The conclusion I have come to is this: American intelligence agencies may in the course of their operations tell a lie (untruth) or they may tell a truth. Which they do is totally dependent on what they want to accomplish. To them, either is correct. They are equal. Somehow I always see the comment that they are (lying) and it always seems like an attempt to shame them back to some moral grounding. Impossible, they have no moral grounding. The basis of their operations is results, victory. Why are these agencies always seen as moral and (good) at some base level and treated like a wayward son. I am not trying to excuse them. I just want to draw a distinction between a moral society with a set of laws and a society (agencies) which is amoral, “having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong” who would very much like to be above and apart from the laws governing our society. If perhaps we viewed them for what they are we would address the issues surrounding them differently. Perhaps we would analyze how and why this is the case rather than treating the symptoms - Lying. My quick analysis: These are agencies tasked with “law enforcement”. Laws are formed from moral and just assumptions. Morality as a component of law introduces a good vs. evil dynamic. Good vs. Evil lends a conscious and subconscious association to conflict. Conflict leads to war. War has to rules or (laws) just win for goodness sake. See how easy it is to sucked in. How to put a stop on that whirling little tornado in a human society where morality is in perspective and dialog is chaotic and biased. First I believe we need to work on grounding and sustaining logical and reasonable dialog. Dialog that produces a product that is not perishable.