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

Scipio · 11-14-2004, 07:34 PM

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...-top-headlines

Quote:

CIA plans to purge its agency
Sources say White House has ordered new chief to eliminate officers who were disloyal to Bush

BY KNUT ROYCE
WASHINGTON BUREAU

November 14, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to knowledgeable sources.

"The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House," said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House. "Goss was given instructions ... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda."

One of the first casualties appears to be Stephen R. Kappes, deputy director of clandestine services, the CIA's most powerful division. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Kappes had tendered his resignation after a confrontation with Goss' chief of staff, Patrick Murray, but at the behest of the White House had agreed to delay his decision till tomorrow.

But the former senior CIA official said that the White House "doesn't want Steve Kappes to reconsider his resignation. That might be the spin they put on it, but they want him out." He said the job had already been offered to the former chief of the European Division who retired after a spat with then-CIA Director George Tenet.

Another recently retired top CIA official said he was unsure Kappes had "officially resigned, but I do know he was unhappy."

Without confirming or denying that the job offer had been made, a CIA spokesman asked Newsday to withhold naming the former officer because of his undercover role over the years. He said he had no comment about Goss' personnel plans, but he added that changes at the top are not unusual when new directors come in.

On Friday John E. McLaughlin, a 32-year veteran of the intelligence division who served as acting CIA director before Goss took over, announced that he was retiring. The spokesman said that the retirement had been planned and was unrelated to the Kappes resignation or to other morale problems inside the CIA.

It could not be learned yesterday if the White House had identified Kappes, a respected operations officer, as one of the officials "disloyal" to Bush.

"The president understands and appreciates the sacrifices made by the members of the intelligence community in the war against terrorism," said a White House official of the report that he was purging the CIA of "disloyal" officials. " . . . The suggestion [that he ordered a purge] is inaccurate."

But another former CIA official who retains good contacts within the agency said that Goss and his top aides, who served on his staff when Goss was chairman of the House intelligence committee, believe the agency had relied too much over the years on liaison work with foreign intelligence agencies and had not done enough to develop its own intelligence collection system.

"Goss is not a believer in liaison work," said this retired official. But, he said, the CIA's "best intelligence really comes from liaison work. The CIA is simply not going to develop the assets [agents and case officers] that would meet the intelligence requirements."

Tensions between the White House and the CIA have been the talk of the town for at least a year, especially as leaks about the mishandling of the Iraq war have dominated front pages.

Some of the most damaging leaks came from Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, who wrote a book anonymously called "Imperial Hubris" that criticized what he said was the administration's lack of resolve in tracking down the al-Qaida chieftain and the reallocation of intelligence and military manpower from the war on terrorism to the war in Iraq. Scheuer announced Thursday that he was resigning from the agency.

This is rather disturbing. It seems to me that our intelligence agencies ought to serve the national interest and the truth first, not the particular president who happens to be in office.

archer2371 · 11-14-2004, 07:44 PM

I knew about this a while ago (bout three weeks actually). I don't mind it, most leaks come from operatives that are dissatisfied with the government in power. So, good riddance to 'em I say.

Ruse · 11-14-2004, 08:11 PM

1984...

Just my 2 cents.

Paradise Lost · 11-14-2004, 08:16 PM

I really wouldn't consider the leaks mentioned in the last paragraph damaging, I think it's something that should be said. If the guys gathering intelligence, going over it to see what needs to be done, tells the President, then what they told him to do isn't happening, how is anything suppose to be done?

And the fact that it seems like the CIA told the President that this, this, and this needed to be done, but it wasn't, or carried out like it should, but the President made everything seem like it was going as smoothly as possible, then this former member writes a book explaining that it's really NOT going as smoothly as it should, it's something that should be said, and taken seriously.

The President seems to be putting people in the CIA that will do things the way he wants, and all information that they receive will be twisted to make it look like that everything is going just as predicted, and couldn't go any better, and George Bush is a freakin genius. Plus, nobody around who knows how messed up the system is and then exposing its problems, no body is the wiser.

