Will you accept the election results?

[pErvinalia]

The security services are a branch of government and an arm of the state. Nobody can deny that they fulfil a political function.

Fulfilling a political function is different to being explicitly political. The whole bureaucracy fulfils a political function. But it's apolitical.

[Brian Peacock]

Which a distinction I thought was obvious from what I wrote. The oft-heard complaint from people who don't like what they're hearing with regards to things like evolution, climate science, or security reports, is that it's ideologically or politically motivated. This seems to render everything down to a matter of subjective opinion, and, "YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT WHAT I THINK IS REAL IS ACTUALLY WRONG. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT GOES ON IN MY HEAD. YOU'RE NOT ME!!"

[pErvinalia]

Which a distinction I thought was obvious from what I wrote.

But why did you write it in the first place? 42 isn't using political like that. All you are doing is clouding the issue.

The oft-heard complaint from people who don't like what they're hearing with regards to things like evolution, climate science, or security reports, is that it's ideologically or politically motivated.

Well I've worked for the public service before, and I tend to think people who claim it is politically motivated are speaking wholly out of their arses.

[Hermit]

I'm asking for reasoning to back up a conspiracy theory.

That is an eminently reasonable demand to make, and I have no problem with it, but writing "The idea that the bureaucracy would regularly lie for one side of politics is nonsensical" goes way beyond "asking for reasoning to back up a conspiracy theory". If the two of you are representative of conservatives and leftists, it echoes the attitude conservatives had relating to the CIA until very recently and contradicts that of every upstanding armchair leftist - also until very recently.

[pErvinalia]

Perhaps you should try thinking a little on this issue instead of issuing inane platitudes. If you think it is regular practice for the bureaucracy to regularly lie for one side of politics, then present your evidence. As I said, I worked for the public service and the idea is more than nonsensical, it's idiotic.

Further, you are setting up a false equivalency in comparing past condemnation of the intelligence services by leftists and the current condemnation by conservatives. If you'd read what was written you'd be able to understand that there is a clear point of difference explicated in my reasoning. The CIA et al BENEFITS by lying about WMD in Iraq and Gulf of Tonkin etc. And lying about it doesn't make them look bad (as long as they don't get caught out lying). In the case of hacking the US, it does make them look bad. And further, no coherent reason has been given as to why they would lie in this case. It's a conspiracy theory. That's not to say it isn't true, but as with all conspiracy theories, unless there is some reason to back them up, they can be easily dismissed.

[Hermit]

Perhaps you should try thinking a little on this issue instead of issuing inane platitudes.

The piece I quoted you as having written, namely that "The idea that the bureaucracy would regularly lie for one side of politics is nonsensical" illustrates the validity of my comment, for it has become abundantly clear that the CIA has done the bidding of incumbent presidents before. I have not - and will not - dispute that Russia may have hacked into US servers, but that is irrelevant to what I'm commenting on. What is relevant is that you have adopted an attitude towards the CIA that has been reserved to the conservatives - until now. Previously, the attitude expressed by leftists has been that the CIA is political and that it does lie when it suits its bosses. Benefits have nothing to do with any of that, unless of course one keeps in mind that being sprung for lying is not beneficial to the reputation and perceived integrity of the organisation.

[pErvinalia]

Perhaps you should try thinking a little on this issue instead of issuing inane platitudes.

The piece I quoted you as having written, namely that "The idea that the bureaucracy would regularly lie for one side of politics is nonsensical" illustrates the validity of my comment, for it has become abundantly clear that the CIA has done the bidding of incumbent presidents before.

Learn to read.

I have not - and will not - dispute that Russia may have hacked into US servers, but that is irrelevant to what I'm commenting on. What is relevant is that you have adopted an attitude towards the CIA that has been reserved to the conservatives - until now.

Bullshit, as explained in the part of my reply that you didn't bother to read and comment on.

Previously, the attitude expressed by leftists has been that the CIA is political and that it does lie when it suits its bosses.

Where I have I done that? If I am to represent "leftists" in your inane false equivalency then you need to show where I've done that.

Benefits have nothing to do with any of that, unless of course one keeps in mind that being sprung for lying is not beneficial to the reputation and perceived integrity of the organisation.

Of course benefit has something to do with it. Unless you think the usual concept of self-interest doesn't apply to organisations. Retarded thinkers make that sort of error. What has nothing to do with it is politicisation. The CIA isn't a political organisation, full stop.

[pErvinalia]

Also, you didn't address this: " If you think it is regular practice for the bureaucracy to regularly lie for one side of politics, then present your evidence.". Are you trying to take over 42's rule as the poster with the mostest inclination to avoid inconvenient rebuttals?

[JimC]

My take on this is that security services such as the CIA should be non-political, but that a certain amount of political spin, usually to please the government of the day can and has occurred. However, I agree with rEv that it seems very unlikely that they are going to be so forthright in their opinions that Russian hacking has occurred if it was an outright lie, particularly when they know that if they get caught out, the incoming administration will tear them another one...

