Ehh, they might have. J.J. Angleton was, theoretically, crazy enough to do it, but motivation is not proof. I don't subscribe to any particular theory, myself; it was so long ago, and enough of the people who might actually have known the truth are dead now that I don't think there will ever be an answer that will shut up all the theorists. I didn't say they were "good guys doing what is best," I said they were "more controlled than controlling." There's a big, multifaceted difference.

Conspiracies make good drama, but real-life human beings have a tendency not to stay on script. I don't think the CIA could control the President; the agency is basically bureaucrats and field officers. More to the point, why would they want to? The number of people who want power without recognition is vanishingly small.
As for the Pentagon controlling the President, they have not true means to do so either.And again, there's no point to doing so.

I read all the later posts, and I agree with what drmlessgames is saying, for the most part. However, I did want to reply to this post in particular.
Is this even in any doubt anymore? Anyone who doesn't see this must have their head in the sand. I suppose people could argue that it isn't the case anymore, however over the past 50 years it is just about irrefutable. I think it is a stretch to believe that CIA just stopped funding drug lords (or being drug lords, however you wish to tihnk of it).
Well, honestly, I think Zionists control both CIA and the US Government. Perhaps not directly, but they assuredly exert the most influence of any other group. Call me a conspiracy kook all you want about this, but this just fits best with the recent actions and politics of the USA, in my opinion.
Again, do people actually still deny this? If anyone does, they must go through life with blinders on...

It's worthwhile if you can get past Tim Weiner's writing style (and his insistence on commenting on the private life and "wealth" of some of the CIA people). It's American mainstream focused writing. There's a critique of the book by the CIA itself on their webpage.
There's bit's and bobs in other books/films. I'd say anything on the Coup in Chile will very likely comment on CIA involvement - and given that it is part of "history" and most CIA documents from that time have been declassified there's a good amount of info there.
That's how I'd use Weiner's book; get a brief overview then look into more detail in some of the conflicts CIA was involved in. Talbian/Afghanistan? Anything Middle East related and Robert Fisk is a fairly good source.

Yep. The coup in Chile was staged in the White House by Nixon and Kissinger. The Taliban was created by the CIA with George H. Bush as director as a counterforce against the soviets invading Afganistan. All good patriotic CIA work.

What???
The CIA did not sponsor the Taliban, the CIA DID in fact sponsor mujahideen Who were fighting the Soviets there......
Once the Soviets left, US interest in Afghanistan stopped. The US decided not to help with reconstruction of the country which shouldn't be a shock... and instead they handed over the interests of the country to US allies, Saudi and Pakistan........
Read a book, or maybe go to the country.... The Taliban DID not take control of the country until 1994... WHich um correct me If I am wrong wasn't Clinton Pres?
Maybe you should read up on Ahmad Shad Massoud....
Or the entire history of what happened in Afghanistan....
The Taliban was not a US puppet....
Holy crap.... Hell Brits were involved and Israel, and Saudi, Pakistan, China and anyone who were against the Soviets helped Afghanistan.
I'll give you the Nixon debacle but and even go as far as saying we fucked up in Afghanistan by not helping after the war they had with the Soviets was over however WE CREATED THE TALIBAN!? lol Sure we trained some people who later became Taliban, however, like I said, we fucked up we left, and now you and other people say Oh US get the fuck out.... lol...We should have helped out after the Soviets withdrew however, again, we fucked up and hindsight is a bitch,

Shh!!
We had our time as the hated empire, we're trying to be the cool elder statesmen now!
We would have gotten away with it all too, if it wasn't for those pesky wars...

...or those meddling colonies! :P

lol Hey it's cool, you guys know we learned all our intell stuff from you :) Didnt think things like that were really secrets anymore :p

Shh! They might hear!

No one is reading the CIA torture report, so we turned it into 11 fun memes:
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/cia-torture-report-memes/

Maybe more than 50% would refuse but to quote Samuel Adams: "It does not take a majority to prevail but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men"
All that appears to be needed to make a change (for better or worse) is a highly motivated minority. Many revolutions were fought by less than 50%, e.g. The American Revolution.
I wouldn't say it's entirely impossible for a minority of US officers to refuse orders from the White House and effectively start a rebellion that way, we might even see something like that happen some day perhaps after a specific cataclysmic event that finally divides the nation? It happens elsewhere, it's usually one event that ends up being the straw that brakes the camel's back, the final drop of water that makes the barrel overflow. I'm not seeing it happen in the US right now but in the near future anything could happen.