Ohiocore

Resignations are rippling through the CIA, including the head of clandestine operations. So reports anyone with a newspaper, e.g. The New York Times. NYTimes goes further, saying:

At the heart of the tensions is resentment felt at the C.I.A. over criticisms of the agency's performance, particularly on Iraq and its illicit weapons. Many intelligence officials believe the C.I.A. has been unfairly blamed by the White House and Congress for what now appear to have been exaggerated prewar depictions of Iraq's arsenals.

Also take the time to innoculate yourself against the fabricated crap slinging, people like reliable chump David Brooks reducing the CIA to "contemptuous subversive incredibly stupid insubordinate enemy mutineers". He doesn't use that phrase in aggregate, he uses all those terms. So either the emperor looks very good in his new outfit, or you are a traitor: "Langley was engaged in slow-motion, brazen insubordination, which violated all standards of honorable public service. It was also incredibly stupid, since C.I.A. officials were betting their agency on a Kerry victory."

Of course the CIA must be the ones at fault. He complains about leaks undermining the President. You can be sure he never mentions Bob Novak, Valarie Plame, or the Office for Special Plans. The whole phenomenon of deliberately conjuring false intelligence based on convenient lies, circumventing the CIA via a novel pentagon pet office, using that information in publicly discredited reports and then blaming the Agency for it, holding prisoners in secret inside the military, so secret that for more than half a year the CIA itself is denied access for interrogation, and then to top if off, illegally revealing a clandestine operative for political cover... these things are below mention for Brooks. They just hate Bush. No real reason. They're just stupid partisans. Bad CIA, bad!