two million dollars, then you're a fucking moron.
How can that not work?
And you can only run your campaign for a certain period of time.
How difficult is that?
So, I mean, the states tried it.
Individual states tried to do that.
And then the Supreme Court shut it down and said, oh, states can't determine the term limits for federal positions, which to me, I still don't quite get that.
But I agree with you.
But I think that one step we could be taking to try to get that influence of money out of politics in a meaningful way Well, you know, maybe if you're a moron, but Washington's a pretty straightforward place at the end of the day.
And if you can't figure out the legislative process in six months, you're an idiot.
Do you think that term limits would be circumvented the same way they've kind of been with the president, where there's just so much massive money and influence that essentially the two-party system is controlled by virtually the same corporations in the first place?
If suddenly, if I'm a corporation, and I know that somebody's going to be on the Ways and Means Committee for the next 24 years, then I know what I'm going to do.
I know how I'm going to try to influence that position and how I'm going to kind of work that from a lobbying position.
If you're only there for two terms...
I've got to change my game plan.
I'm not going to invest all my time and effort and resources into this person.
I'm going to think of it – and you know what?
It's worth – I guess my point is it's worth a try.
Is any system going to be perfect?
Well, no, of course not.
But the way that it's working right now, all I know is we've got a city full of dysfunctional people who are – I mean the congressmen are trying to run for election basically constantly.
A two-year term means you're constantly trying to raise money.
And when you send good people there, then they get co-opted by the system.
And it must be extremely frustrating for the people that go out there with good intentions, and then they realize, I've got to spend all my time impressing the congressional leadership with my fundraising prowess.
Do you get a sense, by paying attention to all this shit that's going on overseas, whether it's what's happening in Ukraine, I don't know about it than they've ever been before, certainly in my recent memory.
They were a big stinking mess, and it was very violent.
There was a little lovely period of time where Haiti was the only real big concern.
We had the Cold War era, and that was very comforting for a lot of people because you knew who the enemy was, and you knew how the game was played in a sense.
But right now, with the flashpoints that we've got, we've got the Chinese Are increasingly aggressive in an effort to try to retake the Pacific, which they've always been pissed off that we've basically owned since World War II. And the Russians, the Middle East situation, obviously.
Yeah, I'd say it's more chaotic now than it has been in recent memory.
Well, I think you minimize the chaos by being consistent.
And what I mean by that is that, you know, as foreign policy is an example, if your foreign policy...
If the message is consistent and strong and clear and there's no misunderstanding by either your allies or the people that are against us, then you can minimize the chaos that exists.
If it's not consistent and there's confusion over where we stand, and I'm saying we because, you know, okay, fine, we're still at the top of the food heap.
Whether people are comfortable with that or not, I don't know.
So if we're not consistent in that message, then there's confusion and that's where you start to get problems because you start to get people probing at the perimeter trying to see what exactly is going on, what they can get away with.
We start getting less leverage.
I mean, you know, we're getting a situation in the Middle East now where countries are acting completely without consulting.
With the U.S., you wouldn't have had that 30 years ago.
Yeah, Egypt acting in what they consider to be their own best interests.
The Saudis.
The Saudis are enormously pissed off at us still over what they view as the current administration's failure to...
You know, work with them to try to resolve some issues out in the Middle East, and they feel as if we've sort of abdicated responsibility.
Now, whether we have or not, whether it's the right thing to do or not, I'm just saying, from a policy perspective, If what we want to do is be isolationist, then be very clear about that.
So in one way, being patriotic and being an isolationist, in another way, meddling in foreign governments, sending out aid, being part of their political process, all that jazz?
I mean, saying, okay, we don't really want to be involved.
Here's a red line.
You pass a red line, okay, fine, we're going to do something else over here.
You know, we're going to pivot to Asia.
And I don't mean to pick on the current administration.
I've got a lot of respect for some of the folks in there, but there's a...
You know, there's a lack, I think, of consistency.
And there's certainly, I think, in the sense of how the Chinese are behaving, how the Russians are behaving, how certain countries in the Middle East are currently behaving, I think it's an indication that they don't necessarily believe we're engaged.
And that either worries them or delights them, depending on what position they hold.
And I don't think we have the luxury of disengaging.
Again, my experience has been when there's a vacuum, shit happens.
Is this one of those situations too where it's difficult to get people enthusiastic about engaging because of all the years of war that people disagreed with, Iraq and Afghanistan especially?
Well, the problem is that we're now in a position, and if we're just talking about ISIS, the Islamic State, we're now in a position where we've got some pretty strange bedfalls.
Iran is engaged against them.
Obviously it's a Shiite regime.
They've been putting boots on the ground in Iraq for some time now, trying to prop up Maliki, who's now gone.
Syria, Bashar Assad has been, you know, authorizing airstrikes in there.
So in a sense, if we go into Syria, you know, and try to kick some ass with ISIS, we're on the side of the Iranians and Assad.
And this White House is really, really unlikely to want to be seen in a public eye as taking sides with Assad.
So this is probably the most complex situation they've got going right now, is how to do this.
