Attracting some attention over the last few days is an op-ed penned by one Edward “Ned” Price, who declares that he resigned from the CIA because he just could not bear the thought of working under a President Donald Trump. I have heard from a knowledgeable friend that Price’s claims about his time at CIA and, more recently, the National Security Council, is true.
Let’s highlight a couple of salient points from Price’s farewell rant:
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 referredto 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. . . .
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.
Here he is on video:
Despite his disclaimer that he is some sort of objective, apolitical character in this drama, there are reports that he donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC Hillary Victory Fund. So we can entertain the possibility that he favors the Democrat Party over the Republican Party. And, as the “spokesman” for the NSC (his words, not mine), he was happy to carry water for the Obama Administration speaking about policy. Nothing illegal or improper in this, but it also is not a common role for a professional Intelligence Officer. What really troubles me about his self-serving moralizing in the editorial was best expressed by another intelligence colleague of mine who wrote the following to me this morning:
I found the entire tone of his piece utterly hypocritical. He stayed at the Agency through the illegality of the Torture Years and the Assassination-by-Drone program and at worst found those episodes “troubling” (his word from the op-ed). He served on the NSC as Obama waged an illegal war of choice in Libya and continued to the insanity of “Terror Tuesday” drone strikes. But when Trump engages in some rhetorical nonsense and uses the CIA Old HQ Building foyer as a photo-op, suddenly it’s “I won’t work for this man.” Give me a break.
I can’t stand Trump but he’s hardly the first and won’t be the last to use a federal department/agency for photo-op purposes. His pot-shots about the Agency’s very mixed analytical track record over the decades represent some of the few truthful things he’s said over the last few months, IMO. If Price had walked away in protest over a real violation of law or the Constitution, I’d very much respect that choice. It’s clear to me that isn’t the case here.
Then there are the glaring factual errors in his piece. Price, for example, repeats this nonsense:
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.
This is a myth. Only two of the so-called “17 Intelligence Agencies” have the actual computer forensic skills to analyze a hack and trace its origin–those are the FBI and the NSA. Two others, through human sources, could have obtained information revealing Russian culpability–i.e., the CIA and DIA. The only mechanism for obtaining the “high-confidence conclusion” of 17 Intelligence agencies is to produce a National Intelligence Estimate or an Intelligence Community memorandum. That means that you write a document, lay out the evidence and send it around to each of the agencies to get their approval, disapproval and/or recommendations for change. That did not happen in this case. The claim of “consensus” came only from Clapper. There is no evidence to support that claim.
So, how could a knowledgeable, seemingly objective Intelligence Officer repeat such nonsense? That’s how you expect a political operative to behave, not a professional Intelligence Officer.
Then Price repeated the misinformation/fake news first put out in the New York Times claiming that Trump dramatically altered the NSC:
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.
I wrote about this so-called decision in detail last month (read here) and pointed out that there was no substantive reorganization or restructuring. Here is what the actual document states:
The PC shall have as its regular attendees the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, the Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist, the National Security Advisor, and the Homeland Security Advisor. The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed.
Two major errors by Price. First, the DNI was not excluded or missing. Second, the CIA was excluded from the Principal’s Committee first by George W. Bush after the DNI was created. That practice continued under Barack Obama. Here is the actual Obama memo organizing his NSC (and please note that the CIA Director is not mentioned):
The NSC Principals Committee (NSC/PC) will continue to be the senior interagency forum for consideration of policy issues affecting national security, as it has been since 1989. The National Security Advisor shall serve as Chair, and its regular members will be the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, the Chief of Staff to the President, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff . The Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor, the Deputy Secretary of State, the Counsel to the President, and the Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs shall be invited to attend every meeting of the NSC/PC. When international economic issues are on the agenda, the NSC/PC’s regular attendees will include the Secretary of Commerce, the United States Trade Representative, the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, who, at the discretion of the National Security Advisor, may serve as chair. When homeland security or counter-terrorism related issues are on the agenda, the NSC/PC’s regular attendees will include the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counter-Terrorism, who, at the discretion of the National Security Advisor, may serve as chair. When science and technology related issues are on the agenda, the NSC’s regular attendees will include the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The heads of other executive departments’ and agencies, along with additional senior officials, shall be invited as appropriate.
Now, in practice, under both Bush and Obama, the CIA Director along with the FBI Director would attend most Principal Committee meetings. Frankly, I am astonished that Mr. Ned Miller could not get his facts right. Rather than simply do what I have done, which is go back to the original sources and read the actual words, he apparently chose to play politics. Perhaps his resignation is a good sign–one less political operative in the intel community.
The post The Curious “Resignation” of a Partisan CIA Officer appeared first on - NO QUARTER USA NET.