White House orders CIA to eliminate 'disloyal' officers

[Symmetry]

Wheres Pluralisim, one of America's ideals to allow dissenting opinions?

Dissenting opinions are fine, but officials in the military, other buerocratic officials, or federal judges aren't supposed to take side in presidential elections because it casts doubts on their ability to serve honestly if the other guy wins. You have to wonder why people in the CIA hates Bush if they think they have to sink that far to get rid of him, but he is clearly within precedent in getting rid of them.

Hopefully that was a misquote from the withe house, but it would not supprice me if they wish to fire all liberal democrats.

That wasn't a White House quote, that was an unsources quote. Judgeing by the tone, I'm guessing it was someone in the CIA.

[Stormbringer]

Wheres Pluralisim, one of America's ideals to allow dissenting opinions?

Dissenting opinions are fine, but officials in the military, other buerocratic officials, or federal judges aren't supposed to take side in presidential elections because it casts doubts on their ability to serve honestly if the other guy wins. You have to wonder why people in the CIA hates Bush if they think they have to sink that far to get rid of him, but he is clearly within precedent in getting rid of them.

The biggest reason I think, is the usually petty politics. Leaks, for or against things, are unfortunately common with the CIA and doesn't take too much.

[White Haven]

Much as I'm anti-Shrub, I have to say that, provisionally, I agree with this. No, what's been leaked so far hasn't been damaging, but /given the organization/ that chance can't be run. Were this, say, FDA leakers or something silly like that, sure, I'd beat Bush upside the head with a whiffle-ball bat or some such, but the CIA, NSA, FBI, etcetera all have a good deal of information that can be potentially very harmful to more than just the current administration if released.

Now, I said 'provisionally,' because if this turns into a preemptive strike against anyone the Bush Administration thinks might be prone to leak, well, we've got problems. Witchhunt bad.

[Durandal]

This is a witch-hunt for anyone who's been leaking information plus people who have shown "disloyalty" to Bush. No one is ever required to be loyal to the president the man. They are loyal to the office. When you start demanding loyalty to the person holding the office and the ideologies he espouses, you take one more step in the direction of fascism.

[Joe]

This is a witch-hunt for anyone who's been leaking information plus people who have shown "disloyalty" to Bush. No one is ever required to be loyal to the president the man. They are loyal to the office. When you start demanding loyalty to the person holding the office and the ideologies he espouses, you take one more step in the direction of fascism.

Then we should have arrived at fascism around 1850. The spoils system has been around in American politics since Jackson.

[Durandal]

This is a witch-hunt for anyone who's been leaking information plus people who have shown "disloyalty" to Bush. No one is ever required to be loyal to the president the man. They are loyal to the office. When you start demanding loyalty to the person holding the office and the ideologies he espouses, you take one more step in the direction of fascism.

Then we should have arrived at fascism around 1850. The spoils system has been around in American politics since Jackson.

Don't be ridiculous. The spoils system deals with political office appointments, not fucking intelligence agents.

EDIT: And the spoils system has not "been around." It was canned by the Civil Service Act of 1883. It is now unlawful to fill offices under the spoils system.

Oh but do feel free to keep pooh-poohing the concerns of all those whiny liberals.

[Stormbringer]

This is a witch-hunt for anyone who's been leaking information plus people who have shown "disloyalty" to Bush. No one is ever required to be loyal to the president the man. They are loyal to the office.

Any evidence that this is a blanket purge of Democrats? As to those let go if you're doing stuff to undercut the President, even if it's not illegal leaking of information, that crosses a line. Sure you're not supposed to be loyal to the man, however that doesn't mean you get to freely undercut the man holding the office. They're supposed to do their job, not play politics after all.

When you start demanding loyalty to the person holding the office and the ideologies he espouses, you take one more step in the direction of fascism.

Sure, Durandal, sure. Because no President has ever had the never to fire employees that are undercutting him.

[Durandal]

Any evidence that this is a blanket purge of Democrats?

Well I guess I foolishly assumed that you had the reading comprehension skills of a third-grader.

"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."

They have thrown all liberals in as "people who have been obstructing the president's agenda."

As to those let go if you're doing stuff to undercut the President, even if it's not illegal leaking of information, that crosses a line. Sure you're not supposed to be loyal to the man, however that doesn't mean you get to freely undercut the man holding the office. They're supposed to do their job, not play politics after all.