It is very disturbing, and hopefully there are guys still in the CIA who can maybe reshape whenever Bush moves on, or even during this administration.

archer2371 · 11-14-2004, 08:21 PM

A portion of it has to do with a bunch of the liberal analysts getting together and trying to entice the NY Times and CBS to do that story on the explosives in Iraq, although they wanted the news media to do it a day before the election (which would have cost Bush the election, I think) instead of a week before. It's not just difference of opinion here, but some of these guys have broken laws, but are getting a smack on the wrist and a pink slip instead of jail-time.

joeshoe · 11-14-2004, 08:47 PM

A party-controlled secret government agency would be a bad thing... Let's hope it's not the witch hunt the article suggests.

mo42 · 11-14-2004, 08:58 PM

I can see the justification for it, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. Sounds awfully fishy to me.

Scipio · 11-14-2004, 09:44 PM

You see, they had problems with the CIA revealing this thing called "reality" during the run up to the Iraq war, and they don't want that problem in the future. I suppose that's why they're doing this.

martinguerre · 11-14-2004, 09:49 PM

intelligence is supposed to say what's really happening. i don't get the impression such a filtering of the message is going to reflect the reality of the situation.

guy44 · 11-14-2004, 10:18 PM

Agencies such as the State Department, the FBI, and the CIA should be semi-independent of the Presidency in order to ensure a plurality of opinions and conclusions. In fact, Kissinger distrusted executive agencies to such a degree that he suggested a President should engage in high-level actions without letting these agencies know. He believed that each agency's institutional culture and biases were so fettering that they slowed down top-level action.

He was extreme, of course, and nobody but him has really advocated that. But the idea is, these agencies are supposed to specialize in their areas and advise the President according to what they believe, based on their experience and knowledge. They are NOT supposed to be mindless arms of the President's will, supporting utterly his policies and doing so without question. When this happens, the President no longer gets the best information and advice. He or she should be making decisions based on the recommendations of his trusted advisors, not setting policy in spite of said advice.

Eliminating the presence of people who question his decisions in the government is a frightening example of Bush trying more and more to become a tyrant, in control of everything with opposition from no-one. Replacing these people (many of whom are the best people for their jobs) with those who agree with his policy, regardless of what they are, is a disturbing policy. Truly scary.

And I'd say this if it were Kerry or Bush doing this.

Ustwo · 11-14-2004, 11:10 PM

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?

D Rice · 11-15-2004, 07:37 AM

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?

Perhaps it is not "democrats and liberals. Good riddence to them. I love how the article says they were disloyal to Bush. Give me a break. They were disloyal to thier country.

D Rice · 11-15-2004, 07:40 AM

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?

Ustow come on innocent victims of Bush's plan. They leaked crucial information. This could move to the topic of freedom of the press to report. Do you think it is okay for the press to report things from battle grounds if it is aiding the enemy and putting Americans in harms way?

aliali · 11-15-2004, 07:42 AM

By the way, it is not intelligence if you have some self-important under-deputy-assistant to the assistant director giving it away. If it's o.k. for leakers to spill what they want when they want, I want our tax dollars back.

aliali · 11-15-2004, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Agencies such as the State Department, the FBI, and the CIA should be semi-independent of the Presidency in order to ensure a plurality of opinions and conclusions.

Now that is scary.

Problems:

1) If all three departments are semi-independent, they cannot be directed towards a common goal and will not work together.

2) Having all of the power of intelligence or foreign policy without having to answer to anyone--not even the voters is a recipe for disaster and possible coup.

3) Forced plurality of opinions and conclusions gives a false equality of opinion that that does aid the executive. The executive needs advice and counsel based on fact and experience--institutionally required "on the other hand"edness leads to paralysis.

runtuff · 11-15-2004, 07:56 AM

Something, anything, needs to be done with the CIA.
This is long overdue. Their credibity continues to fall.

aliali · 11-15-2004, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruse

1984...

Just my 2 cents.

