Skip to main content

[Here is the CIA Diary posted by up2date, recommended, then promoted to the main page, then disappeared. Comments are not yet recovered]:

This is not freaking believable. When I first saw an article about purges in the intelligence community, I (naively) thought it was a purge of those responsible for intelligence failures. My mistake. The story which follows is not unique, only we are used to hearing about it after military coups in countries whose names many of us are not entirely sure how to pronounce. But this is happening right here. I am not one easily given to hyperbole, and I have avoided words like "junta" in the past, but does this sound like the behavior of a democratically elected leader of a free nation?

The direct source is here and another main page thread on CIA politicization by DemFromCT is here.
WASHINGTON -- 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."
Purging the intelligence community of those disloyal to the president? Purging liberal Democrats? Scared yet? You should be. Bush likes to operate in secret. Information is the enemy. Write your senator. Write your congressmen. Write all your newspapers. If Bush is intent on behaving this way, do not let him do it in the dark.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:11 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Good (none)
    Let's see how long this one stays up.
    •  I cannot believe it (4.00)
      The CIA, a long and storied institution, is being completely neutered.

      The largest spy agency in the world has a new mission: tell Bush what he wants to hear.

      I can't believe it. The CIA is no longer supposed to report on the facts in the real world. They are supposed to report on the facts in Bush's fantasy world of spin.

      Good God, this is bad news for all Americans.

      •  But...... (none)
        The 9/11 commission told the administration to overhaul the intelligence circles.
        •  Overhaul (none)
          If this kind of overhaul is what they meant they sure managed to spell "g-u-t a-n-d e-m-a-s-c-u-l-a-t-e" wrong.

          Isn't it ironic that the 51% of the electorate who voted for a chimpanzee includes everyone in the US who doesn't believe in evolution?

          by Our Man In Redmond on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:00:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, no...this is GOOD. (3.71)
            Think of all of the little emasculated birdies who are going to start singing to the four winds...

            Let's see...piss off and purge the people who have the information that can hurt you the most...does this sound like a good idea?

            The only other person I know who's really tried this is Stalin, and he did it by putting a bullet through their brains or shipping them off to mine gold someplace completely incommunicado.  That shut 'em up.

            Bush doesn't have such a luxury.


            Proud Member, Controversial Daily Kos Extremist Group

            by DC Pol Sci on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:05:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm with you (none)
              Purges like this can happen in a smaller country where the secrets are well-known practices on torture and disappearing and where the actual skill of the spooks is limited to the same skill sets as a mafia thugman.

              But these guys will neither lose their insider knowledge nor their considerable skills.

              I don't really relish the thought of having a bunch of spooks running around spying on BushCo. But I prefer it to NOT being able to match their spying skills.

            •  Or there will be 100 personal remakes of the... (none)
              ...Marathon Man...
            •  there won't necessarily be any singing... (none)

              even when agents leave the agency, what they say, the books they write still have to be vetted by the agency.

              cheers --

            •  Here is what should happen... (none)
              If I was one that thought that I might be on the purge list and felt that I could double-cross the administration by playing turncoat - you bet I would. Make them believe I am on their side but all the while planning to fuck them for perverting the very fabric of this nation. This is a war on the CIA from the exec and I would not go down without bringing down the whole enchilada. Bring it on and let's see if the whole shit house comes down on top of them.
            •  I agree, but I'd rather they got busy right now (none)
              before the purges. And not with kiss-and-tell, but taking real action. These are people who have access NOW... and who can actually make a difference now, before their access is taken away. We've all seen how, um, effective these exposees by "disgruntled former staffers" have been, no? Not very.

              This is just the Beginning.

              by DjW on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:30:14 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Until now... (none)
        ...whenever I would hear the word "purge," I would think of Soviet Russia.
      •  Here are some of the future replacements... (none)
        for the new American Security Diktat:

        PHC | "Intelligence" Takes On New Meaning at PHC

        The Strategic Intelligence (SI) program at PHC is no simple "spy major." It is a serious, academically rigorous curriculum encompassing a range of intellectual and practical skills. Students in the program study intelligence-related fields including intelligence analysis, investigative techniques, open source data exploitation, counter-intelligence, counter-terrorism, and information dissemination. Since its inception in the fall of 2003, the SI track (one of three possible concentrations within the existing Government major) has attracted some of the best students at PHC, a school which already draws some of the finest young students in the country. And interest among prospective applicants seems high indeed. "We are already seeing a substantial pool of applicants to this program," said SI Director and Government Department Chairman Robert Stacey. "High school students in the home school movement and in the Christian community tend to be patriotic young men and women of high moral character and clean backgrounds. These are just the sort of people we want to train and disperse out into the intelligence community."

        Look at some of their recent accomplishments:

        Of course an excellent education is more than just observing, it also includes doing. So, like all majors and tracks at PHC, the SI track includes a substantial apprenticeship component, and SI apprenticeships can be some of the most exciting at PHC. Senior Andrew Z. spent part of his spring semester riding in police cruisers and observing special operations with the Loudoun County Sheriff's Office. Fellow senior Missy H. oversees a team of SI students producing a weekly digest of all major drug, immigration, and security incidents at America's border crossings called the Border Security Alert. The BSA, produced entirely by Patrick Henry students, is distributed by subscription to national security professionals and is available to the intelligence and law enforcement communities through a classified network. Other student apprenticeship projects have examined the patterns of suicide bombers in the Middle East, the developing relationship between the Latin American terrorist group FARC and the Irish Republican Army, and the worldwide proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to name just a few.

        Looks like the CIA will be a quadrennial football, struggled over by both sides, from here on out. Great, really great...

        Porter Goss, good luck with your layoffs, alright, I hope your firings go really, really well. I hope your new, freshly-scrubbed home schooler hires work out well for you, too.

