• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

I thought that agencies such as the CIA and FBI were not supposed to be political - they leave their ideologies at the door when the arrive at work, so to speak! Apparently I was mistaken, if the article is true...:shock:
 
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

Where's the link to Real Clear Politics? Did I miss it? That link takes me to the Washington Free Beacon.

I'm not surprised to hear he's a Democrat. He made some swipes at GW Bush in his musings which actually made me already believe that. But I'm not sure that explains why he should have to put up with that colossal moron Steve Bannon being involved with National Security. And as a Democrat, he probably isn't terribly fond of Mike Pompeo (I adore Pompeo). Besides, Trump was a Democrat for decades and also donated to Clinton and the DNC and Democratic candidates. And here he is today, claiming to be a Republican....
 
Oh yeah. That would be right. Well he still sounds fishy as all get out.

Sounds fishy as all get out without proof of yer accusation?

How very alt/far right Bannon of you .
 
Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

I thought that agencies such as the CIA and FBI were not supposed to be political - they leave their ideologies at the door when the arrive at work, so to speak! Apparently I was mistaken, if the article is true...:shock:

Yes. If true. My gut tells me it most likely is.
 
Where's the link to Real Clear Politics? Did I miss it? That link takes me to the Washington Free Beacon.

I'm not surprised to hear he's a Democrat. He made some swipes at GW Bush in his musings which actually made me already believe that. But I'm not sure that explains why he should have to put up with that colossal moron Steve Bannon being involved with National Security. And as a Democrat, he probably isn't terribly fond of Mike Pompeo (I adore Pompeo). Besides, Trump was a Democrat for decades and also donated to Clinton and the DNC and Democratic candidates. And here he is today, claiming to be a Republican....

I found the link at Real Clear Politics here:
Former CIA Analyst Edward Price: I Left The CIA Because Of Trump | Video | RealClearPolitics

When you click on the read the rest of the story link it becomes a Washington Free Beacon link.

And what does Trump being a former Democrat or who he contributed to have to do with anything? I have said he is non partisan, non ideological, and non politically correct, everything people in Washington hate with a passion.
 
Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

I thought that agencies such as the CIA and FBI were not supposed to be political - they leave their ideologies at the door when the arrive at work, so to speak! Apparently I was mistaken, if the article is true...:shock:

And Government agencies are not supposed to discriminate against people based on Age, Race, and Gender when hiring, that is the official policy. Then a director of an agency will issue an order to greatly increase "Designated Minority Outreach", which in the level 3 manager implementation, turns out to be gross Age, Race and Gender discrimination... but it is okay, because those being shut out, are just older white males.

There is the Official Policies of the Intelligence agencies, and then there is the actually practices, and allot like the Racial Discrimination rules, it is Enforced ONLY one direction.

If an Intell Community agent or agency, starts acting in a right leaning political fashion, it gets called out and shut down almost immediately.

If an Intell Community Agent or Agency, starts acting in a Left leaning political fashion, the violation gets ignored or often, praised!

-
 
Wtf is this? Australia as a punching bag? Sounds like he needs to get out and get out fast because the voices in his head might make him psychotic.

The kangaroos will love it.
 
Where's the link to Real Clear Politics? Did I miss it? That link takes me to the Washington Free Beacon.

I'm not surprised to hear he's a Democrat. He made some swipes at GW Bush in his musings which actually made me already believe that. But I'm not sure that explains why he should have to put up with that colossal moron Steve Bannon being involved with National Security. And as a Democrat, he probably isn't terribly fond of Mike Pompeo (I adore Pompeo). Besides, Trump was a Democrat for decades and also donated to Clinton and the DNC and Democratic candidates. And here he is today, claiming to be a Republican....

Don't confuse them with REAL facts about trump.

TBH, if I were to put Democrats above America, I'd want to see Bannon stay on.

Bannon's face needs to be plastered on every DEM political ad.

It's gonna get even more active here with CPAC, town halls and the SOTU in the next week .
 
Sounds fishy as all get out without proof of yer accusation?

How very alt/far right Bannon of you .
For reasons I won't say here, I have some knowledge of how the security agencies work. And most dedicated agents would not be talking like this guy talks.
 
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 ?
What are you talking abut" Anonymous sources" don't have to come from within an organization.
 