If you want 1984, let the intelligence agencies run their own show and not be accountable to the executive or the voters. Let them leak what they want when they want with impunity. Let them decide how to spend tax dollars on information only they have and let them spin it to the press at their choosing. Free them from oversight so they can invade all of your rights, including being free from search and seizure without cause. Give them money, power, intelligence with no accountability to the executive or voters.

ARTelevision · 11-15-2004, 08:11 AM

It's an open question for me.
The crucial task of running Central Intelligence is paramount.

I have questions about the performance of Porter Goss and I am interested in the current developments. I'm keeping an open mind on this one.

roachboy · 11-15-2004, 08:36 AM

there was an article in the ny times friday or saturday that accused the cia of having been actively working to undermine bush. i assume it was a press release to situate the article above.
you would think that an institution like the cia would have an interest in maintaining a level of political pluralism internally, simply because political views often place blinders on information, stream how it is processed--and that different views would tend to impose different frames on the same material--so you might be able to get better interpretations of information that way.

from the outside, however, this looks like the trial sequence in oedipus.
we'll see how it plays out.

teflonian · 11-15-2004, 08:38 AM

Eeek... I don't object to a cleaning of the CIA to improve its efficiency and plug a few holes. However, a hard target blanket search for "those soft leakers and liberal democrats", is quite a frightening way to put it. Liberal democrats aren't capable of performing in the CIA and thus should be removed based soley on their politics? If somebody has done something to show they aren't going to be loyal to the current administration, then kick them out... But a purge an opposing political party in a goverment agency? That is downright scary!!! What would be your (the supporters of this) reaction if Clinton had made a similar request with "conservative republicans" replacing "liberal democrats"?

aliali · 11-15-2004, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teflonian

But a purge an opposing political party in a goverment agency? That is downright scary!!! What would be your (the supporters of this) reaction if Clinton had made a similar request with "conservative republicans" replacing "liberal democrats"?

It happens all the time and happened with the Clintons. White house travel office ring any bells? It isn't right to purge someone who generally agrees with Kerry more than W or the other way around, but there is nothing wrong with firing the leakers. Does anyone here think it is wrong to fire a leaker from the CIA?

MSD · 11-15-2004, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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?

I was thinking that before you said it. Let's hope that it's the truth, although I don't expect the exact truth to come out of an agency whose purpose requires secrecy. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one until more evidence shows up.

Lebell · 11-15-2004, 09:26 AM

I too shall keep an open mind.

I don't see anyone on TFP ever arguing that a shakeup was not in order.

teflonian · 11-15-2004, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

I was thinking that before you said it. Let's hope that it's the truth, although I don't expect the exact truth to come out of an agency whose purpose requires secrecy. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one until more evidence shows up.

So, why the mention of "liberal democrats" at all? Leakers are bad for an agency like the CIA, but to target deomocrats?

Ustwo · 11-15-2004, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teflonian

So, why the mention of "liberal democrats" at all? Leakers are bad for an agency like the CIA, but to target deomocrats?

Who is the one mentioning it?

I'm saying thats just spin by people who should have been removed a long time ago.

archer2371 · 11-15-2004, 10:15 AM

Look guys, it's entirely impossible to go through the Company and get rid of every single Democrat in there, it's just not gonna happen. Like I said before, some of these guys were using the intelligence community as a way to influence the outcome of the election by bringing up the explosives. They're getting off light, they should be getting jail-time, what they did was highly illegal. What Porter Goss is doing is going through and getting rid of basically, the Cold Warriors who are used to the predictability of Russian actions. They're going to be bringing in a mass amount of younger people that think completely different from the current higher ups so they can adapt quickly to the less than predictable terrorist actions. This is by no means a purge of all Democrats in the Company, this is a purge of unimaginative thinking. The Company no longer recruits at Harvard, Yale, etc. They recruit from George Mason, UVA, Virginia Tech, and the like, and they want to get these people in there to get them crunching on the problems that need crunching on.

