I didn’t think I’d ever leave the CIA. But because of Trump, I quit.

[reinoe]

I remember when CIA agents didn't tell you they were CIA agents.

Why all of a sudden do we have people publicly declaring they work or worked for the CIA?

He's looking to be a source for "anonymous leaks".

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Is your actual position that Trump is personally calling field agents in Italy and telling them how to proceed with operations?

No. What a rather delusional question.

Are you actually implying that Trump is personally calling up CIA agents in Syria and telling them which terrorists we should arm and which pieces of equipment?

No. What a rather delusional question.

 

[reinoe]

No. What a rather delusional question.

No. What a rather delusional question.

Trump isn't affecting the day to day operations of most CIA functions.

You seem to be confused...

 

[Tanngrisnir]

You seem to be confused...

One could easily affect day to day operations w/out doing the things you referenced.

Please try harder.

 

[jdog]

'
Thoughts?

That's easy, another butthurt liberal who is throwing a tantrum. Perhaps it will become a trend, and we can get rid of many more.

 

[jdog]

Based on the rhetoric used it's quite likely he had a mental instability. Of course he may very well have been about to get fired too. Either way, the idea that he's quitting because of Trump is pretty ridiculous because Trump isn't affecting the day to day operations of most CIA functions.

Let me get this straight. He has no problem with the CIA being the worlds biggest drug dealer to finance off budget secret wars. He has no problem with the CIA killing 4000+ young American soldiers in Iraq based on the false information supplied by the CIA that it had weapons of mass destruction. He has no problem with the CIA running a string of torture centers worldwide in violation of the Geneva Convention. But he does get butthurt over the President firing some no-loads who he did not feel he could trust.
Sounds like a man of true conviction.......

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Thoughts?

These are truly revolutionary times we are living in. I don't have any problem with the CIA as an institution, per se. I think the bigger problem is the increased surveillance and domestic administration role that the military is participating in via the NSA (established by Truman) and Defense Intelligence Agency (McNamara), which has thus influenced and created a spillover of growing authoritarianism and militarism in the CIA as a reaction to the growing influence and power the military-industrialists. This, of course, influenced the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, followed by the CIA "enhanced interrogation methods" (which the DIA continued long after the CIA had already ceased such EIMs).

So, I fully support this individual, and I hope he finds a new place for himself down the road.

 

[RetiredUSN]

I will bet money that this asshole already had a job lined up in the private sector before he ran his mouth.

 

[jdog]

I will bet money that this asshole already had a job lined up in the private sector before he ran his mouth.

Soros probably hired him to run phy-ops against Trump.....

 

[reinoe]

Soros probably hired him to run phy-ops against Trump.....

I expect the MSM to have a lot of "according a former worker at the CIA" as their anonymous source for b.s.

 

[Mr Person]

Would you consider someone to be a "pure partisan ideologue" if they attacked every single source that said anything negative about their guy or their side, moreover, outright refused to so much as read a source unless it was heavily biased in favor of their particular ideology?

Just wondering.

If their sole intent was to attck the source to blindly prove their point without consideration of the other side, they are indeed purely partisan. This IS you you are talking about...right? No need to be coy.

What do you mean "sole intent"? I'm asking you whether you would label Poster Bob a "partisan" ideologue in the following circumstances:

Bob identifies as a liberal.

You notice that whenever Bob posts in a thread that reports something negative about a candidate Bob has openly supported or about liberals/liberalism, Bob's response is to attack the source of the information and then ignore the information.

You notice, however, that Bob will accept sources and instead debate information provided by those sources on their merits if (a) the source is recognized as heavily-liberal, or (b) the source says something negative about conservatives or a conservative.




I see a lot of people behaving like that on both sides and that behavior certainly reflects what I would consider to be the behavior of a "pure partisan ideologue". For example, in this and many other threads involving either negative news/opinions about Trump, a standard response seems to be attack the source, ignore the information, jump thread.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I remember when CIA agents didn't tell you they were CIA agents.

Why all of a sudden do we have people publicly declaring they work or worked for the CIA?

I've been wondering the same thing. This guy has been with the CIA for less than three years and he is an expert with the working of the CIA and how it should be organized? I've seen sour grapes before, but this guy is something else.

I wonder if he was the leaker they're looking for and Pompeo plugged the method he used to leak? I know, I know, that's how conspiracy fake news gets started, but honestly, this sounds so fishy as to be very difficult to believe anything he says.

 

[tres borrachos]

I've been wondering the same thing. This guy has been with the CIA for less than three years and he is an expert with the working of the CIA and how it should be organized? I've seen sour grapes before, but this guy is something else.

I wonder if he was the leaker they're looking for and Pompeo plugged the method he used to leak? I know, I know, that's how conspiracy fake news gets started, but honestly, this sounds so fishy as to be very difficult to believe anything he says.

He said he's been with the CIA since 2006, started under Bush and continued under Obama. So it's 11 years, not 3.

 

[Kurmugeon]

The Rogue CIA is attempting to pull off a coup to remove an elected President over Far-Leftie Political Idealiology.


They failed at the attempted Coup.

Now there will be allot of people within the CIA who will lose jobs and careers, as it should be.

Perhaps we should suspend ALL activities and funding for the current CIA, and completely dismantle the entire organization, spreading the physical assets out to other government agencies, or simply warehousing them, until a NEW CIA loyal to the Nation, and not Global Socialism, can be assembled.

We should retain less then one in three of the current CIA staff.

-

 

[VanceMack]

What do you mean "sole intent"? I'm asking you whether you would label Poster Bob a "partisan" ideologue in the following circumstances:

Bob identifies as a liberal.