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:

Robby Mook ran the HRC Campaign, not Edward Price. I don't feel 'butthurt' when I donate to a candidate that does not win. I doubt Edward Price does either. From what I have seen, read and heard this past week, the Republican Congressmen going home and facing angry constituents at Town Hall meetings and Flynn after Trump fired him looked the most butthurt. President Billionaire Buffoon continues to entertain us. I predict he does not finish his term. May he serve, much like Nixon did, as a catalyst for positive change!
 
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 ?

He wasn't long out of college when he went to work for the CIA sometime in 2006 and Obama was inaugurated January 2009. So at most he had maybe a couple of years as a rookie under the Bush Administration and after that it has all been Obama people influencing him as he rose through the ranks.

But I just did a quick scan of the scuttlebutt on the internet and most are just reporting the same news story shown in the OP here. But my gosh you would think the entire CIA was collapsing with a mass exodus because this guy is leaving. The CIA has 20,000 people working for it. One guy is that important? Really?
 
I will bet money that this asshole already had a job lined up in the private sector before he ran his mouth.
[bold emphasis added by bubba]

how much?
 
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.
[emphasis added by bubba]

maybe i misread the article. i recall him saying he worked under the scrub and Obama. why do you insist he has only worked there for three years
 
The guy is an ideologue and a liar.

Maybe the focus should be on those who haven't resigned?
what makes you conclude that he is a liar?
 
I found the link at Real Clear Politics here:
Former CIA Analyst Edward Price: I Left The CIA Because Of Trump | Video | RealClearPolitics

When you click on the read the rest of the story link it becomes a Washington Free Beacon link.

And what does Trump being a former Democrat or who he contributed to have to do with anything? I have said he is non partisan, non ideological, and non politically correct, everything people in Washington hate with a passion.

My point was that being a Democrat apparently isn't relevant. Trump was a Democrat until he wanted to be President. Trump also donated to Hillary and the DNC, so why is this man's donations to Hillary and the DNC a bad thing?

Trump isn't non-partisan. He was a lifelong Democrat pretending to be a Republican so he could be President. He tapped into angry Republicans and won. He's very ideological, and has been his entire life. He's just singing a different tune now because he wants to stay President.

But anyway, back to this man. What do his contributions to Clinton have to do with anything? He worked under Bush for a few years, and if he was a Democrat then, it didn't seem to bother him. Does everyone refuse to believe that some people are actually repulsed by Trump's actions?
 
Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

I thought that agencies such as the CIA and FBI were not supposed to be political - they leave their ideologies at the door when the arrive at work, so to speak! Apparently I was mistaken, if the article is true...:shock:

why should a civil servant be prohibited from contributing to the campaign fund of the politician he supports?
 
[emphasis added by bubba]

maybe i misread the article. i recall him saying he worked under the scrub and Obama. why do you insist he has only worked there for three years

I misspoke. I misread the date and got that wrong and subsequently corrected it. He has actually been there more like 11 years.
 
My point was that being a Democrat apparently isn't relevant. Trump was a Democrat until he wanted to be President. Trump also donated to Hillary and the DNC, so why is this man's donations to Hillary and the DNC a bad thing?

Trump isn't non-partisan. He was a lifelong Democrat pretending to be a Republican so he could be President. He tapped into angry Republicans and won. He's very ideological, and has been his entire life. He's just singing a different tune now because he wants to stay President.

But anyway, back to this man. What do his contributions to Clinton have to do with anything? He worked under Bush for a few years, and if he was a Democrat then, it didn't seem to bother him. Does everyone refuse to believe that some people are actually repulsed by Trump's actions?

Trump donated to the Democratic Party and the Republican Party because he was a businessman who had to do business regardless of who was in the White House. And who this man donated to is not relevant except that he says politics did not motivate his resignation when the evidence suggests politics was a large part of it. See if you can read that Washington Free Beacon story and not think politics was a factor.
 
Don't confuse them with REAL facts about trump.

TBH, if I were to put Democrats above America, I'd want to see Bannon stay on.

Bannon's face needs to be plastered on every DEM political ad.

It's gonna get even more active here with CPAC, town halls and the SOTU in the next week .

good point

don't think this guy will last as long as tRump will remain in office
 
'Edward Price worked at the CIA from 2006 until this month, most recently as the spokesman for the National Security Council.'

