hmmmm.....

[noodle]

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

Originally Posted by the article

"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."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/13/cia....ap/index.html

gg political freedoms

[Westley]

scaaaaary.

[Epee_Pox]

What's so scary? They are employees of the Executive branch, whose job is to carry out the orders of the President, and they're not supposed to leak sensitive info. If they can't follow that, they need to be replaced at the very least.

And everyone agrees the CIA needs fixing as per the 9/11 commission. So they're doing what the commission recommended, and the entrenched bureaucrats are getting pissy because they're going to have to make changes.

Don't see what is scary here, or what is inhibitive of "political freedom."

[noodle]

not the soft leaks.

what is scary is they're getting rid of liberal democrats who don't soft leak because they're political standpoint goes against the white house's current direction.

[Soldier]

Need to get rid of leakers anyway. That all of these people were liberal Democrats is the opinion of one man. Can we see some proof? Maybe some numbers?

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Need to get rid of leakers anyway. That all of these people were liberal Democrats is the opinion of one man. Can we see some proof? Maybe some numbers?

article does not say that all leakers are liberal democrats.
article says that the order from the top is to get rid of both leakers and liberal democrats.

[Soldier]

Doesn't it sound a bit different when you read:

"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."

I see absolutely nothing wrong with purging people who are not loyal to their Commander in Chief, or who have leaked damaging information. Who exactly put in the words aobut liberal democrats?

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Doesn't it sound a bit different when you read:

"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."

I see absolutely nothing wrong with purging people who are not loyal to their Commander in Chief, or who have leaked damaging information. Who exactly put in the words aobut liberal democrats?

"a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House."

could you see voting against the current commander in chief as being disloyal? after all, it is exercising your voice against his/her policies and an attempt to remove them from office.

[Soldier]

No, I wouldn't call that disloyalty.

Now show me where it says that's what they're basing "disloyal" on.

Ah, that former CIA Official Guy! His word is golden. It's definitely fact, no opinions included there...

[pkt]

[/b]whistle-blower protection legislations come in handy when situations like this occur.

May I remind Soldier of this quotation:

'First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing.
Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing.
Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist.
And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little.
Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.'
~ Pastor Martin Niemöller was a Protestant pastor, one of the pillars of moral resistance to the Nazis, who imprisoned him for four years in solitary confinement.

Now we can add to the list:
gays and lesbians.


Soldier, would i be correct to assume that you're a veteran? if you are, what do you think of some of the TV stations refusing fo broadcasting Saving Private Ryan on Veterans Day when ABC ahve broadcast it twice, uncut. The reason given was that the TV stations are afraid of the American Family Association and its affiliated groups OneMillionMoms.com and OneMillionDads.com will file complaints with the FCC.

Self censorship by the media is even more scary.

PK

[Faggot the Hutt]

Originally Posted by Soldier

I see absolutely nothing wrong with purging people who are not loyal to their Commander in Chief, or who have leaked damaging information. Who exactly put in the words aobut liberal democrats?

How quickly we as a people forget the facts. If you'd remember the content of the leaks that were made, you wouldn't be slaming "liberal" Democrats. Most of the CIA leaks (and you can research this) detailed how the President was briefed that there were no terrorists in Iraq, that invading Iraq would only promote terrorism in the region and that once we left Iraq the interim leader we brought to power would be assassinated and Iraq would fall into a civil war.

The President is purging the CIA because he wants people that are unquestioning and will do whatever he wants, inspite of the consequences or immorality of his orders.

Also, note the contradiction in the President's actions. Someone within the White House leaked information regarding a CIA agent who filed a report that recommended the US stay out of Iraq because there were no signs of WMD's, contrary to the White House's statements at that time. The reporter that broke the story won't reveal his source, and the White House has dragged its feet in supplying the Justice Department with information regarding the incident. The President wants information control so that whenever he does something stupid, he can say no one told him, when in fact, the opposite is true. If it hadn't been for those "liberal" Democrats, we would have never known the President had lied to the nation. You can look up some of the reports concerning the CIA morning briefings via the FOIA. They were very detailed on how everytime the CIA reported that there were no WMD's, President Bush would get upset and tell whomever had given the report not to come back until he found weapons.

