Posted on 12/08/2004 4:44:24 PM PST by Snapple
[Porter Goss] brought with him from Congress four partisan staff members of the Intelligence Committee who have not adjusted from their old role as political advocates and critics. Instead, they are grabbing authority wherever they can and making decisions that should be left to the existing chain of command.
In only a few weeks, they have exhibited an arrogance that may have served them well on Capitol Hill but is inappropriate – and counterproductive – within the agency.
If they manage to get rid of the people who leaked classified data in order to hurt the President, then I really don't care how "arrogant" they seem.
Patrick Murray is the leaker:
One former CIA official told NEWSWEEK that Murray leaned on him more than once to declassify information so he could use it to "embarrass the Democrats." Murray was irritated when the agency declined.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6543728/site/newsweek/
I disagree. The CIA has always been political and Porter Goss is well aware that he has only a limited time to clean the deadwood out.
One former CIA official told NEWSWEEK
Now THAT'S funny!
Some people can trash the CIA and if they defend themselves from lies, it's called a leak.
Remember I told you about Patrick Murray. So you know who to blame.
He inherited his Congressional staffer job from a man who "committed suicide" in a motel tub.
I've always realized the problems with the one worlders in the State Dept., but when did the C.I.A become such a bastion of leftism?
Not only are you a hypocrite, you don't have a sense of humor either. But then, trolls seldom do.
The CIA has been a loose cannon from its founding. Covert action was its original purpose. It never was established to glean intelligence. That was left to the DIA and the FBI. It will become more of a loose cannon with the President using it as his own secret army with secrecy covering any traces of abuse.
It isn't a bastion of leftism. That's a smear.
[Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counterterrorism chief] said there is concern within the agency that Vice President Cheney is ordering changes to avenge leaks to the media indicating there was no connection between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.
http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595105713,00.html
The CIA meritocracy is in jeopardy....Good. Let us all hope that the CIA gets thoroughly purged, cleansed, refined-by-fire--or lots of firings, in this case.
Can you spell Clinton? Carter?
The head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission whose term just ended after 25 years of foul racist leftism was appointed by Carter.
It's not the grunts in the field (but people are not chosen based on their politics, so some of them may be lefties), but they do not leak info to the press.
It is the political appointees who engage in that sort of game. (Of course, every once in a while a grunt, like Rick Ames, goes all the way bad, but he should have been spotted long before he was.)
Then why is it that there are so many leaks that seem devised for no other purpose than to undercut and embarrass the Bush administration? I sure don't recall this garbage when the slickmeister was at the helm.
but when did the C.I.A become such a bastion of leftism?
Between 1992 and 2000.
Thank you for your answer, but more importantly, thank you for your service to our country.
Entrenched bureaucracies tend to think that they know best and merely tolerate the elected officials. cabinet officials often experience that. Woolsey left the CIA because he had no power, Bennet gave up Education because he said the reins of power were not attached to anything. Micheal Schyuer's book is an example. He wanted to change policy and that was not his job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.