Scipio · 11-15-2004, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archer2371

Look guys, it's entirely impossible to go through the Company and get rid of every single Democrat in there, it's just not gonna happen. Like I said before, some of these guys were using the intelligence community as a way to influence the outcome of the election by bringing up the explosives. They're getting off light, they should be getting jail-time, what they did was highly illegal. What Porter Goss is doing is going through and getting rid of basically, the Cold Warriors who are used to the predictability of Russian actions. They're going to be bringing in a mass amount of younger people that think completely different from the current higher ups so they can adapt quickly to the less than predictable terrorist actions. This is by no means a purge of all Democrats in the Company, this is a purge of unimaginative thinking. The Company no longer recruits at Harvard, Yale, etc. They recruit from George Mason, UVA, Virginia Tech, and the like, and they want to get these people in there to get them crunching on the problems that need crunching on.

If you think this is reform, I'll point you towards the first two paragraphs of the article in question:

Quote:

WASHINGTON -- The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to knowledgeable sources.

"The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House," said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House. "Goss was given instructions ... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda."

This is not an effort to get the old guard out, or increase professionalism. It's an effort to turn the CIA into a political arm of the White House. Making the CIA more political won't solve any intelligence problems, so let's not pretend that this purge is some kind of reform.

Ustwo · 11-15-2004, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scipio

If you think this is reform, I'll point you towards the first two paragraphs of the article in question:

This is not an effort to get the old guard out, or increase professionalism. It's an effort to turn the CIA into a political arm of the White House. Making the CIA more political won't solve any intelligence problems, so let's not pretend that this purge is some kind of reform.

You know, if you can't trust an anonymous source, who can you trust?

Also the CIA should NOT be leaking anything, the CIA should not be playing politics, period. If these people were then bye bye, we don't need them. I would expect no less from any president who was faced with a hostile CIA.

prb · 11-15-2004, 11:58 AM

This is scary.

I doubt that the article was slanted. It probably is true that "liberal democrats" are being targeted in the CIA and being told to leave. There have been many damaging leaks from the CIA over the last couple of years -- damaging to the present administration, not to the country. The leakers have disclosed a rush to war over little in the way of evidence that Iraq posed an imminent threat; disclosed mismanagement in the conduct of the war itself; and disclosed failings in our war on terror. It is typical for this administration to attack the ones who leak information instead of considering solutions or reconsidering policy in light of any disclosed failings.
For instance: Valerie Plame, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neal, General Shinseky
(spelling?), etc.

The leaks are coming out of the CIA for a reason. And I don't think it has anything really to do wth partisan politics. The CIA is upset with Bush for sifting through prewar intelligence and deciding what it liked and what it didn't like
-- and only using info it liked. Then, when things went wrong, the CIA was made the scapegoat for giving Bush bad intelligence.

The leakers may well be motivated by patriotism and a desire to see the truth emerge.
Bush is motivated by revenge and a desire to see the truth kept under wraps.

If the CIA is made a partisan arm of the White House, dedicated to secrecy and protection of the President -- moreso than the country -- Lord, save us.

D Rice · 11-15-2004, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by runtuff

Something, anything, needs to be done with the CIA.
This is long overdue. Their credibity continues to fall.

Something has been done and its called the USA Patriot Act but no one really tries to understand at least as far as making the differing branches work collaborately

daswig · 11-15-2004, 01:06 PM

I think the problem was partisan backstabbing. It's not unreasonable for Bush to want to "put out to pasture" the people who are leaking fraudulent or half true stories to the media in an effort to damage Bush's presidency.

They haven't been behaving in a non-partisan manner, and they are supposed to be non-partisan. They deserve to be shitcanned.

DJ Happy · 11-20-2004, 05:07 AM

Why is telling the truth seen to be partisan? Do you therefore believe that Democrats inherently tell the truth while Republicans lie?

Bush's accountability grows less and less every day.

Seaver · 11-20-2004, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Why is telling the truth seen to be partisan? Do you therefore believe that Democrats inherently tell the truth while Republicans lie?

