What do you expect (concerning his language), he's a Gunnery Sgt.
BTW here's a rebuttal to Paul Pillar:
A Wall Street Journal criticized Pillar's choices in releasing information. [20] Its author observed that " CIA officers on the cusp of retirement often enroll in a seminar that is supposed to help them adjust to life after the agency--teaching them, for example, how to write a résumé. I've begun to wonder if part of that program now includes a writing seminar on how to beat up on the Bush administration."
The author, Guillermo Christensen, agrees Pillar was central in the CIA's analysis of Iraq. Regarding the Foreign Affairs article, Christensen questions if that was the place to publicize that he thought the war was a bad idea and the President and advisors ignored him. He makes the assumption that But Pillar "actually did change his mind about all that work he'd done, and that he really did think the intelligence didn't support the case for war. If that was truly so, no one was better positioned to make the case against war within the government than Mr. Pillar himself." Christensen suggested that Pillar could have sent personal observations, with all relevant classified data, to senior Executive Branch officials. Further, Christensen suggested "that analysis with every single member of Congress by writing less-classified summaries of the conclusions, as is often done."
Thomas Joscelyn, in the Weekly Standard, writes that "Pillar demonstrates that he himself is a master of the art of politicizing intelligence. Far from being a dispassionate analyst, Pillar practices the very same 'manipulations and misuse' he claims to expose."
You might be amazed at the number of government personnel who use "similar" tactics for personal/political/monetary gain.
There are many, many other reports from many other sources claiming the same thing. I just posted one that was very relevant to the situation at hand.
While it is true that many of these people were in fact writing books, the Bush Administration certainly had a larger motivation to do what they said they did.
In addition, there have been so many instances of this type of reaction from the far-right media, like the articles you quoted from, that it's grown predictable:
Step 1: A whistle-blower appears talking about the Bush administration
Step 2: The right-wing media personally attacks the character of the whistle-blower
Step 3: The right-wing media implies that their personal attacks prove the data presented to be false.
Sounds to me like typical right/left-wing tactics, be honest. Although I wasn't paying close enough attention and should have left Thomas Joscelyn off. My appologies for that - bad example.
However, see above (ital & bold) puts his motivation in question, especially if you are familiar the "industry" and how it works. This doesn't mean he wasn't telling the truth from a certain perspective but it does call into question his why especially if he could have injected intel that potentially may have prevented the intire thing.