Nixon is starting to look like Gandhi compared to Bush.
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.
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.
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?
What do you mean, “starting to”?
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.
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.”
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?
“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.
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.
To quote you entiely out of context, that proves that the CIA is overrun with PinkoCommieNaziLiberals.
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…
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.”
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
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.
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.
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.)
Perhaps they are.
“One of the first casualties appears to be Stephen R. Kappes, deputy director of clandestine services …”
Perhaps they find themselves equal to the task.
Failure to do one’s job is always grounds for dismissal.
This appears to be about something other than mere insubordination.
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?
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.