        "But then I viddied that thinking is for the gloopy ones and the oomny ones use, like, inspiration and what Bog sends." -- Alex de Large

        by rgilly on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:31:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the homeschooling and Christian School background (none)
          Inserting the Homeschooling segment into this matrix may be amusing, in that it also includes a substantial libertarian and anarchist component: 'began shooting at age four with a scope mounted 22'  undoubtedly will sound really good to the new CIA leadership.
        •  Freshly scrubbed home schooler types (1.33)
          Bigoted statements like that are partial explanation as to why liberals remain in the political wilderness.  Enjoy your long stay.
          •  I was genuinely sincere... (none)
            for the sake of our nation that even if the White House decides to gut the old, reality-based staffers from the CIA, that these young co-religionists of our dear President Bush, adherents of Pro Patria, et Libertate, are up to the task.

            Looks like Goss as payback for his appointment will stack the agency top to bottom with non-threatening allies to the Administration. These folks seem to be the perfect fit for our current leadership.

            Because the White House has seen fit to destroy any dissent at the cost of having their message unchallenged, questioned, analyzed, ad nauseum...

            Bigoted? I am only restating facts. Reread actual quote from the Patrick Henry College Director of The Strategic Intelligence Program, Robert Stacey:

            "High school students in the home school movement and in the Christian community tend to be patriotic young men and women of high moral character and clean backgrounds. These are just the sort of people we want to train and disperse out into the intelligence community."

            Bigoted would have been to call them something other that what I termed "well-scrubbed home schoolers". That might be considered quite complementary in some circles, unless Frank Rich or some other marketing-types have decided this is not the acceptable or proper terminology/psychographology du jour. I have seen other descriptions on this blog of people of this "segment" of the population. Crusadingtalifundievangoxtianzealots would probably combine some of the more apt ones, but I cannot speak for all the DK bloggers on this.

            Not that I would ever call them that. I just don't happen to agree with quite a bit of their ideology and/or methods. But they are my countrymen, nonetheless. May their concept of the Creator bless them and keep them. I would hope they wish us equally as well but I know that would be asking a bit too much for their charity and blessings.

            Ball is in your court, sir.

            "But then I viddied that thinking is for the gloopy ones and the oomny ones use, like, inspiration and what Bog sends." -- Alex de Large

            by rgilly on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 06:13:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Demise of the merit system (none)
              If this continues, and civil servants are being sacked for their political beliefs, it's the demise of the civil service as we know it (i.e., as created by the Pendleton Act) and the return to the politics of patronage.  Because when the Dems take over again, they're not going to be happy with the fundies that Chimpco packs the agencies with and will have to get rid of all of them.  To get back at the Thugs, they'll have to pack them with Massachusetts liberals...

              That's the problem with this administration.  It's not just that they have an agenda to implement.  All administrations have an agenda to implement.  It's that they're writing a new rulebook for the entire government to play by.  It's pure power politics and violates rules that have been in place, in many cases, for over 100 years.

              The result is that changes in administration will be wide swings backwards and forwards, and political life will be less stable.  The result is that the economy, which follows political stability and is dependent upon it for its health, will become less stable.

              Chimpy is going to turn us into a banana republic (get it?  Chimpy's banana republic?  Monkeys like bananas?  HAHAHA...I made a funny) in more ways than one.

              Proud Member, Controversial Daily Kos Extremist Group

              by DC Pol Sci on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:57:44 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Demise of Civil Service (none)
                That's an excellent analysis.  Damping functions -- policies that keep things from swinging too quickly -- are good things.  They're frustrating when our gal is at the wheel, but otherwise an ever-escalating back-and-forth tends to destroy the organism, system or agency.
            •  Home schoolers (none)
              Bird Dog makes a good point. Many of us thing of home schooling as something exclusive to the religious right who don't want their children taught science but rather taught the Christian Bible's take on everything.

              There are a fair number of people home schooling because they don't like the right wing take over of the schools and who really believe that the schools are not good.

              Incidentally, it is to the advantage of the far right to keep the schools as bad as possible, as out of date as possible to keep an uninformed electorate which will keep them in power.

              •  That's right (none)
                I would say that I know just as many liberal homeschoolers in TX as extrimest.  Like I said in another thread, I don't want my child indoctrinated.

                They make the weather then they stand out in the rain and say `SHIT, it's rainin!' Renee Zelweger, Cold Mountain.

                by TXsharon on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:58:48 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Perhaps... (none)
                you would happen to know the ratio of religious to secular home schooled in this country.

                I'm sorry that the words "home schooled" seemed to have become loaded/lightningrod-ish. Do you find common cause with the families whose children are home schooled due to deteriorating public school conditions or because of "values/belief system" reasons?

                Would you belong to the same associations as the religious homeschooled, if there are such things as that (e.g., the "National Association of Home Based Schooling and Education")? Or is there a bifurcation based on reasons for home schooling (two or more organizations that cater to home schoolers, based on specific issues or whatnot)?

                Will your children when they apply to colleges, apply to only those that understand the specific home schooling "theme" that appealed to their parents? Like Antioch or Cooper Union for the secular and Bob Jones U. or Patrick Henry College for the religious home schooled? Are the great land-grant colleges of this nation familiar with home schooled of either persuasion?

                Is there any disadvantage to "stovepiping" a child in some particular rigid ethos from day one to post-grad level?

                "But then I viddied that thinking is for the gloopy ones and the oomny ones use, like, inspiration and what Bog sends." -- Alex de Large

                by rgilly on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 04:00:52 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well... (none)
                  ... my Big Ten university LOVES homeschooled kids. A friend who's a paleobiologist says he's having trouble with kids who refuse to reada stuff about evolution in his intro classes -- and those kids came from public schools, so whatever.

                  There's a nationwide organization like the one you mention -- the HSLDA, or Home School Legal Defense Association. We don't belong -- very few non-religious homeschoolers that I know of do; it's too rigid and Christian for many tastes. However, these folks have worked very hard to make sure homeschooling stays legal. The right will always make sure it's legal.

