• 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.

justabubba said:
good point

don't think this guy will last as long as tRump will remain in office
Click to expand...

As long as Bannon remains at trump's alt-right hand, America is in peril.

We can only pray for McMaster and Mattis to settle the nerves of our government agencies.

As for DEMs, they have a DNC debate tomorrow night, along with the 'Indivisible Guide' for town halls, and now trump tweeting about the town halls. At this point, imho, every time trump opens his mouth is a good thing for non-GOPs .
 
tres borrachos said:
Talking to who?
Click to expand...

I see a number of posters from the right claim they have special knowledge and can't divulge their sources.

Not to mention who they are in real life and how we are supposed to take their word for it but to hell with my word.

I'm still posting from my phone so if someone gets a link from me I actually bothered to do the work.

It's pretty damn easy for EVERY poster to type in the several words I type in and get their own ****ing links in five seconds.

Such as what the 'Indivisible Guide' is .
 
randel said:
what makes you conclude that he is a liar?
Click to expand...
The fact that he lied.

It is that lie that exposes his bias as well.

"I watched in disbelief when, during the third presidential debate, Trump casually cast doubt on the high-confidence conclusion of our 17 intelligence agencies, ..."​

1. The Directors Office is not an intelligence agency. That means there are only 16.
2. The fact that he said "all" when at most it was just three. This was just another lie showing he knows not of what he speaks or is deliberately lying. In either case it highlights his bias.
3. Conjecture is now high-confidence conclusions? No.
 
tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your opinion and why you hold it about Trump and Bannon has been noted. . .and noted. . .and noted. . .and noted. . .and noted. I didn't say Trump wasn't a Democrat. I said that Trump is non partisan. He has no loyalty to either party which is why both hate him along with you. I'm going to let it go at that.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Your opinion and why you hold it about Trump and Bannon has been noted. . .and noted. . .and noted. . .and noted. . .and noted. I didn't say Trump wasn't a Democrat. I said that Trump is non partisan. He has no loyalty to either party which is why both hate him along with you. I'm going to let it go at that.
Click to expand...

Do you hate people you don't know? I don't. I never did. I can't hate Trump. If you hate politicians who you never knew, that's okay, but please don't project it on me.

Like I said, you have no idea why the man left the CIA any more than I do. We are both speculating, as is everyone who reads the story. The only one who really knows is this man himself. And his donation to Hillary may have been the reason, or maybe what he claimed to be the reason is actually true.
 
justabubba said:
why should a civil servant be prohibited from contributing to the campaign fund of the politician he supports?
Click to expand...

Greetings, justabubba. :2wave:

Contributing to the campaign fund of the candidate you like is one thing, and most of them appreciate that, but treating people rudely because of ideological disagreements should not ever happen, IMO. We are all walking this earth together at the same time, and wouldn't it be boring if we all thought the same? We'd be no better than robots which are mass produced in factories! :shock:
 
tres borrachos said:
We all forgive you when you're wrong. Don't be so hard on yourself.
Click to expand...

Excon isn't wrong about Trump not being a lifelong Democrat as you said he Trump was though.

Donald Trump switches party affiliation to independent - CBS News

And this:
Is Donald Trump a Republican?

Yes, Donald Trump is a Republican. He is a registered Republican in the State of New York as of the year 2009. It is interesting to note that Donald Trump was once a Democrat, and he actually switched over to the Democrat party in 2001 after being registered as a Republican. He has also donated money to people in both the Republican and Democratic parties – most notably, he has donated money John McCain and George W. Bush of the Republican Parties, while also donating money to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry of the Democratic parties.​
Is Donald Trump a Republican?

So let me ask you related to an earlier discussion: Was your comment about Trump being a lifelong Democrat a lie? Or an honest mistake?
 
tres borrachos said:
iLOL. Your ignorant posts always amuse me.
Click to expand...
Then you haven't been amused by anything I posted.
Me on the other hand, while I have agreed with some of what you say, have been amused often by your postings.
 
DA60 said:
'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?
Click to expand...

Thoughts? See ya!

