CIA Purge

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

White House Orders Purge of CIA 'Liberals,' Sources Say

Agency officials believed to be disloyal to Bush are reportedly the targets

 

by Knut Royce

 

WASHINGTON - The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter J. Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President 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 until 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 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 whether 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."

 

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 Washington 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.

 

Source: Baltimore Sun

[NoCalMike 0]

Wow, what a Uniter!

[Vyce 0]

Quite frankly, if you have a CIA official who is, rather than doing their job of, you know, protecting the country from another 9/11, actively leaking information (which may or may not be confidential) to the press simply for political motivations, I'm not going to shed a single tear if said official kindly gets shown the door.

 

Or kicked in the ass on the way out.

[NoCalMike 0]

Quite frankly, if you have a CIA official who is, rather than doing their job of, you know, protecting the country from another 9/11, actively leaking information (which may or may not be confidential) to the press simply for political motivations, I'm not going to shed a single tear if said official kindly gets shown the door.

 

Or kicked in the ass on the way out.

Doesn't say anything about not doing their job though, except maybe providing evidence that the President's plan(s) or lack thereof suck.

[Guest MikeSC]

Quite frankly, if you have a CIA official who is, rather than doing their job of, you know, protecting the country from another 9/11, actively leaking information (which may or may not be confidential) to the press simply for political motivations, I'm not going to shed a single tear if said official kindly gets shown the door.

 

Or kicked in the ass on the way out.

Doesn't say anything about not doing their job though, except maybe providing evidence that the President's plan(s) or lack thereof suck.

It is rather well-known that the CIA has been leaking info throughout Bush's administration (I first heard the rumblings of Bush's people getting sick of it and basically cutting them out of the loop as much as possible late last year).

-=Mike

...The CIA is NOT on Bush's side at all. Ditto the State Dept...

[NoCalMike 0]

Quite frankly, if you have a CIA official who is, rather than doing their job of, you know, protecting the country from another 9/11, actively leaking information (which may or may not be confidential) to the press simply for political motivations, I'm not going to shed a single tear if said official kindly gets shown the door.

 

Or kicked in the ass on the way out.

Doesn't say anything about not doing their job though, except maybe providing evidence that the President's plan(s) or lack thereof suck.

It is rather well-known that the CIA has been leaking info throughout Bush's administration (I first heard the rumblings of Bush's people getting sick of it and basically cutting them out of the loop as much as possible late last year).

-=Mike

...The CIA is NOT on Bush's side at all. Ditto the State Dept...

Yes and I am sure it is because they are all evil liberals.

[Guest MikeSC]

Quite frankly, if you have a CIA official who is, rather than doing their job of, you know, protecting the country from another 9/11, actively leaking information (which may or may not be confidential) to the press simply for political motivations, I'm not going to shed a single tear if said official kindly gets shown the door.

 

Or kicked in the ass on the way out.

Doesn't say anything about not doing their job though, except maybe providing evidence that the President's plan(s) or lack thereof suck.

It is rather well-known that the CIA has been leaking info throughout Bush's administration (I first heard the rumblings of Bush's people getting sick of it and basically cutting them out of the loop as much as possible late last year).

-=Mike

...The CIA is NOT on Bush's side at all. Ditto the State Dept...

Yes and I am sure it is because they are all evil liberals.

They do tend to lean left, yes.

 

I know, shocking that a group the left loathes so is actually on their side.

-=Mike

...Hell, they have a right to purge solely due to the WMD thing...

[Guest Cerebus]

Wow, VERY interesting.

 

I have a lot to say about this...thus I will wait until after I get all the daily chores done to do so. (and by daily chores I mean playing my brand new version of CS: Source)

[Jobber of the Week 0]

-=Mike

...The CIA is NOT on Bush's side at all. Ditto the State Dept...

Aww, too bad. Maybe the CIA and State Dept have it right.

[Justice 0]

Quite frankly, if you have a CIA official who is, rather than doing their job of, you know, protecting the country from another 9/11, actively leaking information (which may or may not be confidential) to the press simply for political motivations, I'm not going to shed a single tear if said official kindly gets shown the door.

 

Or kicked in the ass on the way out.

Doesn't say anything about not doing their job though, except maybe providing evidence that the President's plan(s) or lack thereof suck.

Um, point in case, leaking out information if you don't like a guy is moronic to the extreme. It makes you a huge security risk, and frankly, I don't want you if you allow your political leanings to control you that much. I suppose NoCal doesn't understand the concept of 'secrecy' yet, though.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

Quite frankly, if you have a CIA official who is, rather than doing their job of, you know, protecting the country from another 9/11, actively leaking information (which may or may not be confidential) to the press simply for political motivations, I'm not going to shed a single tear if said official kindly gets shown the door.

 

Or kicked in the ass on the way out.

Doesn't say anything about not doing their job though, except maybe providing evidence that the President's plan(s) or lack thereof suck.