And that's why I say the best way to go about it is to strong-arm, if necessary, the Turks, Jordanians, Saudis, to the degree we can't.
We don't have much leverage with the Saudis anymore.
To try to get them on board, get an allied force in there, because we can do it.
It's not like we can't, you know, defeat them.
We just don't have a strategy for doing it right now.
And they walked in without really, I think, appreciating how bad it could be, obviously, and walking in also with not as much interest in the international scene.
The extremists have just taken over the airport in Tripoli.
Basically, they have taken over the country.
There's almost nothing related to a pseudo-federal government running Libya anymore.
It's a disaster, but we can only focus on one thing at a time, apparently.
You know, right now we're looking at ISIS, but I think you look at Afghanistan, and that's a perfect example.
We didn't need another case study.
We got a case study of what the Russians did.
We spent a lot of time.
I was in there when we were trying to get the Soviets out.
We spent a lot of time trying to push them out.
And they went through the same process we did.
After five years, they were just trying to get the fuck out of there.
They already realized it was a failure situation.
So what did they do?
They retreated to the urban centers.
That's what we did.
They couldn't figure out how to get a government that would stay in place after they left.
Same problem we're having.
All this we know, they went through.
I had one of my first hires in diligence, for all your information and security needs, was a former military intelligence officer.
He was a former tank driver, too, for the Russian military.
He told me, he grabbed me, I remember, as we went into Tora Bora, and he said, you know, don't stay.
You can't stay there.
He said, they're like cockroaches.
You step on them here, they show up over there.
Don't stay.
He was still carrying around shrapnel from the time of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
We didn't need to go all the way back through history to understand how this was not going to work.
And I hate to say this, and I'm not doing any disservice to the terrific men and women who have served over there, lost their lives, been wounded.
The Taliban have no place to go.
It's like the Viet Cong.
Where do we think they're going to go?
So once we're finished there, when they take back over, we shouldn't be that surprised.
So I'm not an optimistic guy.
We did a brilliant tactical mission there.
But by the spring of 2002, we should have walked out the door and said, if you do this again, if you allow your place to be used to reach out to the West, we're going to come back and kill more of you.
But nation building?
I don't give a shit whether we raise their literacy rate by 2 or 3 percent or build another road.
Look, I mean, if you really do think about what the scenario is over there, 90% of the world's opium comes from there, and there's a massive amount of lithium and ion and minerals in the mountains.
What the fuck else can anybody do other than try to figure out one way to fund staying there?
Do you think any of this could have been avoided by not going into Iraq and not going into Afghanistan?
Or was that kind of shit inevitable anyway?
Because with all this, with having a ruthless dictator like Saddam Hussein, that's no picnic, having a guy like that running a country with his evil fucking sociopathic serial killer sons.
I mean, people say, well, we should have left him in place.
Well, you know what?
The mindset at the time.
People have a hard time remembering going back to what it was like right after 9-11.
People thought shit was going to happen every single fucking hour.
And, you know, it got overrun with the neocons.
There's no doubt about that.
They had an agenda.
They had a plan that this is what they were going to do.
Now, there was also, and I do know this, there was also agreement from a lot of allies that this was a problem that had to be dealt with.
So it wasn't just the U.S. saying, we're going to rush in there, you know, because that's a conspiracy.
Oh, we're going to go in there because we're going to get their oil.
Really?
Well, there were a lot of allies that were believing that, and unfortunately, and this goes to show you how you've got to be very careful about your intelligence operations, a lot of it was based on just crap, bullshit.
You know, but the time, at the time, the way that we thought, and the fear that existed, and the way that people said, whatever it takes to protect the homeland, even if that means, you know, going into Iraq, you know, because that's going to be the next flashpoint.
So, I'm not one to say you've got to second guess, you know, decisions that happened in the past, because it's a complete waste of fucking breath, but, I mean, I guess you obviously can learn things from it, but More to your point, which is a much more important question, is what do you do about it now?
Well, that's why I say, you know, another thing I think is, I can't go back to term limits and finance reform, is, you know, I think we get a lot of, we get a deeper pool of potential candidates, and we'd surprise ourselves with how many really good, smart, dynamic people are out there who might be willing to step in if they didn't have to go through this insane political process.
Exploring things, doing shit, chasing Burmese python down the Everglades, roping into glacial ice caves up in Alaska, tracking grizzlies in the beautiful Yellowstone Park.
The agency called me up and said, look, here's what you can and you can't disclose.
Don't tell them about the sub-basement where we keep the aliens.
And so I think I kept those secrets pretty well.
Area 51 is a fascinating, fascinating place.
And what's interesting is tracking the history of sort of our developmental air platforms and looking at the timeline, the chronology of getting sightings and things.
And that to me is pretty cool because we were coming up with some pretty bizarre air platforms for surveillance in particular.
And this shit was flying around the desert, you know, being tested.
Some of it worked, some of it didn't.
And you can imagine it.
You look at the timeline of people going, oh my god, what the hell?
And you see this happening, and you understand why people were losing their minds.
After September 11th, we were filming Fear Factor down near Edwards Air Force Base.
We were out in the desert doing these stunts, and stealth fighters would fly overhead.
