So this guy’s a 23 year vet of ME descent, in charge of searching for WMD, and he has to sue to get his superiors to back off from punishing him?
What the fuck kind of shop is CIA running these days? This is almost as good as the DOD firing Arabic intelligence officers because they were gay, as that is so much more important than being able to fill a critical gap required for the war on terror!
Will the recent reforms do anything to help this “don’t tell us what we don’t want to know” problem, or make it worse? I’m honestly asking, I have no idea.
Will ripping the band-aid off the festering wound make it worse? It seems to me that these entrenched beurocrats will be just as much of the new system.
Well the new Bush crony running the CIA has produced a rash of resignations and accusations of politicising intelligence so my guess is this sort of shit is going to keep on happening and we won’t be able to believe a single iota of so-called Intelligence.
Iran has nuclear capable humming-birds able to strike the continental USA inside of 3 minutes eh? :dubious:
I propose that all cites from official US Govt sources should be deemed unreliable in GD for the Duration.
Of course, there seems to be the general assumption here that this is obviously the story of a good and decent CIA agent being put down by The Man, when there’s every possibility that he’s a bad agent (under investigation for sex with an informant and repeatedly denied promotion) who’s trying to make himself look good and earn money from a lawsuit.
I’ll wait until said lawsuit actually gets resolved before casting judgement on the CIA and/or this agent.
That’s what I think you are influenced by: you want to believe so much that CIA agents who “knew the truth” were kept down by a fawning middle-management that wanted to present to the Adminsitration what the administration wanted to hear that you’re willing to blackbrush the CIA and the Bush Administration without any proof that there is substance to the allegations.
I find that kind of ironic- jumping to conclusions that a certain situation is exactly how it happened based on flimsy evidence is exactly what you’re doing, and exactly what you’re accusing the CIA and the Bush administration of doing.
If his allegations are true, then I’ll join you in condemning the CIA and the stupid fucks who ignored evidence and manipulated data to create a rosy scenario. But until his allegations are proven true, I withhold my judgement.
Actually, I was quite a bit more offended by the actions of removing human intelligence resources from a desperately needed area for what, on the surface, seems like a political witch hunt. The refusal of promotions and the accusations of fiscal and ethical misbehaviour seems pretty timely, to be honest.
Secret agents are not nice people - they can’t be. They are not an ethical James Bond-like character, fighting for all that’s good; they are frequently criminals and would be called traitors if they did the same thing to us that they do to their home countries. I don’t expect them to be saints.
But damn it, when we’re fighting in two places that speak Urdu and Farsi, we need assets in place who know those areas and can speak those languages. We don’t need to be kicking them out and silencing them.
I go by the prodigious amounts of evidence that Intel was cherry-picked and infer that on the balance of probabilities this is another example.
What are the chances of me searching controversial threads, say the Swift-Thugs cheerleading ones and find you leaping into put a stop to such dreadful inferring from insufficient evidence? Little or none I guess.
But you feel free to withhold your judgement and let the rest of us get on with pitting whatever the hell we want. This is the Pit right?
Since George I (Bush, that is) was head of the CIA, why is anybody surprised that the agency is packed with Bush cronies who tell the Bushes only what they want to hear? That agency isn’t going to get straightened out until everyone but the whistleblowers is removed. Gutted indeed.
