|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Nov 14, 2004 21:36:41 GMT -5
Bush's CIA Purges The link speaks for itself. Good God, I hope that this news is a load of crap, otherwise we may very well be doomed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infested Manae on Nov 14, 2004 22:10:02 GMT -5
...
What the hell? Now, if what they did was illegal, they should be tried for treason. Seeing as they're not, this is a damned power-play by Bush. Really serious-like. Lose-the-election-if-I-do-it-before-it shit.
Well, who else wants to join me? I'm planning on heading on down to DC with an American flag with the stars replaced by an Empire snowflake, waving it while blasting the Imperial March during one o' Bush's parades. Inauguaral if he has one, preferable...
|
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Nov 14, 2004 22:14:18 GMT -5
Well, there are a few ways to percieve this.
It could very well, as I suspect, just be propagandal whining, most common in the media right now.
If the CIA members did leak any information to the press, they are deservedly toast. Their job is essentially the keeping and acquiring of secrets, and using them. A secret told is no longer a secret, and is breaking deep shit in the agency. Treason is a possible term for this, seeing as how information released is damaging in any case to the nation.
But as I said, sounds standard bullshit to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Nov 14, 2004 22:24:29 GMT -5
Just suppose, for a second, that this article was not bullshit. According to it, Bush isn't just kicking out those who leaked to the press:
[/b] 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.
(Emphasis added.)
[/quote]
Now, how exactly do they define disloyal? Sure, they don't give specifics, so the article might be fake, but there is always that possibility...
|
|
|
|
Post by NeoEllis on Nov 15, 2004 9:33:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Tobari Sabbatine on Nov 15, 2004 11:24:59 GMT -5
... What the hell? Now, if what they did was illegal, they should be tried for treason. Seeing as they're not, this is a damned power-play by Bush. Really serious-like. Lose-the-election-if-I-do-it-before-it shit.... They wouldn't be train in public or have any new on it anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Meyo-san on Nov 15, 2004 12:32:21 GMT -5
Well, once you think about it, he is doing the best thing, as CIA agents are supposed to be loyal to the president, if there are those who aren't loyal, then they will leak secrets to the enemy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Nov 15, 2004 12:36:08 GMT -5
A lot of the links are not top secret information, these people know what they are leaking, and they know it won't cause anyone harm except for maybe Bush politically. Often times the civilian agencies in the diplomatic community get frustrated with this administration cause it takes all its ques from the Defense Department, the organizations have different viewpoints and it public pressure often is the only way to get them to listen. Notice Colin Powell resigned today, a lot of circumstantial evidence points out the reason as he was not listened to. He hasn't really been as aggressive as the neo-cons going back to the Gulf War and was really marginalized and made to look like an fool on several occasions. So yeah, these aren't top secret leaks like say a certain white house official did when he revealed the name of a CIA clan destine officer to get at her husband.
Its not surprising there is a purge, its typical of this administration, as a poli sci student, even one can't help but admire their shrewdness and ability to conceal and twist the truth, undoubtedly Bush will find a way to pin this on someone else if this becomes a controversy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infested Manae on Nov 15, 2004 15:15:44 GMT -5
Well, once you think about it, he is doing the best thing, as CIA agents are supposed to be loyal to the president, if there are those who aren't loyal, then they will leak secrets to the enemy. No, agents shoudl be loyal to the country. There's a pretty damn big difference. I mean, shit, could you imagine how much further shambles our intelligence agencies would be if we had to do a clean sweep of any folks that didn't agree with the president every four years? Hmmm, I get a kick out of this: Didn't those reports kinda only offer circumstantial evidence? I remember seeing some picture that looked like a site of some sort being cleared out and all, but I could have sworn those reports stated they were unceartain, but Bush choose to say it was ceartain... |
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Nov 15, 2004 15:25:30 GMT -5
If loyal means loyal to the president, I wish we had a few more with Nixon in Vietnam.
As for the intelligence about Iraq, the government analysts were skeptical, it was the Neo cons that pushed the conflict really. They wanted to go to war since it became clear that their rebellion of shias (which they neglected to support btw, resulting in the Shias being mad today and the slaughter of thousands) wasn't going to topple Saddam.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Nov 15, 2004 15:44:00 GMT -5
That is what scares me, personally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Nov 15, 2004 22:22:10 GMT -5
*NM puts his head in his hands.*
Should I scream and head for Canada now, or later?
In case none of you have noticed, this is just one step in what is becoming a Right-Wing political takeover of America. Deny it if you want, but the facts remain. The problem is this: The system is supposed to represent people with all different sorts of views, not just the views of one group. This is as true for our branches of government as it is for our intel agencies. If there's nobody there to give a counter-point to Bush's conjectures, then we're going to have a problem.
In fact, George Washington urged the country not to "disintegrate" into political parties. He said they would divide the nation too badly. Well, here come the problems he foretold... I guess it was bound to happen sooner or later. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Nov 16, 2004 16:50:36 GMT -5
What people fail to grasp is certain agencies were setup from different ideological perspectives to best serve the country by providing all avenues. Whats considered a diplomatic perspective or now labelled liberal by those frothing at the mouth, is what the state department and CIA are, especially since the CIA has been defanged (many of which are good reasons). Those who join it are attracted to that avenue, the NSA and particularly the defense department is more hawkish and favors using force. These organizations viewpoints are both essential as it provides a balance, the CIA and State Department keep us from doing some really dumb stuff, if you didn't have coolheaded voices and listened only to the defense department, the world would have nuked itself out of existence thrice over. If you only listen to the state department, the Soviet Union would have dominion over the European Continent today. Its a mistake to clear something out for ideological reasons.
|
|