[Brian Peacock]

It's a tricky thing to balance. They're responsible to the government of the day, who are politically motivated, but they're also supposed to be politically neutral. When an incoming administration can put 'there man' into the pivotal and important hotseats of these establishments then the establishments themselves are obviously going to be politicised - to some extent - both in terms of individuals walking the political path to get the jobs in the first place, and then perhaps being unduly tied or obliged to the people who put 'our man' in the top job. Just look at all the fuss at 'Trump's head of the CIA' and Trump's media machine saying that the head of the FBI was corrupt last November - that is politicising the security services right there. So who are to look to for a dispassionate view when politicians are seemingly so keen to play politics with our security?

In a world where nutters with a celestial mandate to kill and terrorise are becoming ever more eager to earn their place in heaven, and nation states are not adverse to undermining democracies and human rights if there's money to be made, one would hope that the security and intelligence establishments themselves could focus on the job in hand without the distraction of having to generate copy for the propaganda machine of their political masters. If we can't trust them not to do that then we can't really trust them to protect us can we?

[pErvinalia]

It's important to realise the distinction between the reality - a politically appointed head determining organisational priorities that may very well reflect to differing degrees the appointer's political views; and the patently silly idea advanced by 42 that the politically appointed head will regularly do anything the President says right down to specifically instructing his or her employees to totally fabricate evidence. In the case of Iraq and WMD this quite possibly happened, but in that case it's easy to see why the hierarchy in the CIA would enable such a thing. It benefits them greatly to enable an invasion of Iraq. How does the CIA benefit from framing Russia and by association the incoming Prez?

[Hermit]

Perhaps you should try thinking a little on this issue instead of issuing inane platitudes.

The piece I quoted you as having written, namely that "The idea that the bureaucracy would regularly lie for one side of politics is nonsensical" illustrates the validity of my comment, for it has become abundantly clear that the CIA has done the bidding of incumbent presidents before.

Learn to read.

So much for gratitude. I was being nice to you by not pointing out that the introduction of that word is a strawman. Yours.

I have not - and will not - dispute that Russia may have hacked into US servers, but that is irrelevant to what I'm commenting on. What is relevant is that you have adopted an attitude towards the CIA that has been reserved to the conservatives - until now.

Bullshit, as explained in the part of my reply that you didn't bother to read and comment on.

Previously, the attitude expressed by leftists has been that the CIA is political and that it does lie when it suits its bosses.

Where I have I done that? If I am to represent "leftists" in your inane false equivalency then you need to show where I've done that.

So you always regarded the CIA as a non-political agency that does not lie when it suits its bosses. Facts do contradict that opinion, but I accept that you always have held it.

Benefits have nothing to do with any of that, unless of course one keeps in mind that being sprung for lying is not beneficial to the reputation and perceived integrity of the organisation.

Of course benefit has something to do with it. Unless you think the usual concept of self-interest doesn't apply to organisations. Retarded thinkers make that sort of error. What has nothing to do with it is politicisation. The CIA isn't a political organisation, full stop.

Self interest also demands to do your bosses' bidding. I am sure that the CIA would happily operate without bosses, but whether it likes it or not, it has them: The president, his secretaries and whoever else he delegates to deal with the organisation. In doing the political bosses' bidding, they become a political organisation, comma.

Also, you didn't address this: " If you think it is regular practice for the bureaucracy to regularly lie for one side of politics, then present your evidence.". Are you trying to take over 42's rule as the poster with the mostest inclination to avoid inconvenient rebuttals?

Ignoring the stawman "regular" addition, there's no need to. It's already been done. Tonkin, WMDs, nuclear supplies from NIger, all untruths reported by the CIA to aid and abet two presidents', one a Democrat, the other a Republican, political agenda.

[Hermit]

...the patently silly idea advanced by 42 that the politically appointed head will regularly do anything the President says...

Having done a search for regul* and Forty Two being the author returns four results. None of those posts can be interpreted as saying anything of the sort you suggested.

[pErvinalia]

Two presidents, three occasions. Wow. Much regular.

None of your equivocating and strawmanning changes the fact that 42 is proffering a conspiracy theory and providing zero reasoning to back it up. As much as you and he want it to be true, the CIA isn't political. It's an apolitical bureaucracy. Driving trucks hasn't left you in much position to post authoritatively about how the public service operates and how much the head of large bureaucratic organisations gets involved in day to day operations (hint, it's essentially zero). If you think otherwise, present evidence, or fuck off with your inane conspiracy theories.

[pErvinalia]

...the patently silly idea advanced by 42 that the politically appointed head will regularly do anything the President says...

Having done a search for regul* and Forty Two being the author returns four results. None of those posts can be interpreted as saying anything of the sort you suggested.

If the CIA is a political organisation due to the president calling the shots (as 42 and now even you seem to be asserting) then it must be a regular occurrence. If it's not then it can't be political.