Um, point in case, leaking out information if you don't like a guy is moronic to the extreme. It makes you a huge security risk, and frankly, I don't want you if you allow your political leanings to control you that much. I suppose NoCal doesn't understand the concept of 'secrecy' yet, though.

I think he was making a joke. Something to the effect of, "It doesn't say they leaked any information. Except that they talk a lot to each other about how they think the President is a moron from Texas."

[2GOLD 0]

The ones who leaked information? Yes, remove them. There is no excuse for leaking information out of the CIA and they are a secruity risk.

 

Eliminating them because they are disloyal? No, they shouldn't have to like the man in command. That would just be low to dismiss people just because they don't like you.

 

Now if disloyal means they question the actions and refuse to do them even when they are the best course of action, then by all means remove said individuals. To just remove them because they don't like you though is just moronic and not the way the government should be operating.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

So are we at war with Eastasia or Eurasia right now?

[Guest MikeSC]

The ones who leaked information? Yes, remove them. There is no excuse for leaking information out of the CIA and they are a secruity risk.

 

Eliminating them because they are disloyal? No, they shouldn't have to like the man in command. That would just be low to dismiss people just because they don't like you.

 

Now if disloyal means they question the actions and refuse to do them even when they are the best course of action, then by all means remove said individuals. To just remove them because they don't like you though is just moronic and not the way the government should be operating.

They began leaking like crazy to attempt to defeat Bush (why do you think outdated intel on Iraq was made public)?

 

The CIA attempted to cost Bush the WH. Bush is wise to remove the folks who did this.

 

Bush is asking for firings because they will leak info, no matter how outdated, to hurt Bush. Bush has had to cut them out of the entire policy discussion as much as possible.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Completely ignoring all the modifiers and warnings about stretching conclusions to fit their pre-programmed ideology, our intelligence services actually provided quite good intelligence - the bushies simply did not like what they were hearing, so they chose to ignore and conveniently leave out whole sections.

 

Yellowcake.

WMD.

Aluminum tubes.

Cakewalk w/flowers nonsense.

 

The CIA had it correct.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

So the CIA was saying something different than every other intelligence agency in the world? It was just Bush lying.

 

Forgive me if I think that's bullshit.

[Guest MikeSC]

Completely ignoring all the modifiers and warnings about stretching conclusions to fit their pre-programmed ideology, our intelligence services actually provided quite good intelligence - the bushies simply did not like what they were hearing, so they chose to ignore and conviently leave out whole sections.

 

Yellowcake.

WMD.

Aluminum tubes.

Cakewalk w/flowers nonsense.

 

The CIA had it correct.

Except the yellowcake story was TRUE.

 

And, keep in mind, the WMD was, according to the HEAD of the CIA, a "slam dunk". Damn Bush for not listening to them on that.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Also, let's keep one little thing in mind:

 

Clinton did the EXACT same thing in 1994.

 

This isn't an unheard of event.

-=Mike

[Guest SideFXs]

I am delighted that this is happening. The more the media hashes this around, the more negative attention they give this, the more I know Bush is right. They used to shoot traitors.

[Guest Cerebus]

Not long after I resigned my commission in the Navy I got about three different pamphlets, a letter, and a couple of phone calls trying to recruit me into the CIA. I threw out the pamphlets and the letter without reading them and hung up on all the recruiting phone calls without listening beyond a few seconds. Yes, I believe my talents are going to waste, but I would rather them go to waste than have it participate in the draging down of America's intelligence apparatus.

 

You don't have to go far to see how bad the CIA has got (the SSCI and 9/11 reports for one). In fact, its safe to say that the civillian intelligence apparatus in this country is broken, and badly. The fact that the organization is in complete dissaray is bad enough, to have it take a hand in politics almost to the level of the KGB in the USSR is even worse.

 

Don't believe me? Well, take a look at the backstory of Imperial Hubris. I havn't read the book yet, I've bought it but I've been too absorbed in my own fiction projects to find time to, but its not the book itself but the author that interests me the most. It was written by Mike Scheuer, one of the top people in the CIA's Bin Laden unit and was given carte blanche to say whatever he wanted so long as it hurt Bush's reputation. Not to mention that there have been as many damaging leaks from the CIA as the Bush administration.

 

The idea that the CIA would allow an "insider's expose" to be published without heinous censorship and editing, even anonymously, is absolutely laughable. Thanks to our absolutely awful classification system, the CIA censors, edits, and outright bans many publications including Congressional reports. Hell, the CIA has the dubious honor of being the first American government organization to go to court to have another "insider's account" censored (Victor Marchiatti's The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence published in the 70s). You're going to sit there and tell me this same CIA has, all of a sudden, got a change of heart and thinks that now is the time for transperency? Give me a fucking break.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The CIA attempted to cost Bush the WH. Bush is wise to remove the folks who did this.

 

Bush is asking for firings because they will leak info, no matter how outdated, to hurt Bush. Bush has had to cut them out of the entire policy discussion as much as possible.

                        -=Mike

While I think firing people because they leak classified information is a good thing, firing people because they dislike your politics and want you to lose an election is not.