'Nearly 15 years ago, I informed my skeptical father that I was pursuing a job with the Central Intelligence Agency. Among his many concerns was that others would never believe I had resigned from the agency when I sought my next job. “Once CIA, always CIA,” he said. But that didn’t give me pause. This wouldn’t be just my first real job, I thought then; it would be my career.

That changed when I formally resigned last week. Despite working proudly for Republican and Democratic presidents, I reluctantly concluded that I cannot in good faith serve this administration as an intelligence professional.'


...

'As a candidate, Donald Trump’s rhetoric suggested that he intended to take a different approach. I watched in disbelief when, during the third presidential debate, Trump casually cast doubt on the high-confidence conclusion of our 17 intelligence agencies, released that month, that Russia was behind the hacking and release of election-related emails. On the campaign trail and even as president-elect, Trump routinely referred to the flawed 2002 assessment of Iraq’s weapons programs as proof that the CIA couldn’t be trusted — even though the intelligence community had long ago held itself to account for those mistakes and Trump himself supported the invasion of Iraq.

Trump’s actions in office have been even more disturbing. His visit to CIA headquarters on his first full day in office, an overture designed to repair relations, was undone by his ego and bluster. Standing in front of a memorial to the CIA’s fallen officers, he seemed to be addressing the cameras and reporters in the room, rather than the agency personnel in front of them, bragging about his inauguration crowd the previous day. Whether delusional or deceitful, these were not the remarks many of my colleagues and I wanted to hear from our new commander in chief. I couldn’t help but reflect on the stark contrast between the bombast of the new president and the quiet dedication of a mentor — a courageous, steadfast professional — who is memorialized on that wall. I know others at CIA felt similarly.


The final straw came late last month, when the White House issued a directive reorganizing the National Security Council, on whose staff I served from 2014 until earlier this year. Missing from the NSC’s principals committee were the CIA director and the director of national intelligence. Added to the roster: the president’s chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, who cut his teeth as a media champion of white nationalism.

The public outcry led the administration to reverse course and name the CIA director an NSC principal, but the White House’s inclination was clear. It has little need for intelligence professionals who, in speaking truth to power, might challenge the “America First” orthodoxy that sees Russia as an ally and Australia as a punching bag. That’s why the president’s trusted White House advisers, not career professionals, reportedly have final say over what intelligence reaches his desk.

To be clear, my decision had nothing to do with politics, and I would have been proud to again work under a Republican administration open to intelligence analysis. I served with conviction under President George W. Bush, some of whose policies I also found troubling, and I took part in programs that the Obama administration criticized and ended. As intelligence professionals, we’re taught to tune out politics. The river separating CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., from Washington might as well be a political moat. But this administration has flipped that dynamic on its head: The politicians are the ones tuning out the intelligence professionals.


The CIA will continue to serve important functions — including undertaking covert action and sharing information with close allies and partners around the globe. If this administration is serious about building trust with the intelligence community, however, it will require more than rallies at CIA headquarters or press statements. What intelligence professionals want most is to know that the fruits of their labor — sometimes at the risk of life or limb — are accorded due deference in the policymaking process.

Until that happens, President Trump and his team are doing another disservice to these dedicated men and women and the nation they proudly, if quietly, serve.'


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


Thoughts?

He had been talking about leaving since last October. This is just a way to make a splash for a jump start on his next career move.
 
Trump donated to the Democratic Party and the Republican Party because he was a businessman who had to do business regardless of who was in the White House. And who this man donated to is not relevant except that he says politics did not motivate his resignation when the evidence suggests politics was a large part of it. See if you can read that Washington Free Beacon story and not think politics was a factor.

So Trump wasn't a Democrat. Ah, of course. Yes, he was just lying when he said he supported Hillary Clinton and she would be a great President, and when he was registered and voted as a Democrat all those years. He is a prolific liar, after all. Come on, Albq. I must say I give you credit for finding any excuse, no matter how ridiculous, to defend this man.

I read the WFB story. I see a man who is repulsed by Trump and his actions. Actually I see that a lot of places. I also, like many others, was pretty disgusted by his performance in front of the memorial to the CIA’s fallen officers. I also think Trump's incessant denigration of the intelligence agencies is obnoxious. I really think him handing over that NSC official role to that miserable creep Bannon was obnoxious. If Trump hadn't acted inappropriately, I could see that this man would look like a disgruntled Hillary supporter. But that isn't the case. Of course, none of us will ever really know so it's mere conjecture either way.
 
Back
Top Bottom