You notice that whenever Bob posts in a thread that reports something negative about a candidate Bob has openly supported or about liberals/liberalism, Bob's response is to attack the source of the information and then ignore the information.

You notice, however, that Bob will accept sources and instead debate information provided by those sources on their merits if (a) the source is recognized as heavily-liberal, or (b) the source says something negative about conservatives or a conservative.




I see a lot of people behaving like that on both sides and that behavior certainly reflects what I would consider to be the behavior of a "pure partisan ideologue". For example, in this and many other threads involving either negative news/opinions about Trump, a standard response seems to be attack the source, ignore the information, jump thread.

Not sure who Bob is, but yes...Id say a fair number of people attack the source if it isnt 'their' source. An example might be the recent thread re the night of riots in Sweden.

I mention sole intent because sometimes discussion of source is actually valid.

 

[AlbqOwl]

He said he's been with the CIA since 2006, started under Bush and continued under Obama. So it's 11 years, not 3.

Oh yeah. That would be right. Well he still sounds fishy as all get out.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

I will bet money that this asshole already had a job lined up in the private sector before he ran his mouth.

Edward Price does not fit my description of an asshole who runs his mouth. That description fits President Trump to a tee.

 

[Geoist]

I'm glad this guy is gone, he sounds like he himself has a lot of ego and not the type I want in the CIA.

Yeah, but a huge ego in a president is perfectly fine, right?

 

[Kurmugeon]

I'm glad this guy is gone, he sounds like he himself has a lot of ego and not the type I want in the CIA.

They particular guy might be gone, but there are many others from the "Obama Shadow Government" still in their positions.

And Obama changed all of the rules associated with the distribution of classified signal intelligence information, just before he left office.




And we saw a classic use of this abuse of signal Intell in the General Flynn Leaks, which were a felony action by a number of people in the Intelligence Comminty. Not only were the recordings and transcripts illegal, if is not possible for it to have been done by just one person, it had to be at least three, from separate agencies.

The leak of the Flynn recordings and transcripts represents a number of felony violation of privacy offenses, violations of National Security, abuse of official powers of office violation, and misuse of government equipment / data offenses. All those who leaked the information need to be found and prosecuted.

If these actions were found to be coordinated by people in who are either currently in, or recently in high public office, they can and should be charged with TREASON.

Ex-President Obama no longer needs to be impeached by Congress. As a Normal Citizen, he can now be arrested and prosecuted for TREASON by the A.G. of the United States. If found guilty, he can be sentenced to death by firing squad!

-

 

[Geoist]

The Rogue CIA is attempting to pull off a coup to remove an elected President over Far-Leftie Political Idealiology.

CIA = Far left? That is rich.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Edward Price does not fit my description of an asshole who runs his mouth. That description fits President Trump to a tee.

He is another Washington DC butthurt Hillary supporter who wasted 3 grand on her campaign.

But, Oh noooooo! It wasn't political at all. :roll:

 

[AlbqOwl]

'Edward Price worked at the CIA from 2006 until this month, most recently as the spokesman for the National Security Council.'

<<<snip>>>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...1_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.aff2bb04e45e


Thoughts?

Interesting take from this piece linked at Real Clear Politics.

Here you read:

. . .

Unmentioned by Price or the Washington Post is the fact that Price gave $5,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee that splits contributions between the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Public records indicate that Price is registered to vote as a Democrat in the District of Columbia. . .​

And apparently Price was in charge of controlling the news as the Obama Administration wanted to spin it:

. . .When the news broke that Iran was holding American hostages in the lead-up to Obama's 2016 State of the Union address, for example, it was Price who was ordered by Rhodes to begin spinning the administration's "well-cultivated network of officials," according to David Samuels of the New York Times. . .

. . .It was Price who explained to Samuels precisely how the White House used its "compadres" to control the narrative of the news cycle, according to the Times piece:

Ned Price, Rhodes's assistant, gave me a primer on how it's done. The easiest way for the White House to shape the news, he explained, is from the briefing podiums, each of which has its own dedicated press corps. "But then there are sort of these force multipliers," he said, adding, "We have our compadres, I will reach out to a couple people, and you know I wouldn't want to name them—"

"I can name them," I said, ticking off a few names of prominent Washington reporters and columnists who often tweet in sync with White House messaging.

Price laughed. "I’ll say, ‘Hey, look, some people are spinning this narrative that this is a sign of American weakness,'" he continued, "but—"

"In fact it’s a sign of strength!" I said, chuckling.

"And I’ll give them some color," Price continued, "and the next thing I know, lots of these guys are in the dot-com publishing space, and have huge Twitter followings, and they'll be putting this message out on their own."​

Clinton Donor Quits CIA Because of Trump, Says Not About Politics

 

[Kurmugeon]

CIA = Far left? That is rich.

Your naive et ta is staggering!

I guess you can be forgiven for your ignorance, because people who have actually worked inside, or as contractors for the CIA are actually rather rare.

YES, the CIA is largely staffed by people of a Far-Left political orientation, and has been so since the end of the Vietnam War.

I happen to know from personal experience, I spent 12 years in electronics R&D, designing and building electronic gear for them!

-

 

[Fishking]

Thoughts?

One less potential leaker out of the picture? Also sounds like he's talking out of his ass and is more informed by the New York Times than his actual profession.

 

[Linc]

He's looking to be a source for "anonymous leaks".

He would have been a better source for 'anonymous leaks' if he had stayed since he started with Bush-43.

He didn't want to become another fired Patriot like NSC official Deare.

Will McMaster and Mattis speak their minds in front of trump AND alt-fright Bannon ?