Hey moron, according to the article, they're going to purge "those liberal Democrats." Do you not see a problem with assuming that anyone who holds opposing ideologies to the president must be actively subverting his agenda?

Sure, Durandal, sure. Because no President has ever had the never to fire employees that are undercutting him.

Oh that's right! Precedent makes everything A-OK! And the fact that I didn't criticized every president in this post who's ever done something similar invalidates this criticism. I forgot all about Stormbringer's Rules of Debating. How foolish of me.

Jesus, would you pour some dried oatmeal into your head so you could at least get a decent facsimile of a brain in that hollow cavity of yours? What do you want me to do? Every time I criticize Bush's actions, search on Google for an hour or two, finding every previous president who ever did something similar and then criticize them too, in the same post? Or have a disclaimer reading, "I apply these same criticisms to any president who may have done something similar" at the end of each post?

[Beowulf]

Lemme get this straight... This story is told by a reporter, who heard it from an unnamed source, who heard it from somewhere else. And of course, there's no chance the the original source was somebody that was going to get canned for being a leak in the first place, and decided to add in spice.

[Joe]

The spoils system deals with political office appointments, not fucking intelligence agents.

It deals with all government jobs that are politically important, and high-level intelligence jobs fit that qualification.

EDIT: And the spoils system has not "been around." It was canned by the Civil Service Act of 1883. It is now unlawful to fill offices under the spoils system.

Generally you have to show that your appointees are qualified to fill the position they're being appointed too, but you're deluding yourself if you think no government jobs are awarded or taken away on the basis of political concerns rather than merit.

Oh but do feel free to keep pooh-poohing the concerns of all those whiny liberals.

As long as your concerns include "BUSHITLER WILL LED US TO TEH FACISM OMIGOD!!!!!" I will.

[Durandal]

Lemme get this straight... This story is told by a reporter, who heard it from an unnamed source, who heard it from somewhere else. And of course, there's no chance the the original source was somebody that was going to get canned for being a leak in the first place, and decided to add in spice.

Ah, so you'll accept the article's claim that there is a purge going on, but you won't accept the claim that the purge is targeted at liberals in the CIA even though such an action would be perfectly within the bounds of plausibility for this administration because ... you don't like it? Utterly astounding reasoning, that. Explain again how sheep's bladders can be employed to prevent earthquakes.

[Stormbringer]

Any evidence that this is a blanket purge of Democrats?

Well I guess I foolishly assumed that you had the reading comprehension skills of a third-grader.

"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."

They have thrown all liberals in as "people who have been obstructing the president's agenda."

Yeah, because an unnamed sources that doesn't even work there is such a reliable indicator of what the administration is going to do.

As to those let go if you're doing stuff to undercut the President, even if it's not illegal leaking of information, that crosses a line. Sure you're not supposed to be loyal to the man, however that doesn't mean you get to freely undercut the man holding the office. They're supposed to do their job, not play politics after all.

Hey moron, according to the article, they're going to purge "those liberal Democrats." Do you not see a problem with assuming that anyone who holds opposing ideologies to the president must be actively subverting his agenda?

Once again according that same unamed source, not entirely convincing. And frankly, given that the more credible parts talk about the people leaking confidential information leads me to believe that these people have been working against the President; do you really think they picked out these "liberal democrats" for no reason?

Sure, Durandal, sure. Because no President has ever had the never to fire employees that are undercutting him.

Oh that's right! Precedent makes everything A-OK!

Okay? Maybe not. Sign of Furher Bush's impending takeover? No. Standard MO for a President? Yes. I'm never said this is okay, but I'm sick of your idiotic hysterics every time Bush does something the slightest bit mean. Politics isn't always nice and I'm getting of you screwing "The Facists are coming, the Facists are coming" every time you're reminded of it. This is nothing new and only in the mind of the Hysterical Left is it a sign of any but business as usual.

[Durandal]

Yeah, because an unnamed sources that doesn't even work there is such a reliable indicator of what the administration is going to do.

Hey retard, you already accepted the claim that a purge was going on on the basis of what the unnamed source in article said. Any particular reason you're going to pick and choose what you want to pick and choose here? The article says absolutely nothing that would be completely uncharacteristic for this administration. Either you argue that the article is not credible or you pooh-pooh its implications. Please choose one and stick with it.