The CIA isnt in existance to tell the truth to anyone but the President and certain parts of Congress.

They are a SECRET agency, whoever leaks information must be held accountable.

seretogis · 11-20-2004, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aliali

If you want 1984, let the intelligence agencies run their own show and not be accountable to the executive or the voters. Let them leak what they want when they want with impunity. Let them decide how to spend tax dollars on information only they have and let them spin it to the press at their choosing. Free them from oversight so they can invade all of your rights, including being free from search and seizure without cause. Give them money, power, intelligence with no accountability to the executive or voters.

hammer -> nail-head

D Rice · 11-20-2004, 07:57 PM

i don't see why this is a big deal. Seaver got it right. If someone leaks information that is bad news. Maybe i am completly ignorant, but what does the gov't have to gain by screwing us.

DJ Happy · 11-22-2004, 02:09 AM

If the government is misleading the public, shouldn't something be done about it? If the people who know the truth say nothing while the government spins us a lie, why shouldn't they say something? Surely the "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing" line that was used by some to justify the war applies here too?

aliali · 11-22-2004, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

If the government is misleading the public, shouldn't something be done about it? If the people who know the truth say nothing while the government spins us a lie, why shouldn't they say something? Surely the "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing" line that was used by some to justify the war applies here too?

It is not the job of some minion in the CIA to decide who is and who is not beling misled. If you given them the power to be "good men" then they also have the power to be bad guys and push their un-elected agenda, which seems decidely undemocratic.

archer2371 · 11-22-2004, 08:42 AM

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.

stevo · 11-22-2004, 09:02 AM

The CIA is supposed to be non-partisan. It was the partisan actions by those that wanted to see W out that got fired. And of course the headline of the article is going to say the CIA is being purged of liberal democrats. 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.

Jizz-Fritter · 11-22-2004, 06:01 PM

The CIA is an idealogical institution, therefore it is by nature incompetent. I can see these leaks as going both ways: either competent intelligence gatherers who are disturbed by the ideological sanitation, or incompetent intelligence gatherers who are avoiding the shuffle to the plank. Or maybe a mixture of both, hell, it's almost Thanksgiving!

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.

11-14-2004, 07:44 PM	#2 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	I knew about this a while ago (bout three weeks actually). I don't mind it, most leaks come from operatives that are dissatisfied with the government in power. So, good riddance to 'em I say. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

11-14-2004, 08:16 PM	#4 (permalink)
Paradise Lost "Afternoon everybody." "NORM!" Location: Poland, Ohio // Clarion University of PA.	I really wouldn't consider the leaks mentioned in the last paragraph damaging, I think it's something that should be said. If the guys gathering intelligence, going over it to see what needs to be done, tells the President, then what they told him to do isn't happening, how is anything suppose to be done? And the fact that it seems like the CIA told the President that this, this, and this needed to be done, but it wasn't, or carried out like it should, but the President made everything seem like it was going as smoothly as possible, then this former member writes a book explaining that it's really NOT going as smoothly as it should, it's something that should be said, and taken seriously. The President seems to be putting people in the CIA that will do things the way he wants, and all information that they receive will be twisted to make it look like that everything is going just as predicted, and couldn't go any better, and George Bush is a freakin genius. Plus, nobody around who knows how messed up the system is and then exposing its problems, no body is the wiser. It is very disturbing, and hopefully there are guys still in the CIA who can maybe reshape whenever Bush moves on, or even during this administration. __________________ "Marino could do it."

11-14-2004, 08:21 PM	#5 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	A portion of it has to do with a bunch of the liberal analysts getting together and trying to entice the NY Times and CBS to do that story on the explosives in Iraq, although they wanted the news media to do it a day before the election (which would have cost Bush the election, I think) instead of a week before. It's not just difference of opinion here, but some of these guys have broken laws, but are getting a smack on the wrist and a pink slip instead of jail-time. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

11-14-2004, 08:58 PM	#7 (permalink)
mo42 Insane Location: California	I can see the justification for it, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. Sounds awfully fishy to me. __________________ It's not getting what you want, it's wanting what you've got.

