Revolution Underway in the CIA

A recent article by Janes Defense Weekly has identified issues within the US intelligence community surrounding Bush's appointment of Porter Goss as CIA Director. It seems that Goss's attempt to create a cultural shift at the CIA may actually be creating a sort of revolt. Such a scenario can lead one to wonder whether ticking off CIA folks is a good idea for this administration. If there really was some sort of 9/11 coverup, CIA would be involved. The folks who swore not to talk before might be a bit upset at their latest edict and may begin to spill the beans:

Possibly the most serious development amid all this upheaval has been the disclosure that Porter Goss, the man Bush appointed in August to be CIA director after the surprise resignation of George Tenet in June, has triggered a rebellion within the agency over his sweeping policy and personnel changes. The latest leak focused on his order that agency employees must not "identify with, support or champion opposition" to the Bush administration.

from: Janes

The simple fact that his latest edict has been leaked by CIA staff already demonstrates the fact that some CIA folks are sufficiently unhappy about the changes to begin leaking information. Hopefully reorganization information will not be all we hear about.

Oh yeah, Bush wants some yes-men.

I say, no way man!

You'd think Bush was a dictator or something--oh wait....

What I will like to know is, what is making this people so unhappy with Mr. Goss, what has he done in the pass or right now as to make some to rather quit than submit to him.

Marg...it's his order to CIA employees that requires that they must not:

"'identify with, support or champion opposition' to the Bush administration"

Remember that just under 50% of US citizens did not vote for Bush. That statistic has to include some CIA folk. Who knows the CIA percentage could be higher (indicating a greater lack of support from those who are 'in the know') or lower (indicating a greater level of support from those who are 'in the know') than the national figures. Imagining, however, that these folks live on the Eastern seaboard (since it's close to work), it is conceiveable that they followed voting lines similar to those in Langley surrounding areas indicating a more widespread dislike of the current administration.

No one likes to be told what to say and what not to say and though CIA folks are used to not being able to talk about particular information, many probably see support or opposition of the current Administration to be a personal matter which should not be dictated by one's employer. Even if that employer is the US government.

Does the President himself show he understands very little about intelligence agencies? Does he demand the CIA under his watchful eye, become an extension of the Republican National Committee?

Intelligence must report the facts, no matter how disagreeable to political questions. It is no secret Cheney went to the CIA to scan and demand selected inteligence justifying prior policy assumptions. The war proceeded under that basis, and intelligence agencies are now the patsy? Well spell out the word "assume," and never assume anything, otherwise you make a donkey out of you and me.

The White House under GWB is not interested in a complete overview of the facts, only half truths of whatever is preordained policy. The entanglement is the White House determines reality, which in some sense is true, but it does not determine prior reality. The ostensible factor is not so simple as "making yes men." It is planned blindness, maybe horse blinders, and a world view as close to reality as horse feathers. The White House seems to think some of its authority comes from the CIA. When making policy, he relies on that authority based on its prior track record, speaking the truth to power. Now the functions are to be reversed? Now the White House is the source of truth, and the CIA can only view in the real world selected excerpts that reconfirm prior assumptions. Is that way of doing things, about as mad as Caligula appointing his horse Tribune?

Well you figure it out, a politicized CIA is a fragmented and incomplete CIA. While other intelligence agencies proceed with the fullest recognition of facts, our CIA already has sand in its eyes under pain of dismissal for any notion to the contrary. Well you simply have to adjust outwardly and keep the truth inside, waiting for higher government if ever, to return to its senses. Usually Presidential policy is cumulative and unchanged in various facets from one term to another. Will future elections change this trend with new leaders? Government should have a basically apolitical CIA, and in such a scenario reality comes first, not partisanship. Peter Goss promised not to politicize intelligence in his confirmation hearings. Go figure.

[edit on 30-11-2004 by SkipShipman]

The CIA and any other organization as such, should be NON-PARTISAN!!!! They should report the facts and the FACTS only. Whatever administration is in charge, should decide what to do with those facts. When the facts are manipulated to preform a political agenda...It's time to clean house. This is what the new head of the CIA is doing. He see's politics entering into decisions. Whether there is a republican or democratic administration, they should be given the facts...UNBIASED!! And they are the ones to make the decision on how to act on those facts.
Does the CIA need a house cleaning...HELL YES!!!! But so does every Govt. Institution!! THe last thing this country needs is "YES" men in the CIA, FBI, NSA, ...etc. They need to be unbiased and provide FACTS!!!!

Just my opinion.