Once again according that same unamed source, not entirely convincing. And frankly, given that the more credible parts talk about the people leaking confidential information leads me to believe that these people have been working against the President; do you really think they picked out these "liberal democrats" for no reason?

So when you can't argue your position, you attack the thing we're arguing about. I don't know if the source is true or false, but I can't say that its claims are out of the bounds of plausibility for this administration's behavior. If you don't accept the validity of the article, then say so before you start blasting me about extrapolating on its implications.

Okay? Maybe not. Sign of Furher Bush's impending takeover? No. Standard MO for a President? Yes. I'm never said this is okay, but I'm sick of your idiotic hysterics every time Bush does something the slightest bit mean. Politics isn't always nice and I'm getting of you screwing "The Facists are coming, the Facists are coming" every time you're reminded of it. This is nothing new and only in the mind of the Hysterical Left is it a sign of any but business as usual.

No, dipshit, I said that such an action is taking a step in the direction of fascism. Is there something inaccurate about this statement? I never said that the nation was starting down on some slippery slope into a fascist dictatorship, but go ahead and keep fucking that strawman of yours.

Oh but of course, you're incapable of distinguishing between someone calling a single action of the administration fascist and someone claiming that the nation is going to be Nazi Germany in a decade or so. I guess I forgot that other rule of Stormbringer's Rules of Debate: There is only black and white.

And yet again, you can't decide whether you want to accept what the article says and argue that it's "standard MO for a president" or to simply dismiss the article as a valid source. There are two different argument going on here. You're losing the former and presenting the latter as a rebuttal.

[Beowulf]

Lemme get this straight... This story is told by a reporter, who heard it from an unnamed source, who heard it from somewhere else. And of course, there's no chance the the original source was somebody that was going to get canned for being a leak in the first place, and decided to add in spice.

Ah, so you'll accept the article's claim that there is a purge going on, but you won't accept the claim that the purge is targeted at liberals in the CIA even though such an action would be perfectly within the bounds of plausibility for this administration because ... you don't like it? Utterly astounding reasoning, that. Explain again how sheep's bladders can be employed to prevent earthquakes.

The above was made with the assumption that there was a purge. If there isn't, the entire article is not worth discussing.

[Durandal]

Lemme get this straight... This story is told by a reporter, who heard it from an unnamed source, who heard it from somewhere else. And of course, there's no chance the the original source was somebody that was going to get canned for being a leak in the first place, and decided to add in spice.

Ah, so you'll accept the article's claim that there is a purge going on, but you won't accept the claim that the purge is targeted at liberals in the CIA even though such an action would be perfectly within the bounds of plausibility for this administration because ... you don't like it? Utterly astounding reasoning, that. Explain again how sheep's bladders can be employed to prevent earthquakes.

The above was made with the assumption that there was a purge. If there isn't, the entire article is not worth discussing.

Exactly correct. If you're assuming that there is a purge based on what the article says (because a "purge" of agents leaking information would not be uncharacteristic for any administration), then you'll have to accept that there is a purge of liberals, as well, because such an action is not uncharacteristic for this administration, or any administration, according to Joe and Stormbringer.

Oh look, Joe posted a response. I must've missed it.

It deals with all government jobs that are politically important, and high-level intelligence jobs fit that qualification.

So intelligence agents are "high-level intelligence jobs"? Are you fucking retarded? Read the god damn article. This is supposedly an agency-wide purge, meaning "at all levels."

Generally you have to show that your appointees are qualified to fill the position they're being appointed too, but you're deluding yourself if you think no government jobs are awarded or taken away on the basis of political concerns rather than merit.

So I point out that your "It's okay because the spoils system says so" argument is bullshit because the spoils system is now illegal, and you retort by saying, "Duh, all government jobs are based on political concern"? Can you not distinguish between realities and ethical judgments of those realities?

As long as your concerns include "BUSHITLER WILL LED US TO TEH FACISM OMIGOD!!!!!" I will.

Ah, you must subscribe to the Stormbringer Rules of Debate, where any criticism of an action of the administration as being "fascist" must automatically imply that the person making the claim believes the nation will become a fascist state.