                  Our community has two homeschooling support groups -- one is all-inclusive and the other is v Christian, to the point where you have to sign a statement of faith (loyalty oath?). Both are large.

                  I want my kids to be freethinkers. It's why I don't put them in school.

                  i like the world it has gravity and that is good

                  by LBK on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:40:25 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  The home school movement (none)
              is also just bright flight from schools that are so micromanaged to standardized testing that they have no resources for these kids.  Trust me- I am a homeschooling mom.  We are, as the article said, extremely patriotic.  My daughter and I registered  32 Kerry voters, volunteered at the local Dems office before canvassing for  We spent the entire week of the R. convention studying propaganda techniques and dissecting speeches.  We even put up rhymes in front of the house with sayings like:
              In case of a fresh disaster/Bush says he'll read/My Pet Goat faster
                 My favorite was: Bush really said/God speaks through me/ A clinical sign/ Of insanity

              Yeah, she's smart and patriotic- loyal to the country, not a regime.

          •  Hear Hear. (none)
            As a non-religious homeschooling parent -- one with friends in the freakin' PTA! In a college town! Etc! -- making sure my kids get a decent civics education and life experinece in addition to the three Rs...

            ... I hate these generalizations.

            i like the world it has gravity and that is good

            by LBK on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 06:42:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Oh Whatever (3.50)
            I'm so sick of the emerging conventional wisdom that its been the "liberals" mocking of good old fashioned American values that have led to our political wilderness.

            That is simplistic and childish.

            These people mock our values at every turn by saying they're non-existent.  An entire cottage industry of right wing books, radio shows, and TV networks have been mocking us for the past 20 years.  The constant baying of our "un-American" values has led the American public to believe we're akin to terrorists.  Re-watch the recent  Repub convention if you don't believe me.

            Yet DARE to question the motivations of the Jesus Freaks (yeah I said it) and all of a sudden THAT becomes the reason they hate us.

            Shut the fuck up.

            They hate us because they are ignorant.  If we're callling that "elitist" now fine, I'm elitist.  I'm assuming in this case elitist means not the stupidest idiot in the room.

            PS - favorite T-shirt "Home Skooled"

            •  When roughly half (none)
              of those who stood up and were counted held those "un-American" values, how Un-American
              could it really be?

              and who will speak out when they come for you?

              by nargel on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:34:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Heh, heh, heh (none)
              While I'm on your side I still say that some good liberals and even radicals home school because the public schools are pretty far right.

              No matter where you live chances are you text books are picked by a far right wing group here in Texas. Since Texas buys the most school books, along with CA, the companies depend on those states to decide what's in the texts. Texas books are all gone over carefully and have to be "passed" by a far right wing Christian group.

              In the 60s it was mostly the "flower children" who home schooled.

              Then, as I said, a lot of people are convinced the public schools in their homes are not good and they may not be.

              Still, I'm as annoyed as you for having my morals, my values and my beliefs characterized as "wicked", "immoral", "degenerate", "libertine", "elitist" (which apparently, combines all the most heinous kinds of behavior under one category.

              I'm sick of being told one can't be a Democrat and a Christian. I'm not a Christian but it isn't because I'm a Democrat. I'm sick of having it implied that I can't be a liberal and be a moral person.

              For god sake, there is something to morals besides sexual fidelity!

            •  Is this just a phase, or is it more permanent? (none)
              One of my aunts (a liberal) commented to me:

              Here's what the 'other side' thinks:  

              They don't really care how many Iraqi's die because it's not Americans on American soil.  They think people in that part of the world are used to living in a harsh regeim, constantly fighting with each other, etc. so, what's the big deal with American soldiers shaking them down?  They are outraged at the beheading of contractors, etc. but Americans realize that freedom is not free and exists only with the high cost of blood and they honor those willing to shed it.  

              They think the Endangered Species Act harms their businesses and farms because they cannot do what they want with their personal property and it costs them more to operate and make a living.

              They think EPA and the Health Department is the devil.

              They believe that owning guns is their Constitutional Right as Americans and that the west wasn't won with a registered gun.

              They believe that if you can't afford to pay for something, then you just don't have it.  And that includes tax supported institutions like: education, parks & rec, cultural & scientific endeavors, human services and health care.

              They believe in the haves and have nots....that's just the way the world is.

              They believe abortion is murder of the unborn and if you get knocked up, it is your responsibility to care for the child.  However, if you are unable to care for the child, that's the child's tough luck.

              They believe women should be subserviant to their husbands because the Bible says so.  And, many women believe that too.

              They believe that these are among the values that make up the American way.

              She basically told me to get a grip because these "values" were so deeply rooted that we were going to have to live with them even though we deeply disagreed.

              I have been reminded by others recently that during McCarthy's time, it was commonplace to have to swear an oath of loyalty in order to hold a job.  Until Eisenhower and Murrows put a leash on McCarthy and he was censured by the Senate, he pretty much ran wild for four years.

              Looking in my history books, I see that parties tend to stay in power for as much as 25 years at a time until someone screws up and the electorate throws the bums out.  McCarthy's era actually started with the Russians' behavior in East Berlin at the very end of WWII, continued with the Committee on UnAmerican Activities, and arguably ended in 1954 with his censure.  Vietnam started in the early sixties and went on for fifteen years.

              A MoveOnPAC member told me that things were far worse in the early sixties and that one could not even voice objection to the war at that time as the ghost of McCarthy was not yet gone and we were engaged in containment.

              Perhaps it is because I was too young to fully experience Vietnam, though I have some memories, but I have the distinct impression that things are quite a bit different today.  

              • I have noted the trend towards control of the three branches of the federal government and how there is no longer any real check and balance.  When McCarthy got in, the Democrats were in control.

              • I have noted the gerrymandering that has made it all but impossible for Democrats to get seats in certain districts.

              • I have noted the foul play used by Republicans in many districts to turn away the vote.  While I'm certain that this particular game is as old as voting, I feel that technology has facilitated it to an extent not previously possible (challenge lists, etc...).

              • Technology, specifically relational databases, are J. Edgar Hoover's wet-dream come true.  This type of technology in the form of CAPPS II, TIA, Carnivore and other projects enables the government to monitor dissenters on grand scale.

              • Also, unlike in the early sixties, there is almost half the country that is uncomfortable with the current trend - and who are not just going to hide their feelings.

              • There is also the fact that for the first time, the US is the only superpower, and the neo-cons seem willing and ready to use this on any hapless group or country that opposes them

              When taken as a whole, to my mind, the pattern seems to indicate that the Republicans plan to stay indefinitely.

              As an aside...It would be interesting to team up with a US historian, choose the relevant variables, and run a neural-network which predicts likelihood of change of power based on previous data from the last century or so.  I guess that if this is just part of the usual cycling of power, I feel that it's worth organizing to throw the bums out sooner rather than later.  But if there is a true paradigm shift going on here, that's when I'll be really worried about the future of our country.

              •  I don't think the 60s gov stopped free discussion (none)
                It was just that so much of the US middle class was used to believing that the government knew best. Confronting that was more a generational issue by kids who didn't have quite so much respect for the parental government. And, who knows, maybe the kids wouldn't have realized it had it not been for the draft.

                I'm reading Lakoff's DON'T THINK OF AN ELEPHANT. It's a cystalized version of his MORAL POLITICS and should be required reading for all of us. (The more I read Lakoff, the more obnoxious I'm going to be about recommending his work.) The Con's are more than organized. They know how to frame the language and push the buttons of the electorate with just a few words. We take paragraphs to present our side. And until we learn how to speak to our base and pick up the undecideds in a the right word or two, 2004 is just the 2nd of many such elections.

                Nothing good comes from extremes and having the Repub's in control in all 3 branches of government is extreme. What's that saying, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

                And you're right: it doesn't matter who it is that's in control - Republicans OR Democrats. We need balanced representation for a vigorous, healthy debate.

                There's hope. Bush might not be grateful enough as far as the religious right is concerned. Perhaps the moderate Repub's will revolt. There are glimmers of hope everywhere. We are Americans, after all. And 48+% of the voting public sees through the charade.

                But we must educate ourselves. If you read DON'T THINK OF AN ELEPHANT, it will all come clear. It's a short book and inexpensive. It could be the most important book you'll ever read.

        •  please correct me (none)
          anybody knowledgeable...

          but isnt the CIA mostly analysis and research? how the fuck are the homeschoolers going to be able to work at the CIA

          crap I paid attention in my geopolitics classes and learned 2 foreign languages and for what? I guess I just better accept Jesus and the moral authority of those "in charge" and practice marksmanship...

          •  Don't discount homeschoolers (none)
            I'm a progressive homeschooling mom to two little girls who can already identify John Ashcroft on the TV (and hiss). By the time they leave home they will be equipped to work anywhere they choose, and if they choose the CIA I'll probably put a paper bag over my head in shame but hey, if it makes them happy...

            Bottom line: Most of the homeschooled teens I know could clean most adults' clocks intellectually.

            And fucking a, if I hear the "homeschoolers as God's shock troopers" meme any more around here I'm gonna lose it...

            The revolution starts now--in your own back yard and your own home town--so what's the use of sitting around?

            by LynnS on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:02:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  ::applause:: (none)
              As a similar sort of mom in a similar sort of situation...

              ... I doff my hat to you and every word you wrote.

              My homeschooled 12 YO son reads the NYT every day and checks the political blogs several times a day. He was a Kerry supporter and shook hands with Barack Obama this summer. He listens to Hannity's show becausem he says, I want to know how the other side thinks.

              He's also a normal kid who likes indie rock and soccer and watching Alias.

              i like the world it has gravity and that is good

              by LBK on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:29:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Trouble is... (none)
                He was a Kerry supporter and shook hands with Barack Obama this summer.

                ...I have a sneaking feeling those actions have already disqualified him in the eyes of Goss as "of clean character." Do you suppose that the recruiters of the Bush KGB will simply see "home schooled" on the kid's resume and decide that he's obviously prime material for them? Or might they just take a look at the curriculum he was exposed to in his home -- and vet it for loyalty to the Supreme Leader?

                If your home-schooled kid turned out to be a good lefty, congratulations! It's not people like you who are being questioned here, but people whose purpose in home schooling is to produce good Dominionist theocrats. Oh yeah, they're out there.

            •  thanks you're right (none)
              I made a generalization about home schoolers

              I was about to say that "public education is one key fundamental to keeping the democratic republic alive - I think home schooling should be in addition to public education" - but then if my kid went to public school and learned about creationism in biology class I would be pissed and would consider home schooling too....

              But... I think one fundamental reason we are in the political mess we are in is because our masses have not been educated to think critically about civics, religion, sociology, economics, geopolitics - I know it smacks of socialism but I think public education needs to be more rigorous and should have the goal of producing a group of maturing individuals that could see through the Bushit (skewed media, consumerism, zealotry, etc) - have them pledge allegiance to the constitution...

              ooh a diary on Kossians who home school would be interesting! Man I am going to quit my job and blog all day....

              •  Great idea! (none)
                I think a homeschool thread or diary would be extremely interesting, as well as a way for us to mobilize.

                I'm new here and not up to diary status.  I will participate happily if anyone starts one.

                (Any other homeschoolers studying the history of the Middle East?)

        •  This remind anyone (none)
          of Howard Hughes and his Mormon enclave? Better yet, J Edgar and his.

          The greatest blessing bestowed on a people is the absence of ignorance in public office. - Confucius

          by cavanaghjam on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:59:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Alarming (none)
          I'm so shocked by this report. I can't begin to apprehend the implications. Do y'all know what the majority of Christian fundamentalist home schooling parents* are teaching their little ones in what passes for civics class? It sure isn't democracy.

          go here for a taste:

          *home schooling Christian fundamentalists/Dominionists are a breed apart from other home schooling parents (who may or may not be Christian) who simply find the public schools lacking in rigor (just to make the distinction for the non-fundy home schooling moms and dads here)

          god bless our tinfoil hearts

          by aitchdee on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 11:22:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  re Reasons for Home Schooling (none)
          I pulled my daughter out of public school when a classmate got shot and killed for his Eddie Bauer jacked on the front steps of the school. There are many reasons why parents may opt out of the system.
      •  Bush has his Tukashevsky Moment (none)
        Alas, like Stalin before him, Commander Chimpy McCodpiece has installed his Yezhov and has started purging his "OhGayPayUoosh-niks" if anyone is familiar with what happened to the GPU and Yagoda.

        There is just one problem, Goss should remember what happened to Yezhov, and America should remember what sort of monster followed.  Who will be America's Lavrenti Pavlovich Beria?

        What Kolyma, what Buroplomen, what Magadan or Norilsk awaits America?  Especially if a politicized CIA becomes as inept as it seems it will become, and America is attacked harshly again, because the agency was too busy making gut based decisions founded on the personal hunches of Generalissimo El Busho.

        What element of society will be made the Judas Goat?  What element will be blamed for Bush's failures?

        Hope for peace, but keep a passport ready!

    •  I love it! (none)
      I hope Bush voters are scared shitless at the monster they've created for those one or two hotbutton social issues.

      When they're working time off in the gulag I'm sure they'll be saying "At least homo's aren't getting married!"

      At this point, we're stuck with him for four years and nothing is going to change that. In the meantime its fair to rub this shit in a Bush voters face, like housetraining a dog.

      •  hardly... (none)
        Unless its blaring from Fox, the average Bush voter hasn't a clue anything's wrong.  Just watch Bush clearing some brush on his ranch.  Everything's fine.  Go about your business.
        •  And the average Russian (none)
          thought that the light was kept on so late in Stalin's Kremlin office because he was working all the time for the welfare of the Soviet people.
          •  Eventually... (none)
            ... many ordinary Soviet citizens figured out that they lived in a system that fed them bullshit daily.  Of course, it took decades and millions dead, but they started telling jokes about their leaders.

            Our task is to lessen the time and the human cost of unseating the current junta.  Ridicule is one of our most potent tools.

            Even so, there will always be people who prefer a "strong" leader.  Some Georgians still long for Stalin!  When Duhbya is out of power, there will still be Americans who long for his "moral clarity" (which in the real world is neither).

            These are not people who believe in the kind of open democracy we believe in.  They want the elected kingship that Washington refused to accept, not a messy, compromising perpetual negotiation that demands adult levels of patience.  (They can believe all the counterfactuals of the PIPA survey because they want to believe that their President has special, parental knowledge that he can't share.)

            For Duhbya, personal loyalty is the only requisite - as if he were royalty.  Now there's fertile ground for lampooning!  Let's get started.

            •  pappa (none)
              they want to believe that their President has special, parental knowledge that he can't share.

              Well said. I've heard the 'special parental knowledge' refrain so many times I could shriek. If I say to some Bush-enamored airhead (usually a Bush-enamored airhead I happen to love) - Hey, LOOK, he's so clearly lying, he's dissembling, LISTEN, what's he saying now? Why didn't he want a 9/11 commission before? He's contradicting himself! Oh, great, no WMD! And how many dead? Mission Accomplished? How can you believe a word he says? What's this? Abu Gonzales for AG? How could he? And they look at me with these stupid, stupid, adorable doe eyes and say, "Well for God's sakes, girl, a president has his reasons. He can't just blab everything he knows on TV!"

              The perfect credulity of innocents. What can you do?

              god bless our tinfoil hearts

              by aitchdee on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:03:19 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  ridicule won't work (none)
              with these folks.  It feeds their pathetic persecuted egos.   This thread explains it as well as I've ever seen.

              I tend to think that they are easiest to reach with shame and disgust.  But I haven't done any controlled experiments yet.  
              There's always Thanksgiving with the in-laws...

      •  Scared shitless? (none)
        Are you kidding? Most of the Bush voters will have no problem with this. They're ignorant, probably have absolutely no understanding of what fascism looks like, and would be perfectly happy wearing brown shirts, as long as they aren't too expensive.
        •  This isn't exactly analogous, but it might give (none)
          insight into how people think who have been (or maybe want to be) under the thumb of a dictatorship.

          We have a friend who emigrated from Ukraine who refuses to use a microwave oven (I would digress to explain all the reasons why, most of which are totally bogus). One of her primary reasons is that the Soviet Union outlawed their use in the '80s. Outlawed temporarily and really for economic reasons.

          My wife laughs at this (she is also from Ukraine) because anyone with normal intelligence understands immediately that the Soviet Union NEVER DID ANYTHING with a first consideration being the welfare of the people, especially their health.

          The Bushies are exactly the same way IMHO, they simply believe what they want to believe and use so-called "facts" selectively only to support their narrow/crazy views. When presented with logical argument they either 1. get upset or 2. look dumbfounded.

          - K

          •  Well actually, I wouldnt jump to conclusions here (1.50)
            since the early generations of microwave ovens were indeed dangerous as hell and are suspected to be a cause of a whole crapload of cancers etc. You might also be surprised that some current models are also dangerous.

            The reason? Leakage. You see a microwave oven operates by generating a lethal beam of microwave radiation which luckily is safely contained within a Faraday cage (basicaly the oven forms a sealed metal box).

