White House orders CIA to eliminate 'disloyal' officers

[Sam Or I]

I saw an interview with McCain which touched on this.

He literally labeled the CIA a rouge agency. He was pointing the finger at the CIA for the Weapons of Mass Destruction fiasco, for the faulty information, which is one of the main reasons it would be restructured.

[Joe]

Incidentally, Clinton did this too when he was President. Not that I'm saying that automatically make it right, just that Bushitler isn't the first guy to dick with the CIA for political reasons.

[Darth Wong]

The Bush Administration has no choice but to punish the CIA. It blamed the CIA for its own lies about the reason for going into Iraq, so now it has to carry through and punish it for that perceived incompetence. Much better to do that than admit any guilt on its own. The buck stops there, not here.

[Joe]

Actually, Woodward has Tenet reassuring the Bush administration that the case for war based on WMD was a "slam dunk."

[Durandal]

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.

You now have evidence that directly contradicts what the article says?

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.

So it's "minorly unfair" to be fired because of your political views, regardless of whether or not you have actually done anything wrong? Oh that's right. Because other administrations have done it, that excuses this one. I completely forgot about Stormbringer's Rules of Debate, yet again. Silly me.

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.

So if it's a housecleaning of people of the opposing party of people who have undercut the president, then it's okay. Fine. But that's something that should be going on anyway. What the hell does "opposing party" have to do with anything? People leaking information should be fired, regardless of political affiliation. The kicker here is that apparently all CIA employees who are liberals or Democrats are being targeted.

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.

So you have no problems with simply assuming that, because one senior appointee is of opposite political affiliation, he must be the leak? Regardless of whether you have any evidence? You must have an extremely interesting definition of "perfectly reasonable."

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

Oh, so I call every action that the Bush administration takes "fascist"? I'm glad you have such an accurate memory.

I get it. Because I might have said that some of the Bush administration's actions were fascist in the past, I must be implying that I have some paranoid liberal delusion about the nation becoming a fascist dictatorship every time I do so.

Why don't you just admit that you were wrong? You're going to great lengths to try associating me with paranoid liberals, and you're only making yourself look foolish in the process. I'll let you in on something. If I really think that the nation is becoming a fascist state, I'll fucking say so.

[Stormbringer]

You now have evidence that directly contradicts what the article says?

Tsk, tsk. Nice to see you asking for proof of a negative. It's not up to me to prove that it's not happening, it's up to you to prove it's happening.

So it's "minorly unfair" to be fired because of your political views, regardless of whether or not you have actually done anything wrong? Oh that's right. Because other administrations have done it, that excuses this one. I completely forgot about Stormbringer's Rules of Debate, yet again. Silly me.

When you get the job because of the person in power's politics, you have every reason to believe it'll be gone when the office changes hands. Sorry, but despite your bleating about it that's how the game works and how it's done for a century and half. But hey, let's just go with the Durandal Double Standard instead.

So if it's a housecleaning of people of the opposing party of people who have undercut the president, then it's okay. Fine.

Glad we agree on something.

But that's something that should be going on anyway. What the hell does "opposing party" have to do with anything? People leaking information should be fired, regardless of political affiliation.

And exactly who the hell else is it that's going to be doing the undercutting? It makes no sense at all to assume the ones agreeing with him would be trying to discredit him and you damn well know it.

The kicker here is that apparently all CIA employees who are liberals or Democrats are being targeted.

Yet the only one that's lost his job over it was a senior Democratic appointee. I'm sure this is just some brilliant cover for a Stalinist purge that's sent thousands to the gulags.

So you have no problems with simply assuming that, because one senior appointee is of opposite political affiliation, he must be the leak? Regardless of whether you have any evidence? You must have an extremely interesting definition of "perfectly reasonable."

No, I'm saying that's it's utterly moronic to think the guys that support you are going to try and undercut you. So yes, I think looking at the opposition first makes a tremendous amount of sense.

Oh, so I call every action that the Bush administration takes "fascist"? I'm glad you have such an accurate memory.

I get it. Because I might have said that some of the Bush administration's actions were fascist in the past, I must be implying that I have some paranoid liberal delusion about the nation becoming a fascist dictatorship every time I do so.

Why don't you just admit that you were wrong? You're going to great lengths to try associating me with paranoid liberals, and you're only making yourself look foolish in the process.

Sorry, but when you start calling the standard procedure of the US government facist simply because it's Bush doing it, I do have to think you're utterly hysterical and deluded. I'm associating you with the paranoid liberals because you've shown yourself to be one of them. I don't care that you don't class yourself as one, no one's crazy in their own mind. But the fact is that by any realistic standard you are part of the hysterics.

I'll let you in on something. If I really think that the nation is becoming a fascist state, I'll fucking say so.

I don't think you would. It's a lot easier to spot the hysterics when labeling the whole of the US facist as oppossed to calling individuals facism.

[Durandal]

Tsk, tsk. Nice to see you asking for proof of a negative. It's not up to me to prove that it's not happening, it's up to you to prove it's happening.

I don't have to prove shit. I'm arguing on the hypothetical basis that the article is true, and you've been trying to perform a balancing act between arguing against the article's veracity and arguing that you wouldn't give a shit even if it was true. And then you claimed that by all indications, it's not happening. If it's not, then my argument doesn't apply. What is so difficult to grasp here?

When you get the job because of the person in power's politics, you have every reason to believe it'll be gone when the office changes hands. Sorry, but despite your bleating about it that's how the game works and how it's done for a century and half. But hey, let's just go with the Durandal Double Standard instead.

What "double standard," you fucking moron? I said it was wrong, period. But because that's how it's apparently been done for 150 years ... I'm guilty of employing a double-standard? Why? Because I can't build a time machine to go back and change things?