[Stormbringer]

Hey retard, you already accepted the claim that a purge was going on on the basis of what the unnamed source in article said. Any particular reason you're going to pick and choose what you want to pick and choose here?

Yeah, because it's impossible for me to believe that the extent and purpose of the house cleaning is being exagerated? The fact that people have been departing is proof enough that there's a house cleaning. That's backed up by actually events; the problem I have is with the rather extreme spin that's being put in this by this unnamed source (and of course the inherent lack of credibility for connected unnamed source).

No, dipshit, I said that such an action is taking a step in the direction of fascism. Is there something inaccurate about this statement?

Yes, it is inaccurate. Replacing top officials with your own people is a common thing, as Joe said it runs back to Jackson. If that was a step in the direction of facism we ought to have been goose steeping a century ago. You can argue all you want about whether it's happening, whether it's fair, and whether Bush is a meany. But it most definitely is not a step in the direction of facism.

[Stormbringer]

Ah, you must subscribe to the Stormbringer Rules of Debate, where any criticism of an action of the administration as being "fascist" must automatically imply that the person making the claim believes the nation will become a fascist state.

When you keep calling the adminstration and it's action facist you'll pardon me if I can't help but think it's purely a bunch of meaningless semantics.

[Durandal]

Hey retard, you already accepted the claim that a purge was going on on the basis of what the unnamed source in article said. Any particular reason you're going to pick and choose what you want to pick and choose here?

Yeah, because it's impossible for me to believe that the extent and purpose of the house cleaning is being exagerated?

On what basis? Because you say so?

The fact that people have been departing is proof enough that there's a house cleaning. That's backed up by actually events; the problem I have is with the rather extreme spin that's being put in this by this unnamed source (and of course the inherent lack of credibility for connected unnamed source).

Please choose an argument. Are you going to argue that it's okay to purge all liberals from the CIA, or are you going to argue that the article is exaggerating?

Yes, it is inaccurate. Replacing top officials with your own people is a common thing, as Joe said it runs back to Jackson. If that was a step in the direction of facism we ought to have been goose steeping a century ago. You can argue all you want about whether it's happening, whether it's fair, and whether Bush is a meany. But it most definitely is not a step in the direction of facism.

Except that the article makes the implication that all liberal Democrats in the CIA are working to subvert the president's agenda. This kind of paranoid attitude toward the opposition is what makes it fascist. "Because they don't agree with us, they must be working against us." Sound familiar?

[Durandal]

Ah, you must subscribe to the Stormbringer Rules of Debate, where any criticism of an action of the administration as being "fascist" must automatically imply that the person making the claim believes the nation will become a fascist state.

When you keep calling the adminstration and it's action facist you'll pardon me if I can't help but think it's purely a bunch of meaningless semantics.

No it's not, ass-clown. When right-wingers argue against socialized healthcare, no one accuses them of making wild-eyed claims about the nation becoming a communist dictatorship, do they?

[Stormbringer]

On what basis? Because you say so?

No, because they just barely stop short of saying "Bush is sending all the liberals to the concentration camps." Of course to you that's probably not hysterics. Sorry, but I have a very hard time trusting the word an unamed source in an such a partisan article.

Please choose an argument. Are you going to argue that it's okay to purge all liberals from the CIA, or are you going to argue that the article is exaggerating?

I'm saying I think the article is exagerating the nature of the house cleaning. But if there is a purge, well it might not be right but it's politics as usual and it's been done for most of the country's history.

Except that the article makes the implication that all liberal Democrats in the CIA are working to subvert the president's agenda,

Hightlighted the key words for you in that sentence. As I've said I'm not inclined to take the articles word for much.

This kind of paranoid attitude toward the opposition is what makes it fascist. "Because they don't agree with us, they must be working against us." Sound familiar?

Dude, do you realize how retarded that is? It's paranoia to the point of facism to suspect the other side of working against you? That's sad, really sad. By that light every President since Jackson has engaged in facism; because they are your people not the other guy is the one of the key points of the spoils system.

No it's not, ass-clown. When right-wingers argue against socialized healthcare, no one accuses them of making wild-eyed claims about the nation becoming a communist dictatorship, do they?

