# CIA to Purge Itself of "Officers Who Were Disloyal to Bush" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 14, 2004, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788 "2004-11-14T23:45:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788/21 "2004-11-15T04:46:47Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Good god, did we elect George W. Bush or Richard Nixon? Nixon is starting to look like Gandhi compared to Bush. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788/22 "2004-11-15T04:48:04Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Yeah, 'cause ever since the Nixon White House used CIA agents to spy on U.S. citizens (to say nothing of the perception that the CIA created the wars in Central America and Africa), liberals have just been beating down the doors at Langley to get into the CIA. > > I could see “disloyal to the president” as a belief held by the neo-cons, but if they actually believe that the CIA is overrun with “liberals” then they have not the wit to run a Cobb County school board much less the most powerful nation in the world. > > (Of course, so far we have nothing more than a single op-ed piece with a bunch of unidentified sources, so this could easily be another typical case of the “outs” bad-mouthing the survivors at the standard “reorganization” that accompanies any change of leadership.) Good level-headed comment. I personally would like to see one of the more objective conservatives on this board take a good look at what’s surfaced on this shake-up to date and critique it. If “loyalty to the President” is now the criterion for intelligence-service membership, we’ve lost something very important. But if this is no more than attribution of evil motives to the Administration by a liberal columnist, I won’t get terribly shook. But it would be nice to know precisely what the truth about it really is – and I’d hope that folks like **duffer** would agree with that. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788/23 "2004-11-15T04:50:12Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Who knows if this is true, but let’s think about it for a minute. Supposing there were CIA officials who were openly disloyal to the Administration-- ie, unwilling to implement the administrations policies. Why on earth would anyone expect this Administration or any other Administration to keep these folks on board? Who has refused to implement any policies? Might it be the insistence on providing intelligence and conclusions that the Administration doesn’t want to hear? After all, it would be a lot easier dealing with investigations if there were never any intelligence saying, for example, Iraq had no WMDs. Anyhow, from the article in the Times today, a lot of the old guard are quitting anyhow. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788/24 "2004-11-15T04:55:31Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Who has refused to implement any policies? Well, what does “disloyal” mean, then? The only tangible aspect the article offers concerns people who have leaked info to the press. Why should they be kept on? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788/25 "2004-11-15T05:16:03Z")
> [@Boyo Jim](#): > > Nixon is starting to look like Gandhi compared to Bush. What do you mean, “_starting_ to”? ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788/26 "2004-11-15T05:33:46Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Well, what does “disloyal” mean, then? That IS the question. It cannot be “unwilling to implement the administrations policies”, because that would dereliction of duty, wouldn’t it? (assumes the policies were legal) The term, as used, is deliberately vague. ---
**Author:** ![Jurph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jurph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jurph)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788/27 "2004-11-15T06:00:54Z")
It costs thousands of dollars to get a government employee screened and cleared for any kind of secure access. CIA personnel – at least the ones the Administration would worry about “loyalty” from – are cleared through that very expensive process. They’re also unionized Federal employees, and famously difficult to fire. Now put all of that together, and repeat after me: _“There will not be any mass firings of any Federal employees with security clearances anytime this decade.”_ ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788/28 "2004-11-15T14:17:39Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Who knows if this is true, but let’s think about it for a minute. Supposing there were CIA officials who were openly disloyal to the Administration-- ie, unwilling to implement the administrations policies. Why on earth would anyone expect this Administration or any other Administration to keep these folks on board? You know better, or so I’d thought. The CIA’s job isn’t (at least primarily) to implement policies, but to provide information as broadly, deeply, and _objectively_ as possible to those who define policy. Why on earth would any _honest_ Administration want to prefilter the information they receive? Why would an administration that already “knows” the facts and isn’t interested in hearing anything else need the CIA at all? What is your concept of how we got into this mess in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788/29 "2004-11-15T14:19:37Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Well, what does “disloyal” mean, then? The only tangible aspect the article offers concerns people who have leaked info to the press. Why should they be kept on? “Disloyal” to whom? Their oath, and responsibility, is to defend the Constitution, not the individual who happens to be President. This is still not a monarchy, and _l’etat, ce n’est pas Bush_. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788/30 "2004-11-15T14:41:23Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Well, what does “disloyal” mean, then? The only tangible aspect the article offers concerns people who have leaked info to the press. Why should they be kept on? Well, leaks are a part of the game, even over there at Langley. But I will say that _unauthorized_ leaks from people at Central Intel should be a firing offense. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788/31 "2004-11-15T15:31:18Z")
