Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - CIA to be "purged" of "soft leakers and liberal Democrats"

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - CIA to be "purged" of "soft leakers and liberal Democrats" (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/76081-cia-purged-soft-leakers-liberal-democrats.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo22

...They want to make the prez look as bad as they can. The media has been a liberal spin machine ever since they've felt responsible for getting Nixon removed from office.

*wrapping head around that one*

Quote:

Originally Posted by archer2371

Of course, they're protected by the Whistleblower Act if they find that some really illegal things were being conducted by their organization or the government itself. However, that does not give them the right to leak things to the press to push their political agenda no matter how much you may agree with one candidate or another, using your position to try and influence an election jeopardizes your job. That's why so many intel guys are registered as independents, they may lean more to the right, but they register as independents, because there's a chance that you get shit-canned if you voice your support for a candidate.

What political agenda? Why does revealing the truth equate to exertion of a political agenda?

I find this whole episode quite disturbing, but the justification behind it even more so.

Oy, I've been over this before.

Item #1. A group of analysts get together and release the information about the "missing" explosives to the New York Times and CBS, convincing them to release the information a day before the election (would have cost Bush the election, specially since they wouldn't have been able to garner a fast enough response to effect many of the voters).

Item #2. Other group of analysts finds out about plot, convinces New York Times to release story one week early, giving the White House plenty of time to respond effectively.

Item #3. Porter's Purge, nothing more than enforcement of the rules here folks, no matter how it's spun. These guys could be jailed, should be jailed for what they did, but instead, they are asked to find employment elsewhere.

Item #4. Impossibility of firing every Kerry voter in the IC, it's impossible, in an organization that is so large, it is logistically and economically idiotic to do so, they have more important things to think about.

Item #5. Porter's Purge, part two, Cold Warriors are being dropped for unimaginitive thinking, or at least removed from heavily influential positions, allowing new blood to be infused along with new ideas about the War on Terror.

This is what I knew about, three weeks prior to the major news organizations catching on, before any of the spin was put on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

What political agenda? Why does revealing the truth equate to exertion of a political agenda?

I find this whole episode quite disturbing, but the justification behind it even more so.

Even if it were the truth the CIA's job is not to play politics period. The fact that it wasn't the truth only makes it worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jizz-Fritter

I don't think government leaks are on the total bad; in some instances they can be a testament to courage. But in other cases (Novak), they can be spinless douche-baggery.

FINALLY someone mentions Robert Novak. Someone in this administration broke Federal law by leaking that Valerie Plame is a CIA agent. How much more of a leak could there be? And still no one has been prosecuted.

This administration only cares about "loyalty" -- to them. Nothing else matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You know I forswore posting on this board for a while, but I find myself drawn to it like a moth to a flame, or perhaps a Viking to an undefended Saxon village.

Anyways did it occur to anyone that perhaps the men being removed were the ones who were responsible for letting the 9/11 hijackers slip past the radar, or even more likely the ones who screwed up the WMD data on Iraq?

Perhaps it is not 'democrats and liberals' but 'incompetent agents' who are being removed and they in turn are spreading the idea its political like a typical disgruntled employee?

A few months ago no one posting about this being so awful would have had a single positive thing to say about the CIA, but now, after the dreaded 'L' word has been invoked, the CIA agents are just innocent victims of Bush's plans.

Does anyone think the CIA has done a good job in the last 12 years?

I truly hope you are right, but if this is a directive from the administration, we have no reason to believe that these are people who screwed up. Bush is less concerned about competency and accuracy than he is about conformity and loyalty. As an example I present Stephen J. Hadley, our new National Security Advisor. Mr. Hadley co-wrote a completely overblown report on Iraq's WMD capabilities for Powell's UN Speech. He heavily promoted the Iraq-Qaeda Link and began pushing to include the claim that Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi officials, in Powell's appearance before the U.N. Security Council a week after the State of the Union speech. He bungled Post-War Planning in Iraq while heading the committee to evaluate the effects of removing Saddam Hussein. Mr. Hadley inserted "Uranium from Niger" Lie in Bush's State of the Union Speech and the list could go on. Hadley has served as Deputy National Security Advisor, and due to his exemplary service, has been promoted. So it seems clear that Bush is out to oust those who are responsible for 9-11 and the poor inteligence that has plagued the Iraq war and indeed this entire presidency.