11-14-2004, 09:44 PM	#8 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	You see, they had problems with the CIA revealing this thing called "reality" during the run up to the Iraq war, and they don't want that problem in the future. I suppose that's why they're doing this. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

11-14-2004, 08:11 PM	#3 (permalink)
Ruse Crazy	1984... Just my 2 cents.

11-14-2004, 08:47 PM	#6 (permalink)
joeshoe Crazy Location: California	A party-controlled secret government agency would be a bad thing... Let's hope it's not the witch hunt the article suggests.

11-14-2004, 09:49 PM	#9 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	intelligence is supposed to say what's really happening. i don't get the impression such a filtering of the message is going to reflect the reality of the situation. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

11-14-2004, 10:18 PM	#10 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Agencies such as the State Department, the FBI, and the CIA should be semi-independent of the Presidency in order to ensure a plurality of opinions and conclusions. In fact, Kissinger distrusted executive agencies to such a degree that he suggested a President should engage in high-level actions without letting these agencies know. He believed that each agency's institutional culture and biases were so fettering that they slowed down top-level action. He was extreme, of course, and nobody but him has really advocated that. But the idea is, these agencies are supposed to specialize in their areas and advise the President according to what they believe, based on their experience and knowledge. They are NOT supposed to be mindless arms of the President's will, supporting utterly his policies and doing so without question. When this happens, the President no longer gets the best information and advice. He or she should be making decisions based on the recommendations of his trusted advisors, not setting policy in spite of said advice. Eliminating the presence of people who question his decisions in the government is a frightening example of Bush trying more and more to become a tyrant, in control of everything with opposition from no-one. Replacing these people (many of whom are the best people for their jobs) with those who agree with his policy, regardless of what they are, is a disturbing policy. Truly scary. And I'd say this if it were Kerry or Bush doing this. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

11-14-2004, 11:10 PM	#11 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	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? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-15-2004, 07:42 AM	#14 (permalink)
aliali Insane Location: Missouri	By the way, it is not intelligence if you have some self-important under-deputy-assistant to the assistant director giving it away. If it's o.k. for leakers to spill what they want when they want, I want our tax dollars back.

11-15-2004, 07:56 AM	#16 (permalink)
runtuff Crazy	Something, anything, needs to be done with the CIA. This is long overdue. Their credibity continues to fall.

11-15-2004, 08:11 AM	#18 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	It's an open question for me. The crucial task of running Central Intelligence is paramount. I have questions about the performance of Porter Goss and I am interested in the current developments. I'm keeping an open mind on this one. __________________ create evolution

11-15-2004, 08:36 AM	#19 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there was an article in the ny times friday or saturday that accused the cia of having been actively working to undermine bush. i assume it was a press release to situate the article above. you would think that an institution like the cia would have an interest in maintaining a level of political pluralism internally, simply because political views often place blinders on information, stream how it is processed--and that different views would tend to impose different frames on the same material--so you might be able to get better interpretations of information that way. from the outside, however, this looks like the trial sequence in oedipus. we'll see how it plays out. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-15-2004, 08:38 AM	#20 (permalink)
teflonian Appreciative Location: Paradise	Eeek... I don't object to a cleaning of the CIA to improve its efficiency and plug a few holes. However, a hard target blanket search for "those soft leakers and liberal democrats", is quite a frightening way to put it. Liberal democrats aren't capable of performing in the CIA and thus should be removed based soley on their politics? If somebody has done something to show they aren't going to be loyal to the current administration, then kick them out... But a purge an opposing political party in a goverment agency? That is downright scary!!! What would be your (the supporters of this) reaction if Clinton had made a similar request with "conservative republicans" replacing "liberal democrats"?