Actually, I seem to recall that being done a time or two, here if no where else. Then again the left is just asleep at the wheel as often as not. Because one side get's away with it doesn't make it right or their hysterics true.

PS: should I take it as a tacit admission that this republicans=facist is the same sort of baseless slander?

[Durandal]

No, because they just barely stop short of saying "Bush is sending all the liberals to the concentration camps." Of course to you that's probably not hysterics. Sorry, but I have a very hard time trusting the word an unamed source in an such a partisan article.

What a load of crap. Firing people and placing them in concentration camps are totally separate activities. Just because you see these implications in all that liberals say doesn't make them so.

I'm saying I think the article is exagerating the nature of the house cleaning. But if there is a purge, well it might not be right but it's politics as usual and it's been done for most of the country's history.

So what? You agree with me now?

Hightlighted the key words for you in that sentence. As I've said I'm not inclined to take the articles word for much.

PICK A GOD DAMN FUCKING ARGUMENT. You acknowledge that such a purge is not right. That's all I care about, in case you noticed. It remains to be seen whether or not the purge is as extensive as the source makes it out to be.

Dude, do you realize how retarded that is? It's paranoia to the point of facism to suspect the other side of working against you? That's sad, really sad. By that light every President since Jackson has engaged in facism; because they are your people not the other guy is the one of the key points of the spoils system.

Yeah, but accusing all liberals in the CIA of leaking information and actively conspiring against the president of the United States is just a tad bit different.

Actually, I seem to recall that being done a time or two, here if no where else. Then again the left is just asleep at the wheel as often as not. Because one side get's away with it doesn't make it right or their hysterics true.

Neither side should get away with it. That's the fucking point. It's a slippery slope fallacy to imply that the Bush administration taking a fascist action must lead to a fascist state, which is why I never said that.

[Durandal]

All right, I'm taking a break. I've got about 3 different arguments which I'm extremely pissed off about going on right now. I'll be back in the morning.

[Imperial Overlord]

Anyone want to bet on how high a priority searching for people who leake to Robert Novak is going to be?

[Stormbringer]

What a load of crap. Firing people and placing them in concentration camps are totally separate activities. Just because you see these implications in all that liberals say doesn't make them so.

Well duh, it's good to see you can still recognize hyperbole.

However the as fgalkin illustrated, the article deliberately uses highly loaded language and a setup deliberately crafted to suggest a massive, unjust purge of all liberal Democrats from the CIA. If you bother paying attention to anything beyond that you'll note that it's not happening.

So what? You agree with me now?

No. I don't think there's a purge. I don't think it's a "step toward facism." At most it's minorly unfair provided he didn't leak information.

PICK A GOD DAMN FUCKING ARGUMENT.

Fine:

Point 1) I do not think based on this evidence President Bush is out to purge all the liberal Democrats in CIA employ. I know he replaced an official, who was pressured to resign, with one of his own. It might be a part of a largely plan to clamp down on loose lips at the CIA or it might just be a isolated thing.

Point 2) The replacement might not be entirely fair. But it's a standard routine for more than a century and a half and comprises nothing new or noteworthy.

Point 3) If it is part of a large housecleaning of people (of the opposing party) that have undercut the President I fully support it. They have a job to do and it's not to play politics.

Yeah, but accusing all liberals in the CIA of leaking information and actively conspiring against the president of the United States is just a tad bit different.

When the Bush administration does that accusation, then I might worry. All we've got is an anonymous source of dubious value given to us second hand.

Right now all I see them, replacing one of the senior Democratic appointees over that and another that's a best a "maybe, but probably not." I'm sorry but connecting the senior appointees of other side with damaging leaks doesn't seem at all sinister to me, it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable connection. As for showing old appointees the door, it's a pretty standard procedure.

Neither side should get away with it. That's the fucking point. It's a slippery slope fallacy to imply that the Bush administration taking a fascist action must lead to a fascist state, which is why I never said that.

I fail to see the difference between your facist state and your calling virtually every action of the Bush administation facist.

[Stormbringer]

Anyone want to bet on how high a priority searching for people who leake to Robert Novak is going to be?

Not nearly as high as it should be, if at all. Too bad the Democrats didn't manage to get a Special Prosecutor/Special Investigator/Special Counsel appointed. It would have been nice to see a Ken Starr-clone sicced on Bush.