Why is it someone is labeled a "liberal" Democrat in a negative connotation when they act against the improper actions of a conservative Republican? We need people who care about the country, not the political careers of the leaders that run it. Patriotism does not mean mindless obedience.

[Soldier]

No, I'm not yet a veteran.

Self-censorship by the media is somewhat bothersome, if completely understandable given the nature of a capitalist society.

Does your quotation have any point in this argument? You're trying to use the old slippery-slope argument, for which I'll refer you to Inq, who knows a lot more Latin than I do. But, it really has nothing to do with cleaning out the CIA.

[lochinvar]

Soldier is currently serving, not a veteran.

And what some call "self-censorship," others would call "being responsible"...

As for the alleged "purges", I am reminded of an anecdote told of Harry S Truman.

When asked at one press conference whether he agreed with a certain State Department position, Truman snapped, "The State Department doesn't have a position unless I agree with it."

The CIA is part of the Executive Branch, and the President is the boss of the Executive Branch. If the boss of a company believes that certain employees are undermining company policy or working against company objectives, the boss is justified in replacing those employees.

How, then, is government different than business?

[Soldier]

Thank you, Lochinvar. Though I'm a bit sketchy as to whether I'm actually serving yet.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Soldier

No, I wouldn't call that disloyalty.

Now show me where it says that's what they're basing "disloyal" on.

Ah, that former CIA Official Guy! His word is golden. It's definitely fact, no opinions included there...

ah, golden or otherwise, it is word. innocent until proven guilty? can you honestly say you know what goes on in the CIA in order to prove this statement incorrect? if it were true, would the white house honestly want you to know about it?

anyway, if it is true, i'm sure there will be a lot more information coming from the purged and we'll be in a big heap of extra special trouble. stalin purged his higher security officers in 1938, just in time to be helpless against hitler. just an observation that releasing agents is probably the last thing we want to do.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

How, then, is government different than business?

businesses are accountable to the government.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by noodle

ah, golden or otherwise, it is word. innocent until proven guilty? can you honestly say you know what goes on in the CIA in order to prove this statement incorrect? if it were true, would the white house honestly want you to know about it?

anyway, if it is true, i'm sure there will be a lot more information coming from the purged and we'll be in a big heap of extra special trouble. stalin purged his higher security officers in 1938, just in time to be helpless against hitler. just an observation that releasing agents is probably the last thing we want to do.

Make all the dire predictions you want.

This isn't about innocence or guilt; it's about how credible this unnamed source is. I notice he's a former official, which means he may well be rather bitter.

The point is that you really have nothing more than one guy's opinion that there are dark forces at work here, and not simply cleaning up what should be cleaned up.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Make all the dire predictions you want.

This isn't about innocence or guilt; it's about how credible this unnamed source is. I notice he's a former official, which means he may well be rather bitter.

The point is that you really have nothing more than one guy's opinion that there are dark forces at work here, and not simply cleaning up what should be cleaned up.

indeed, there isn't any other proof. and i'm not saying i believe it whole-heartedly. i'm simply saying it very well sounds like something i'd expect from our new president-elect, it is a known fact that there is some serious internal rumble going on in the CIA but the subject is unknown, and someone has said something about what the subject may be; someone credible enough or good enough at fooling people that it got somewhere in the news.

[CutLass]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

The CIA is part of the Executive Branch, and the President is the boss of the Executive Branch. If the boss of a company believes that certain employees are undermining company policy or working against company objectives, the boss is justified in replacing those employees.

How, then, is government different than business?

"....government of the people, by the people, for the people...."

Because our nation is not a business.

That's why our President is not our boss and why we have three branches of government (and a fourth in the media) to provide the independent checks and balances that ensure that the people of the nation are honestly represented, informed, and led.

[Epee_Pox]

But the President is the boss of the CIA, and can make up or shake up the agency as he sees fit (with caveats for employment law constraints).

Checks and balances have little or nothing to do with intra-branch workings such as this.

The business comparison is a mite inapposite, but so is your criticism of it.