Perhaps he's one of the leakers and is worried about getting caught. Just a thought.
 
DA60 said:
'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?
Click to expand...

CIA...Getting better one step at a time....
 
polgara said:
Greetings, justabubba. :2wave:

Contributing to the campaign fund of the candidate you like is one thing, and most of them appreciate that, but treating people rudely because of ideological disagreements should not ever happen, IMO. We are all walking this earth together at the same time, and wouldn't it be boring if we all thought the same? We'd be no better than robots which are mass produced in factories! :shock:
Click to expand...

here is what i was referring to when i wondered why you believe a civil servant should be prohibited from making a campaign contribution:
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..
Click to expand...
that did not speak to any rudeness. it implied that employees of the CIA/FBI - such as the former NSC employee, who is the subject of this thread - should be denied the ability to make a campaign contribution
because you answered a question that was not asked, i will assume you now recognize that the apolitical expectation of a federal organization does not extend to the employees who work in that organization - provided they do not exhibit partisanship while in their official capacity
 
DA60 said:
'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?
Click to expand...

I don't believe him.
 
DA60 said:
'Edward Price worked at the CIA from 2006 until this month, most recently as the spokesman for the National Security Council.'
Click to expand...

Edward Price? Wasn't there something from an NSC Spokesman NED Price last year about the size of Trumps National Security Council team being reduced? Surely they wouldn't use a nickname when reporting this type of stuff?

Edit: Ah yes, here's something...

Trump Will Be Limited To A Smaller National Security Council Staff

NSC spokesman Ned Price said the current staff level is already below 200 thanks to that work.
Click to expand...

Note that the date of the article is in December of last year and this Edward Price has apparently worked in that position for longer and up to this month.
 
Last edited:
Trippy Trekker said:
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!
Click to expand...

The president wasn't even 30 days into his term, so it was a knee jerk decision based on politics & personal dislikes.......... IMO

Agents quit under Hillary before also.

Nothing new here, the SS,CIA, and FBI have became largely political.

Sorry Trekker, I just disagree.
 
DA60 said:
'Edward Price worked at the CIA from 2006 until this month, most recently as the spokesman for the National Security Council.'

'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?
Click to expand...

Just off the top of my head: If these claims stand, then there is nothing but consistency in the non-intelligent approach that the current POTUS uses. His way is more the way of the heart rather than brain.

Also, this is the second time that a CIA official resigns when a republican was in power. The same occurred while Dubya was in power. Maybe there is a pattern here.

Lastly, maybe Trump is cleaning up the corrupt from the CIA and this is the way they get back to him.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Excon isn't wrong about Trump not being a lifelong Democrat as you said he Trump was though.

Donald Trump switches party affiliation to independent - CBS News

And this:
Is Donald Trump a Republican?

Yes, Donald Trump is a Republican. He is a registered Republican in the State of New York as of the year 2009. It is interesting to note that Donald Trump was once a Democrat, and he actually switched over to the Democrat party in 2001 after being registered as a Republican. He has also donated money to people in both the Republican and Democratic parties – most notably, he has donated money John McCain and George W. Bush of the Republican Parties, while also donating money to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry of the Democratic parties.​
Is Donald Trump a Republican?

So let me ask you related to an earlier discussion: Was your comment about Trump being a lifelong Democrat a lie? Or an honest mistake?
Click to expand...

You know, this was posted about repeatedly all through the elections. I'll assume you missed it. I'll also assume you missed the entire debate after Megyn Kelly challenged him in the first primary debate with this very subject. I'll also assume you missed all of the discussion through the last 2 years about how Donald Trump supported partial birth abortion, single payer, Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton for President, and as recently as 2012, the Democratic push for gun control. If you want me to research all of this for you, you need to admit you missed all of this and have no idea that all of these facts existed.

I'd be a little careful about accusing me of lying, when especially this can be proved. You're the same person who didn't even read the OP which clearly stated that the man at the center of this discussion worked at the CIA for 11 years, and worked under Bush and Obama. You said he's only been there 3 years and had to be corrected by a few people. I'm not sure you pay attention to these discussions anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom