PDA

View Full Version : Newsday: "Goss was given instructions … to get rid of ... liberal Democrats"


jAZ
04-25-2006, 05:32 PM
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/3022.html
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/25.html#a8038
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia1114,0,707331.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

Goss was 'given instructions' to purge Democrats from the CIA

Now that Mary McCarthy has "categorically denied" disclosing classified information on Bush's secret prisons, the political debate shifts a bit. Instead of assuming that McCarthy was responsible for leaks, we now have to wonder why, exactly, CIA Director Porter Goss sacked a veteran intelligence analyst. It's too soon to say with any certainty whether Goss, who personally oversaw the investigation into this leak, was driven by partisan motivations, but there's reason to believe the director of central intelligence was not acting on principle. After all, McCarthy was a Democrat and hold-over from the Clinton years -- and Goss is a former House Republican who has tried to purge top-ranking CIA officials of anyone who wasn't loyal to Bush. Let's not forget this Newsday report from November 2004 and how it might apply to the McCarthy controversy.

The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. 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." (emphasis added)

And now we're supposed to believe that Goss, whose history of rigid partisanship is overwhelming, ran a fair and objective investigation of McCarthy? Please.

patteeu
04-25-2006, 06:01 PM
Outstanding if true. Ideally, the CIA should be nonpartisan, but since that's not possible, the second best thing is that it be nonliberal.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 06:16 PM
:rolleyes:

There are no words to describe the ignorance of the liberals and even less of a chance to describe the ignorance of the robot jaz.

jAZ
04-25-2006, 06:24 PM
:rolleyes:

There are no words to describe the ignorance of the liberals and even less of a chance to describe the ignorance of the robot jaz.
Might I recommend "hate"? Please? Pretty Please!?!

CHIEF4EVER
04-25-2006, 06:31 PM
Wow. The last 2 thread responses are prime examples (dare I say a case study) in what it means to blindly follow either of the mainstream political parties........lambslambs

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 06:33 PM
Might I recommend "hate"? Please? Pretty Please!?!


Jaz, you are a real loser.


Today:

jaz 0

Tom 1

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 06:34 PM
Wow. The last 2 thread responses are prime examples (dare I say a case study) in what it means to blindly follow either of the mainstream political parties........lambslambs

The conservatives have already been tabbed as sheep. The liberas are an unthinking lot that have their program downloaded from the DNC daily.

They can't think because they operate on program only.

Braincase
04-25-2006, 06:46 PM
I wouldn't be surprised.

The current ideological war is being waged openly, and the conservatives seem to be in a mode where rather than accepting any sort of constructive criticism, they are attacking the patriotism, the motives, the honor. I find this rather ironic, as it seems to be representative of the same sort of behavior that spurs my loathing for James Carville.

Just because someone questions the motives of the government and expects honest answers, it doesn't make one a traitor to the country.

With Bush's approval rating dropping to less than 33%, seems to me like more of the people that backed him in the first place are getting a little tired of the "it's not US, it's THEM!" arguments.

Count myself among that group of former supporters.

penchief
04-25-2006, 07:38 PM
With Bush's approval rating dropping to less than 33%, seems to me like more of the people that backed him in the first place are getting a little tired of the "it's not US, it's THEM!" arguments.

Count myself among that group of former supporters.

Very astute and nicely stated. Bush's low approval ratings have been a long time coming.

The disillusionment runs deep. It is the cumulative effect of being repeatedly misled. Uncompromising ideology and a fundamental dishonesty have come home to roost, IMO.

I still say that a major piece of this puzzle is the Super Duper Secret Energy Task Force Meetings conducted by Lord Cheney.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 08:14 PM
Very astute and nicely stated. Bush's low approval ratings have been a long time coming.

The disillusionment runs deep. It is the cumulative effect of being repeatedly misled. Uncompromising ideology and a fundamental dishonesty have come home to roost, IMO.

I still say that a major piece of this puzzle is the Super Duper Secret Energy Task Force Meetings conducted by Lord Cheney.

Do you even consider what ignorant rants you type?

Give us all a link to the SDSETFM's.

Adept Havelock
04-25-2006, 08:24 PM
FINAL GAO REPORT ON CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE RELEASED

The GAO report details the refusal of the White House to provide GAO even basic information about the operations of the task force. As a consequence, GAO was unable to fulfill the members’ request to identify the outside parties that met with the task force. GAO also could not describe the extent to which powerful energy industry interests may have influenced the recommendations to the President.

GAO concludes: “The extent to which submissions from any of [the] stakeholders were solicited, influenced policy deliberations, or were incorporated into the final report cannot be determined based on the limited information made available to GAO…. The Office of the Vice President’s unwillingness to provide the NEPDG records or other related information precluded GAO from fully achieving its objectives and substantially limited GAO’s ability to comprehensively analyze the NEPDG process.”

“The Bush Administration is obsessed with secrecy. This is profoundly unhealthy to our democracy,” said Rep. Waxman. “The result is not just bad decisions on energy, but a rejection of the principles of open government and public accountability.”

http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&Affiliation=R&PressRelease_id=416&Month=8&Year=2003

Ugly Duck
04-25-2006, 08:34 PM
Jaz, you are a real loser.


Today:

jaz 0

Tom 1Hey.... last time it was negative zero.... I like -0 much better.

Ugly Duck
04-25-2006, 08:37 PM
GAO concludes: “The Office of the Vice President’s unwillingness to provide the NEPDG records or other related information precluded GAO from fully achieving its objectives and substantially limited GAO’s ability to comprehensively analyze the NEPDG process.” Purge the Dems, and then secretly bring in the big oil companies. Nice.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 08:37 PM
Hey.... last time it was negative zero.... I like -0 much better.

Get in the game. Actually I considered using jaz=0

patteeu
04-25-2006, 09:10 PM
Since the White House doesn't legislate, what difference does it make what the participants in the Energy Task Force recommended or why they recommended it? In the end, the WH would have to convince Congress that their proposals make sense and Congress is free to agree or disagree when they decide what legislation to draft.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 09:21 PM
Since the White House doesn't legislate, what difference does it make what the participants in the Energy Task Force recommended or why they recommended it? In the end, the WH would have to convince Congress that their proposals make sense and Congress is free to agree or disagree when they decide what legislation to draft.

This is PRECISELY what I am talking about when I mentioned your fall off the deep end in the neocon thread. I'm sure that your buddy BL will argue that I'm just slinging mud, but nonetheless--

It is a clear conflict of interest for a government's energy task force to be constituted solely by the chairs of the largest energy corporations. Their responsibilites are to their stockholders, not to the American citizen. Those two responsibilities are completely antipodal of what American government should be about--helping citizens not fleecing them of money to increase profit margins...

Maybe I'm a moonbat, but I'd just assume not have people whose primary goal to fleece people out of money a la the Enron energy traders in California, setting government energy policy. One more time--it is a complete and total conflict of INTEREST.