> [@Jurph](#): > > They’re also unionized Federal employees To quote you entiely out of context, that _proves_ that the CIA is overrun with PinkoCommieNaziLiberals. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788/32 "2004-11-15T16:20:57Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You know better, or so I’d thought. The CIA’s job isn’t (at least primarily) to implement policies, but to provide information as broadly, deeply, and _objectively_ as possible to those who define policy. Why on earth would any _honest_ Administration want to prefilter the information they receive? Why would an administration that already “knows” the facts and isn’t interested in hearing anything else need the CIA at all? What is your concept of how we got into this mess in the first place? Well, technically, implementing policies might be related to internal reorganization, or how they go about collecting evidence (i.e., not relying solely on exiles who have an ax to grind). That sort of thing. Not that I think that’s the case here. But, I suppose, theoretically… ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788/33 "2004-11-15T16:22:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Who knows if this is true, but let’s think about it for a minute. Supposing there were CIA officials who were openly disloyal to the Administration-- ie, unwilling to implement the administrations policies. Why on earth would anyone expect this Administration or any other Administration to keep these folks on board? The article states “Goss was given instructions … to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats”. If John Kerry had been elected and ordered the CIA to get rid of anyone who was a conservative Republican, would you be as ready to accept it? Or will this be covered by the standard “that didn’t happen so I don’t have to think about it.” ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788/34 "2004-11-15T16:37:38Z")
> [@Jurph](#): > > They’re also unionized Federal employees, and famously difficult to fire. Now put all of that together, and repeat after me: > > **"There will not be any mass firings of any Federal employees with security clearances anytime this decade."** I just got a mental image of dozens of ex-CIA people in a picket line holding up protest signs with about half the words blacked out. That ought to be a Far Side cartoon. 😃 Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788/35 "2004-11-15T17:00:34Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > The article states “Goss was given instructions … to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats”. If John Kerry had been elected and ordered the CIA to get rid of anyone who was a conservative Republican, would you be as ready to accept it? Or will this be covered by the standard “that didn’t happen so I don’t have to think about it.” First of all, that article offers hardly anything of substance, so it’s really hard to say. If Kerry had been elected, yes, I would expect him to make changes. The “get rid of liberals” is hearsay at best, and probably taken out of context. BTW, I didn’t vote for Bush, so I’m defending “my guy” here. It just seems that there is a knee-jerk reaction around here to take the slightest negative rumor about Bush and run with it. Show me a specific order or a specific group of people who are fired, and we’ll have something to talk about. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788/36 "2004-11-15T17:06:37Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > Well, leaks are a part of the game, even over there at Langley. Of course. And if the “soft leaks” were fully authorized, what possible reason would the administration have for dumping the leakers? It would only make sense to get rid of these leakers if they were spinning the leaks in a way the administration didn’t want. ---
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788/37 "2004-11-15T18:39:44Z")
> [@Jurph](#): > > They’re also unionized Federal employees, and famously difficult to fire. \* Right - my understanding is that it’s damn hard to fire a federal employee for _cause_, and I’m not sure “disloyalty to the Bush administration” constitutes cause for firing. Aren’t all lower-tier federal employees protected from political firings by some sort of Federal Employee Protection Act that was passed in the late 1800’s under Garfield or someone? (My googling skills have drawn a blank with only my vague memory of high school U.S. History to draw upon.) ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788/38 "2004-11-15T18:47:13Z")
> [@threemae](#): > > Not that I put it beyond the Bush Administration, but I simply don’t believe that you could purge an entire organization of people of the wrong party overnight without anyone saying boo. Perhaps they are. > [@threemae](#): > > Even the clandestine officers might eventually start to talk if they were suddenly dismissed without explanation, and they could likely do so without comprimising classified or secret information. “One of the first casualties appears to be Stephen R. Kappes, deputy director of clandestine services …” > [@threemae](#): > > As for the people in analysis that are known public names that aren’t in the clandestine section just won’t go without a fight. This would obviously backfire a lot on the Bush Administration. I just don’t think that they are that stupid. Perhaps they find themselves equal to the task. > [@John Mace](#): > > Supposing there were CIA officials who were openly disloyal to the Administration-- ie, unwilling to implement the administrations policies. Failure to do one’s job is always grounds for dismissal. This _appears_ to be about something other than mere insubordination. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788/39 "2004-11-15T18:48:53Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Well, what does “disloyal” mean, then? The only tangible aspect the article offers concerns people who have leaked info to the press. Why should they be kept on? Some of that might be illegal rather than disloyal. Of course to be fair you’d have to fire Bush supporters who leaked information to the press also. Any bets on that? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788/40 "2004-11-15T18:49:45Z")
So when does Douglas Feith lose _his_ job? Mr. Feith was totally wrong on every count. Every move a blunder, every opinion 180 degrees out. But he was loyal. What was so wrong about CIA leaks? It blew the cover story, the last refuge of the Admin was to blame the intelligence. “Why, everybody but everybody thought as we thought!” But they didn’t. And that’s disloyal, the unwillingness to fall upon one’s sword to protect The Leader. And it’s loyalty that is going to be prized, loyalty that will ensure promotion, loyalty above all. Getting it right don’t mean shit, or Mr. Feith would be shopping his resume around to various tighty righty think tanks. But, be comforted: it hardly matters. As the case of Mr. Feith shows, once a firm and decisive leader has set his course, he will not be deterred by mere facts. Like Churchill (Gallipoli) Napolean (Russia) Custer (Little Big Horn). Firm and decisive leaders, all. So it doesn’t matter how unprofessional and incomptent a thoroughly politicized CIA will be: if they disagreed, they would be ignored anyway. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cia-to-purge-itself-of-officers-who-were-disloyal-to-bush/274788.md?page=3)