            But ... ovens have doors and doors are made cheap because people want cheap shit. So try this: insert a flat object like a business card or a coin between a door of your oven and the main body. A business card is ok because the wavelenth of the beam inside is longer then thickness of the card and it wont escape (the beam wavelength is more then the size of those holes in the door window) but if a coin fits or the door is loose (bad hinges are common in cheap crap plastic ovens)... you are cooking yourself each time you stand close to the oven operating. Look to what is happening to the meat inside and think wonderful thoughts as you are receiving small dosage of the same thing. Also note that even though the main beam wont escape, its harmonics (mathematically related wavelengths caused by distortions) of shorter wavelengths will. Fun, no?

            You can actually purchase a leak meter which is used by repair shops (or at least those shops that have a clue) to show you the amount of leaking radiation.

            All things anti-Soviet notwithstanding, sometimes there were people within their vast corrupt aparatus who actually tried to help.

        •  Agreed! (none)
          I've been hearing things of this nature in Texas ever since the 2000 elections. Calls for Bush the "execute" all the liberals in government. The Bush loyalist here will love it. They've been wanting to purge the government of liberals for a long time.

          They are going to have to go very, very far before the far right and maybe most Independents get worried.

  •  Whew... (none)
    the natives were getting restless.  I hope this one doesn't disappear - I may have to start wearing a tin foil hat myself. ;-)
  •  the comments from the previous diary (none)
    may or may not be recoverable. Please report if you care to.

    Note that further down the mainpage is a similar story with comments. That one hasn't disappeared, so don't look for black helicpoters. it's likely a Scoop glitch when comments are added and editing (or some other function) is attempted simultaneously.

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

    by Greg Dworkin on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:10:40 PM PST

  •  When will he rename it the Gestpo? (4.00)
    Seriously, this is the most frightening thing I have seen BushCo do yet. Why don't people care about this?
    •  Ditto that (none)
      I agree. I think it is horrifying. Did anyone see an oldie movie on Turner channel last evening called "Gabriel in the White House?" I think it was made in 1933, starred Walter Huston (dad of John and grandpop of Angelica) and it was about a president who got in an accident, fell into a coma, and then received a mandate from god to become...George Bush. Seriously, the parallels are so striking and scarey. Just more (spritely) steps toward fascism if you ask me.
      •  Monty Python's Life of W (none)
        That's a really fun kooky movie, transcending any recognizable left/right dichotomy with Hearst's crackpot stab at populism. My favorite scenes include the preznit sending tanks into cities to blast blockfuls of mobsters (then court-martialing the survivors to ensure speedier executions), bitching at the French president to repay all of France's debts or the US will rip up all its treaties with France, and using US warplanes to bomb a US battleship, demonstrating to bewildered foreign leaders that their navies are now obsolete given invincible US air power. Sounds like something W would do.

        Over at IMDB, there's an entry on this movie describing the version shown in Europe with a very different ending. In that version, the preznit doesn't die a peaceful death, satisfied with his achievements, but is recognized as a dangerous megalomaniac by those closest to him.

        •  Ya Think THAT'S Funny (none)
          try this scenerio.  Here's this petty dictator and one day his jeep won't start, so what does he do?

          He has the jeep tried for treason. Well, of COURSE, since he runs the place, the jeep is found guilty.  It gets even better, he then has the jeep HUNG.  Not satisfied with this, he then SHOOTS the jeep.

          Funny, huh?

          It happened in Greece and the dictator's name was Papadopoulos who was installed in a CIA sponsored coup.

          Well, of course you're saying he nuts, right?

          Sure he was, but the scary part is that he still ain't as crazy as Smirky McWhackjob.

          You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

          by mattman on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 05:28:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  The politically correct name will be... (none)

      Not my idea alas... seen it all over the web today.

    •  Why don't people care (4.00)
      This is the question of the age. Somebody said recently that as long as people can have a pizza delivered to their door, you won't get them to care about any of this. I don't know why people don't care, but I think it may have something to do with the Us Weekly magazines my buddy's girlfriend leaves laying around our pad. You can't truly care about that crap if you are at all tuned in to things like Bush's backroom maneuvers in government agencies. We here on this site and in similar spheres around the country, online and off, are a little bit deluded as to how much ordinary people see the things we're seeing. We live in a bubble. We have to remember that the majority of the country is not politically engaged. Of those who are at all engaged, most are engaged only as soundbite parrots. Front pages, local news, Jay Leno, attack ads, etc. Few people have the time or make the time to have discussions like this one or try to dig deeper on their own about something Peter Jennings said or sit down and decide once and for all to educate themselves on supply-side economics or try to arrive at a position on Kissinger's South American adventures. Try to remember what reality was like for you before you became truly politically aware. Things were casual and fuzzy and life was about furniture and restaurants and movies and yardwork and payraises and soccer practice and bills, etc. America was the spotless beacon of everything good, but really it just felt normal, and the world was some faint, distant place that occasionally made curious little rattling noises. When the news program got to the pundit segment, you changed the channel because, hey, seinfeld reruns are on TBS. Maybe this was when you were a teen or maybe it was four years ago or maybe it was 6 months ago. But at some point the reality of what's going on in this country and the world stage came crashing home to you with raw urgency, and you started to care enough to have discussions like this one. But the mistake we make is to think that it came crashing home to everyone else at the same time. It didn't. Reality shifted... but reality comes in individually wrapped single serving sizes. Your neighbors are still flipping through the Sears catalog looking at drill bits and tricycles. Fascism is not a term that grocery store clerks can or do expound upon during their cigarette breaks. The cement contractor sitting at the diner counter thinks the American Enterprise Institute sounds like something vaguely upbeat and good that maybe has something to do with small business... or something... maybe... he guesses. That's if he's ever even heard of it. Even your white collar buddies down at the bank are just looking forward to the big game this weekend and hoping their stocks are up. America lives in a bubble and we live inside a much smaller bubble inside that one. People don't care because they don't have to, and haven't had to in their lifetimes. The people who sacrificed and fought and died for the comfort and freedoms we enjoy died a long time ago. They lie in repose on the pages of the history books gathering dust on library shelves. And they did such a good job winning those freedoms that most of us have never had to lift a finger in defense of liberty. And they'll continue to sleepwalk with visions of sugarplums (and SUVs) dancing in their heads until the day they come take Uncle Mike away for speaking out. When the pizza stops, the revolution starts. But, sadly, not before then.
      •  a small request. (3.00)
        please, could you write in shorter paragraphs? not trying to be insulting, here. but it's sometimes difficult to read through a good post when it's all one long para. there's only so much time i have available and so much at dkos i want to read that i tend to throw in the towel and move on if paras are too long. (type styles show up fairly small on my laptop, too, which probably compounds the issue.)

        yeah, i know it's ironic that i post this just after you've mentioned someone reading usweekly, but it's still a sincere request.