And if you had never seen one of those before, if you didn't know what that was, that looks like a goddamn UFO. That looks like a spaceship from another planet, this black thing that's not shaped like any normal plane, and it's flying low and fast.
How do they recruit guys instead of, like, getting them filtered, like, top people, instead of them going into the public sector and, you know, making money doing something else?
Yeah, no, they did move it because it took a little too much heat, and so they thought it might be better to have other facilities.
But it's still true to this day is that they...
I mean, they're inside the agency.
And I actually took Indigo Films for the second season of World Access on Travel.
I took them into the agency headquarters not too long ago, a couple of months ago.
And we did a story inside the headquarters.
And part of it was based on, we've got a museum inside there that's open to the staff, obviously, and then visiting liaison partners and dignitaries that come in.
And you look at the history.
And the agency started out of OSS, out of the military.
And you look at the history of it in all aspects of it, operations, science, technology, whatever it is.
And it's a pretty incredible place.
But they always, when they're developing technology, when they're developing ideas, when they're developing operations, it's in response to something.
It's in response to a task.
They don't just sit around, unlike maybe a tech company in Palo Alto or something, they don't just sit around and throw a ball at the wall and think, you know, let's come up with a clever idea.
It's always in response to a task that they get from, well, from the administration.
It says, we need to solve this problem.
And typically, the administrations, over the years, they go to the agency first because they know it's, you know, they'll cut through the crap.
They've got people who will sit down and come up with, you know, scenario that This might work.
And they work quickly.
And again, they've got terrific creative people listening to me.
One is sort of for the kids, but one is it's a really very, very smartly done museum, looking at espionage through the years, tradecraft, and a variety of operations that have happened over the years.
Fantastic facility, so people should go to that one, too.
My buddy Mike worked at the American Embassy in Russia, and they would find the surveillance devices that the Russians would install in these buildings that were so sophisticated.
He said...
They had found a listening device that was powered on the swaying of the building itself.
The swaying and the movement of the building itself in the wind was actually powering this device.
They said it was unlike anything that they had ever thought of before.
And it was just mind-blowing that these equally intelligent people with a completely different language in another country had come up with some alternative path to listen in on people.
Yeah, the Russians and Soviets during the Cold War in particular were, you know, A, because they dumped unlimited resources into it and B, because they were highly motivated and aggressive.
They were very, very worthy adversaries, still are.
But yeah, our Cold War history is a fascinating thing.
You look at the technology that was developed out of that and a lot of that ended up being, you know, used for the private sector and the development of everything from From smartphones to internet applications to a variety of things.
So a lot of the crap that gets put together, gets thought of and designed inside the intel community ends up benefiting the private sector and just the person on the street, commercial people.
But discounting their social activity, just their engineering and technology, I'm always fascinated by what is it that causes one country, one nation to excel in a radical way above and beyond others?
It's great to finally see stuff like that happening.
Why didn't it happen a long time ago?
I'm absolutely fascinated by technology, mostly because I'm a moron.
I can't engineer anything.
I see how someone figures out how to make a car, where when you're taking a turn, the computer adjusts the shocks to put more pressure on one side to flatten out the...
They wanted to lighten it up a little bit, take it a little bit away from sort of the conspiracy and the dark side, and focus more on just going to great places around the country and talking to cool people.
I did this show for SyFy called Joe Rogan Questions Everything, and they were trying to get me to do sort of along the same lines as the Jesse Ventura show, the conspiracy theory.
They were really into conspiracy theories when I started doing the show.
But the more I started doing it, the more I was like, most of this is bullshit.
Like, you're doing a show where you're exploring bullshit, but you don't necessarily want to call bullshit because you want to keep this air of mystery that keeps people tuning in.
And so I like to think, I mean, I approach this second season that's coming up, this World Access show, I approach it sort of like anybody who's sitting on a sofa...
I'm a fairly simple guy, so when I go to some of these places, literally, I'm kind of staring there slack-jawed and amazed at what I'm seeing, whether it's the geography or whether it's just dealing with the people or what goes on there, whatever it may be.
So I like to think I'm the guy that's sitting on the sofa watching this shit, and I'm reacting the same way they would.
I'm just fascinated by it.
And it's difficult to do sometimes with conspiracies, because you feel like a lot of the conspiracies, they've been beat into the ground.
And you're hearing stuff that you've heard before, you're looking at shit that you looked at before, but...
Even the Science Channel, which is supposed to be about science, they have so many of these goddamn UFO shows where they talk to these people and they all have fucking stories, but when it boils down to it, that's all there is, is stories.
Stories from questionable people, and the stories are almost all goofy, and it gets weary after a while.
Yeah, and I can see why people find it interesting.
But what I like about this show now is just we're going to some fantastic places.
We're seeing shit that you've got to make an effort to get to.
So everything that we're doing is basically got to work to get there.
But if you do, it's well worth it.
And it's not just sort of the same beaten path, you know, not walking up to the edge of the Grand Canyon staring at it and going, hey, okay, that's nice.
It's, you know, get outside your comfort zone, travel a little bit more, make the effort, and you'll be amazed at what the country has to offer.