While it's not surprising that the President would target some of the anti-Bush crowd at the CIA (who acted politically unseemly during the last elections), anti-Bushism at the CIA and the State Department should cause us to scrutinize the administration's policy making methodology. Why have the two primary agencies with ground-level information about foreign policy been in open revolt against Bush? State and the CIA have served as presidents' eyes and ears for many administrations, and rarely do agencies have the gall to combat the president. What gives?
Those on the chopping block have invariably been those that were RIGHT about conditions in Post-war Iraq (respecting facts over ideology was their principal sin). In State, every member of the leading working group on the reconstruction of Iraq was blacklisted during the early stages of the war. That same working group predicted the exact problems that we're encountering now?-problems that might have been avoided. Although these individuals had all spent considerable time in the Middle East, and all had considerable experience in this area, the President forbade them from contributing to reconstruction policy making. He preferred individuals from the DOD. Apparently, blind and unquestioning loyalty ranks far above competence. With regards to the CIA, Bush essentially gave them the order to find or construct facts to support his policies, as opposed to the normal and rational method of observing facts and
then[I/] making policies. When the CIA failed at finding support for Bush's fantasies, his administration started looking for scapegoats. Hey, when a company performs poorly, fire the analysts and destroy the computers; don't look to the CEO, right?
Not surprisingly, a President that dogmatically rejects facts and base-level intelligence, preferring to rely solely on the ideological drivel spat out by bigwigs at the DOD, would prefer mindless cronies than actual intelligence agents. Conclusion driven thought is truly a wonder.
Why bother with the CIA and the State department, anyway? All facts do is clutter up policy, right? We should just fire ?'em all and make policy based on Afghan-opium induced musings. Pass the pipe, Rummy! 