11-15-2004, 09:26 AM	#23 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I too shall keep an open mind. I don't see anyone on TFP ever arguing that a shakeup was not in order. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

11-15-2004, 10:15 AM	#26 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Look guys, it's entirely impossible to go through the Company and get rid of every single Democrat in there, it's just not gonna happen. Like I said before, some of these guys were using the intelligence community as a way to influence the outcome of the election by bringing up the explosives. They're getting off light, they should be getting jail-time, what they did was highly illegal. What Porter Goss is doing is going through and getting rid of basically, the Cold Warriors who are used to the predictability of Russian actions. They're going to be bringing in a mass amount of younger people that think completely different from the current higher ups so they can adapt quickly to the less than predictable terrorist actions. This is by no means a purge of all Democrats in the Company, this is a purge of unimaginative thinking. The Company no longer recruits at Harvard, Yale, etc. They recruit from George Mason, UVA, Virginia Tech, and the like, and they want to get these people in there to get them crunching on the problems that need crunching on. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

11-15-2004, 11:58 AM	#29 (permalink)
prb Psycho	This is scary. I doubt that the article was slanted. It probably is true that "liberal democrats" are being targeted in the CIA and being told to leave. There have been many damaging leaks from the CIA over the last couple of years -- damaging to the present administration, not to the country. The leakers have disclosed a rush to war over little in the way of evidence that Iraq posed an imminent threat; disclosed mismanagement in the conduct of the war itself; and disclosed failings in our war on terror. It is typical for this administration to attack the ones who leak information instead of considering solutions or reconsidering policy in light of any disclosed failings. For instance: Valerie Plame, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neal, General Shinseky (spelling?), etc. The leaks are coming out of the CIA for a reason. And I don't think it has anything really to do wth partisan politics. The CIA is upset with Bush for sifting through prewar intelligence and deciding what it liked and what it didn't like -- and only using info it liked. Then, when things went wrong, the CIA was made the scapegoat for giving Bush bad intelligence. The leakers may well be motivated by patriotism and a desire to see the truth emerge. Bush is motivated by revenge and a desire to see the truth kept under wraps. If the CIA is made a partisan arm of the White House, dedicated to secrecy and protection of the President -- moreso than the country -- Lord, save us.

11-15-2004, 01:06 PM	#31 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	I think the problem was partisan backstabbing. It's not unreasonable for Bush to want to "put out to pasture" the people who are leaking fraudulent or half true stories to the media in an effort to damage Bush's presidency. They haven't been behaving in a non-partisan manner, and they are supposed to be non-partisan. They deserve to be shitcanned.

11-20-2004, 05:07 AM	#32 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	Why is telling the truth seen to be partisan? Do you therefore believe that Democrats inherently tell the truth while Republicans lie? Bush's accountability grows less and less every day.

11-20-2004, 07:57 PM	#35 (permalink)
D Rice Tilted	i don't see why this is a big deal. Seaver got it right. If someone leaks information that is bad news. Maybe i am completly ignorant, but what does the gov't have to gain by screwing us.

11-22-2004, 02:09 AM	#36 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	If the government is misleading the public, shouldn't something be done about it? If the people who know the truth say nothing while the government spins us a lie, why shouldn't they say something? Surely the "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing" line that was used by some to justify the war applies here too?

11-22-2004, 08:42 AM	#38 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	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. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

11-22-2004, 09:02 AM	#39 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	The CIA is supposed to be non-partisan. It was the partisan actions by those that wanted to see W out that got fired. And of course the headline of the article is going to say the CIA is being purged of liberal democrats. 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.

11-22-2004, 06:01 PM	#40 (permalink)
Jizz-Fritter Crazy Location: Bowling Green, KY	The CIA is an idealogical institution, therefore it is by nature incompetent. I can see these leaks as going both ways: either competent intelligence gatherers who are disturbed by the ideological sanitation, or incompetent intelligence gatherers who are avoiding the shuffle to the plank. Or maybe a mixture of both, hell, it's almost Thanksgiving! 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. __________________ "Principle is okay up to a certain point, but principle doesn't do any good if you lose." Dick Cheney Last edited by Jizz-Fritter; 11-22-2004 at 06:05 PM..