        We get a lot of advice. We tend to listen when somebody's won something. - Joe Lockhart

        by yankeedoodler on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:12:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Who was it that said (none)
        socialism was killed in the U.S. by roast beef and chocolate cake?

        The greatest blessing bestowed on a people is the absence of ignorance in public office. - Confucius

        by cavanaghjam on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 08:07:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Exquisite (none)

        And since it's written so lyrically (not to say stream-of-consciously) I personally didn't mind the block of uninterrupted text. I think it's a cool little stylistic decision, and hey, it made me look.

        Fascism is not a term that grocery store clerks can or do expound upon during their cigarette breaks.

        Sometimes when I go to the store late at night and the clerks are all scattered in the aisles, isolated from each other, stacking canned peas and boxes of Malt-O-Meal in silence (or to dulcet Crystle Gayle), I've been tempted to ask them what they think.

        god bless our tinfoil hearts

        by aitchdee on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 04:01:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  can we be MORE alarmist here? (3.00)
      Seriously. There usually is a shake-up in various federal levels after every election.  Yes, Bush is an especially nasty ideologue and this makes it worse, but this isn't exactly unheard of.

      I do suggest liberals get with the program and fight for state's rights as the federal system is just too corrupt and works on this 4 year whim.  The federal system doesnt serve us, it serves military contracters and big business.

      Lets cut it down to basic military protections, cut the FCC down to size, cut federal law enforcement down, cut the power of congress, have strict term limits on everyone - especially the supreme court, etc.

      The US's federal system holds the whole country back . Its your typical corrupt and increasingly useless government. Tell me, what are doing in Iraq? Why should I pay into social security if they're just going to "re-invest" it for me? etc

      •  How Right You Are... (none)
        ...and how obvious the solution is.

        But how does one (or do many) convince the Democratic party's supporters that their most sacred existential principles, i.e. national economic safety nets and federally enforced attempts at social justice, are only serving to empower their enemies?

        Or, how do you get people who's moral self-worth depends on their commitment to the betterment of others to recognize that they're committing cultural suicide?

        How do you get people to fight for themselves first?

  •  I don't get it (4.00)
    If they purge these people, aren't they even more likely to say bad things about Bush? I know the wingnuts control the media, but these guys will figure out how to get the information out. Seems to me it would make more sense if they left them alone.
    •  If they say bad things (none)
      about the shrub, it will be held up as evidence that they were partisan liberal hacks, out to destroy a popularly elected president. Same as it ever was with this crew.
      •  Unless...... (none)
        They come with proof.  That is what I've been waiting for.  The smoking guns in the form of documentation, names, tapes, etc.

        That's the one thing Richard Clark lacked.  Documentation...or, better yet, photos and tapes.

        Progressive values are human values. We are all in this together.

        by NYBri on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:31:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  My feeling exactly (4.00)
      Sun Tzu, Machiavelli and Don Corleone are reported to think the maxim "keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" is relevant. But BushCo. relies on its own "reality".

      That, my friends will be their undoing, sooner or later.

      •  yeah (3.80)
        Seems to me that if they purge these guys, somebody's going to wind up with a horse's head in his bed....

        The Bush people are creepy. But honestly, they aren't that smart. If they were, I'd be twice as scared as I am now.

        •  Smart (none)
          I've had to reevaluate my understanding of the word "smart" in the past 4 years. Bush is not smart. But is he shrewd? He knew he couldn't succeed on his own, but could trade on his father's connections in life, and he did. He knew he could gain power if he let Svengalis and other puppetmasters pull his strings and make his mouth move and cheat/smear him into office, and they did. He's a puppet, but a willing, cognizant puppet. There is a shrewdness there. He'll never solve a rubik's cube, but he made it to the freaking oval office, twice. And he did it because he was shrewd enough to know when to let the smart people drive. I think it's a mistake to assume the people around him aren't smart. Dangerous, deluded, and ruthless? Yes. Stupid? No.
          •  and the "average" american (none)
            for some reason, hates intellect...  which is (at least one reason) why they support dubya... I don't know if it's a byproduct of the overall "dumbing of america" or if it's a reflection of personal insecurity, but we do not love the smart guy... the smart guys have to be self-deprecating or funny to be appreciated by the "average" american...  

            where are we going and why am I in this handbasket??

            by tallawa on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:58:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  i used to believe that. (4.00)
              now after being out in the world and having supervised people, including a lot of college grads who thought i should be impressed with their degrees from "good" schools and not with how well they did the work, i think the average american hates what i hate: people who mistake intellect for superiority. there's a difference, but only the really smart guys understand that.

              think about it. clinton was a wonk. you think anyone ever made a case against him on that basis? the clinton haters never went after him for being smart. why was his personal approval still high for doing the job as president even during the monica days? it's not intellect that is depised in america. it's people who think that intellect is a substitute for sincerity, hard work, doing the job you're paid to do, really caring about people instead of talking about why you should care for them, etc.

              We get a lot of advice. We tend to listen when somebody's won something. - Joe Lockhart

              by yankeedoodler on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:25:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  "Low cunning" (none)
            is how I think of it.