And exactly who the hell else is it that's going to be doing the undercutting? It makes no sense at all to assume the ones agreeing with him would be trying to discredit him and you damn well know it.

I love how you assume that everyone in the CIA is either 100% supportive of Bush or so opposed to him that they are reasonably capable of betraying their oaths as government workers and leaking information to subvert the administration.

Yet the only one that's lost his job over it was a senior Democratic appointee. I'm sure this is just some brilliant cover for a Stalinist purge that's sent thousands to the gulags.

The article says that the purge was being initiated a few days ago. What the fuck do you expect? They'll identify all the targets over the god damn weekend?

No, I'm saying that's it's utterly moronic to think the guys that support you are going to try and undercut you. So yes, I think looking at the opposition first makes a tremendous amount of sense.

False dilemma fallacy.

Sorry, but when you start calling the standard procedure of the US government facist simply because it's Bush doing it, I do have to think you're utterly hysterical and deluded. I'm associating you with the paranoid liberals because you've shown yourself to be one of them. I don't care that you don't class yourself as one, no one's crazy in their own mind. But the fact is that by any realistic standard you are part of the hysterics.

What a load of crap. I said that demanding loyalty to the man holding the office rather than to the office itself was a step in the direction of fascism, which is true. And judging by what this article says, that's exactly what's going on. If there is indeed an agency-wide purge of any liberals, then it goes far beyond what commonly happens with office appointments when a president takes a new term.

If it's a few top-level positions being vacated to make room for more friendly people, then it's not surprising, but still wrong to accuse the person you're ousting from that position of violating his oath to serve the government.

I don't think you would. It's a lot easier to spot the hysterics when labeling the whole of the US facist as oppossed to calling individuals facism.

Oh give me a fucking break, you sniveling little shit. Your inability to see any levels between black and white is not my problem. It's a lot easier for you to just whine about how I say that "virtually everything" the administration does is fascist without producing a shred of proof to back up that ridiculous claim than to actually consider that maybe I judge each action individually.

[Stormbringer]

I don't have to prove shit.

How very third grade of you.

I'm arguing on the hypothetical basis that the article is true, and you've been trying to perform a balancing act between arguing against the article's veracity and arguing that you wouldn't give a shit even if it was true. And then you claimed that by all indications, it's not happening. If it's not, then my argument doesn't apply. What is so difficult to grasp here?

If you're not going to bother with proving anything and instead going to worry about purely hypotheticals then don't bother with the logical fallacies of proving a negative and simply stick the hypothetical.

What "double standard," you fucking moron? I said it was wrong, period. But because that's how it's apparently been done for 150 years ... I'm guilty of employing a double-standard? Why? Because I can't build a time machine to go back and change things?

I think it's a double standard to start screaming about one of the basic tenents of American politics is now suddenly facist, oops, I mean a step in the facist direction. Officials get removed because of it all the time and nothing has come of it and you damn well know that.

I love how you assume that everyone in the CIA is either 100% supportive of Bush or so opposed to him that they are reasonably capable of betraying their oaths as government workers and leaking information to subvert the administration.

I don't think it's black and white despite your attempt to put the words in my mouth; there are certainly those that do their job regardless of politics. But the fact remains that CIA employees have leaked information and have been playing political games to try and embarrass President Bush. By no logic worth the name is there a reason for Bush supporters to be that leak, hence it's entirely logical to assume the leak orginated with a Democrat.

The article says that the purge was being initiated a few days ago. What the fuck do you expect? They'll identify all the targets over the god damn weekend?

I don't actually expect any such draconian purge. That one hasn't manifested at all doesn't exactly bolster the questionable claims of this unnamed, unidentifiable source.

False dilemma fallacy.

Ah yes, if you can't argue the point call it a fallacy and move on. You know damn well that there's no good reason for a Bush supporter to discredit Bush so you just try ignore the point.

What a load of crap. I said that demanding loyalty to the man holding the office rather than to the office itself was a step in the direction of fascism, which is true.

A difference largely of a meaningless semantics; the effective difference between the man and the office is virtually nil when it comes to doing one's job. Either you do your job properly or you don't.

And judging by what this article says, that's exactly what's going on. If there is indeed an agency-wide purge of any liberals, then it goes far beyond what commonly happens with office appointments when a president takes a new term.

So far there has been no agency wide purge of liberals. There have been all of two people leaving, one more than likely simply retiring.

Right now Bush's credibility hinges greatly on what the CIA has to say. And yes, actually this sort of thing happens regularly enough. It's with in the purveiw of the President and CIA director to replace people and it has been done. Bush absolutely has to have a CIA that's not playing partisan politics. The removal of this official might well be a step towards that. It might not. after all.

Incidentally, Clinton did this too when he was President. Not that I'm saying that automatically make it right, just that Bushitler isn't the first guy to dick with the CIA for political reasons.

If it's a few top-level positions being vacated to make room for more friendly people, then it's not surprising, but still wrong to accuse the person you're ousting from that position of violating his oath to serve the government.

They haven't said that, that's motivation that's be subcribed to it. It might well be they had reason to believe he was a soft leak and that he was playing politics with the job. But they didn't so holding that against them is rather silly.

Oh give me a fucking break, you sniveling little shit. Your inability to see any levels between black and white is not my problem.

Then tell me, what the hell is the difference?

[Durandal]

All right Stormbringer, time to cut the crap. Just answer a simple question.

If Bush is indeed instituting a blanket purge of all liberals from the CIA at all levels, do you believe this to be a justifiable action based on the now outlawed spoils system? If not, do you believe it incorrect to say that this action is fascist?