[Guest MikeSC]

Not long after I resigned my commission in the Navy I got about three different pamphlets, a letter, and a couple of phone calls trying to recruit me into the CIA. I threw out the pamphlets and the letter without reading them and hung up on all the recruiting phone calls without listening beyond a few seconds. Yes, I believe my talents are going to waste, but I would rather them go to waste than have it participate in the draging down of America's intelligence apparatus.

 

You don't have to go far to see how bad the CIA has got (the SSCI and 9/11 reports for one). In fact, its safe to say that the civillian intelligence apparatus in this country is broken, and badly. The fact that the organization is in complete dissaray is bad enough, to have it take a hand in politics almost to the level of the KGB in the USSR is even worse.

 

Don't believe me? Well, take a look at the backstory of Imperial Hubris. I havn't read the book yet, I've bought it but I've been too absorbed in my own fiction projects to find time to, but its not the book itself but the author that interests me the most. It was written by Mike Scheuer, one of the top people in the CIA's Bin Laden unit and was given carte blanche to say whatever he wanted so long as it hurt Bush's reputation. Not to mention that there have been as many damaging leaks from the CIA as the Bush administration.

 

The idea that the CIA would allow an "insider's expose" to be published without heinous censorship and editing, even anonymously, is absolutely laughable. Thanks to our absolutely awful classification system, the CIA censors, edits, and outright bans many publications including Congressional reports. Hell, the CIA has the dubious honor of being the first American government organization to go to court to have another "insider's account" censored (Victor Marchiatti's The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence published in the 70s). You're going to sit there and tell me this same CIA has, all of a sudden, got a change of heart and thinks that now is the time for transperency? Give me a fucking break.

I imagine that "Imperial Hubris" was the final straw. That showed a REAL problem with the CIA and how it handles problems --- namely, by applauding it.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

The CIA attempted to cost Bush the WH. Bush is wise to remove the folks who did this.

 

Bush is asking for firings because they will leak info, no matter how outdated, to hurt Bush. Bush has had to cut them out of the entire policy discussion as much as possible.

                        -=Mike

While I think firing people because they leak classified information is a good thing, firing people because they dislike your politics and want you to lose an election is not.

Happened in 1994. No real outrage when that happened.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

They used to shoot traitors.

Traitors to the country. Not "traitors" to the politicians.

 

Giving the enemy intel is a crime, being a left/right winger with a government job is normal, as far as DC goes.

[Guest MikeSC]

They used to shoot traitors.

Traitors to the country. Not "traitors" to the politicians.

 

Giving the enemy intel is a crime, being a left/right winger with a government job is normal, as far as DC goes.

Where was the outrage in 1994 when this happened?

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

Well, I don't agree with it but apparently it is standard to remove people from certain organizations.

 

If Clinton did it, I can't really yell and scream about Bush doing it. Seems standard now.

 

Doesn't make it right, but no big right wing move of evil here.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, I don't agree with it but apparently it is standard to remove people from certain organizations.

 

If Clinton did it, I can't really yell and scream about Bush doing it. Seems standard now.

 

Doesn't make it right, but no big right wing move of evil here.

Clinton also fired EVERY federal prosecutor right after he took office, which nobody else has done.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

They used to shoot traitors.

Traitors to the country. Not "traitors" to the politicians.

 

Giving the enemy intel is a crime, being a left/right winger with a government job is normal, as far as DC goes.

Where was the outrage in 1994 when this happened?

-=Mike

That doesn't make it okay now.

[2GOLD 0]

They used to shoot traitors.

Traitors to the country. Not "traitors" to the politicians.

 

Giving the enemy intel is a crime, being a left/right winger with a government job is normal, as far as DC goes.

Where was the outrage in 1994 when this happened?

-=Mike

That doesn't make it okay now.

 

I think Mike is pointing out the hypocrisy in this.

 

Obviously, it is not ok but you have some (keyword: some) right now who are using this as proof of the evils of the Bush adminstration.

 

Completely ignoring that the opposing party did it during the adminstration of one of the best Democratic Presidents ever is a little hypocritical.

[NoCalMike 0]

They used to shoot traitors.

Traitors to the country. Not "traitors" to the politicians.

 

Giving the enemy intel is a crime, being a left/right winger with a government job is normal, as far as DC goes.

Where was the outrage in 1994 when this happened?

-=Mike

That doesn't make it okay now.

 

I think Mike is pointing out the hypocrisy in this.

 

Obviously, it is not ok but you have some (keyword: some) right now who are using this as proof of the evils of the Bush adminstration.

 

Completely ignoring that the opposing party did it during the adminstration of one of the best Democratic Presidents ever is a little hypocritical.

Ok but I would hardly classify one article on this as "Outrage" I don't see this story on the nightly news, and being covered 24/7. It was one article that was posted here on the messageboard, doesn't sound much like Outrage to me. So in 1994, I am willing to bet you could dig up an article on Clinton firing CIA members.