            "Those who betray the trust...are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." - George HW Bush

            by DavidW in SF on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:14:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I think you underestimate him (3.00)
            Just as many many people underestimated Hitler. He appeared to be just as dumb as George. That was amongst many reasons why he was not recognized as a threat until it was too late.

            You forget that W is surrounded by a lot of very cunning people (Wolfowitz, Perle and countless others) who are more then capable of directing him to their ends. Which, as far as anyone is able to tell, is a global Pax Americana, a new Rome, a megalomaniac fantasy of capitalist-Christian utopia or some such.

            So, just as the communists did with their utopian ideology, those people feel justified in doing whatever it takes, ends indeed justify the means for them. A few hundred thousand people have to die here and there? All for a good cause (you seriously do not think Iraq is about Al-Queida, democracy or oil, none of these make much sense) Have to manipulate the sheeple via shrewd media take-overs? Its for the people's own good. They were not ready for the glorious truth anyways. Need to silence a few nay-sayers at home? It has not come to that yet (and I hope it wont), but when legal threats and Guantanamo intenments prove insuficient, then just tell them before putting bullets in the back of their heads that their lives will not be lost in vain, and all will be forgiven! After all the Lord will tell villains from sinners apart and settle all the injustices, wont he?

            There is a new motto for America these days: Oh how the mighty have fallen...

            •  let me explain (none)
              I don't mean to say that the people in the Administration aren't dangerous. They are. But they aren't invulnerable. And they are arrogant---which often leads to screw ups. And they aren't nearly as smart as they think they are. The mess in Iraq is a case in point.

              As far as Hitler goes, you are quite right. He did carry out much of what he promised to do. He exterminated most of the Jews in Europe along with others that he deemed undesirable. And he waged a destructive war that cost millions of others their lives.

              But Hitler wasn't too bright either. He thought he was a great military man but he didn't know what he was doing. He used trains as transport for his "Final Solution" when they could have been used for logistical purposes. (Rommel was really disgusted with this both as a general and as a human being because he did not approve of murdering the Jews.) He also thought he could succeed where Napoleon could not, so he made his disasterous attack on Russia. I'm sure there are other things that people with a better knowledge of WWII than I have could tell you.

              Eisenhower expressed the opinion that Hitler had made winning the war in Europe relatively easy for him.

              This is the only thing that gives me hope. These people are human beings. They are arrogant. And they are not nearly as smart as they think they are. They will make mistakes and it will eventually cause their downfall.  They are not invulnerable. (I say the same thing about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.) Can they make a mess? Sure. They could make things quite bad. But they aren't perfect. Keep that in mind.

              •  You misunderstood. (1.50)
                I am not saying that George or Hitler or Stalin were very smart and cunning as individuals. They all shared the same, singular skill which is the key to their "success": they act as a focal point for some lunatic ideology. This in turn attracts much more cunning adherents of that ideology to asssist the "leader". This of course is the source of their power as well as the seed of their destruction.

                As you pointed out, Hitler's accomplices made him into a very, very powerful man and because he was always a megalomaniac he indeed began to believe his own ifallability. So did Stalin. George is probably getting there. Of course that leads to strategic mistakes because the fuhrer now dismisses advice of his manipulators and proceeds to issue his own commands and the former controllers become unwitting victims of their own "success" as it happened to the high ranking Nazis and their industrialist backers as well as top Bolsheviks. Soon even they will become target of wanton "purges" as the "leader" spins out of control. Its just the mechanics of the thing.

                Now for an extra thick, double-layer tin-foil hat moment, consider this: what if that "bulge" on George's back was a device meant to ... err.. prevent him from becoming anything more then a "focal point", lets say a remotely-contolled motivational package of poison or RDX. I know, I know, extremely far fetched but ... maybe some people do learn from past mistakes...

                •  hmm... (none)
                  I'm not sure where what you just said differs much from what I was just saying. I was just trying to explain my earlier post where I said that they weren't that bright. Some here didn't agree and that is why I explained my thoughts.

                  Now if you want to explore the Manchurian Candidate angles of what is going on, that could go on all night. Er, maybe not Manchurian Candidate. Sounds more like one of the episodes of The Prisoner.

                  Be seeing you.

                •  Read INTERFACE..... (none)
                  I read the little known Sci-Fi book INTERFACE (by Neal Stephenson and Fredrick George writing as 'Stephen Bury') recently. I was pretty stunned by the parallels. When the Bush Bulge issue arose I was convinced.

                  The premise is of an up and coming candidate who has a stroke. Experimental surgery implants a chip in his brain that restores normal functioning, but as a side 'benefit' allows him to be controlled by his 'handlers'.

                  The stunning thing is NOT the technology of the chip but the descriptions of the Uber-Rovian consultants working at every turn, with every dirty trick.

                  Its a good read, and only SLIGHTLY more disturbing that reading the newspaper.. :(

                  Link to Interface at

            •  A Lot of People Underestimated Stalin Too (none)
              You can read about it in Simon Sebag Montefiore's new biography of Stalin.  It's one of Montefiore's main points.
    •  Unless of course... (none)
      ...they purge everything else too, FBI, Secret Service, DoD,  etc.

      A second tier of checks and balances is being dismantled and the traditional first tier is now history.; an oasis of truth.

      by Shockwave on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:20:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gestalt moment... (4.00)
      It just hit me - the main difference between the republicans and the democrats is that the repubs don't give a damn if people say bad things about them.  They are "right", and if someone disagrees with them they will destroy them.  We're the ones who worry all the time about party image and what middle America thinks. They just focus on pleasing the people who already support them and tell their people that they can't trust anyone who criticizes them.  

      We keep thinking that if enough people criticize the administration people will figure out that they are wrong. This is wrong. Most people will either not hear about the criticism or dismiss it as "partisan".  By calling all criticism partisan - eve that which comes from their own party - they've created a teflon administration.  Nothing stick.  No matter how badly they screw up, it doesn't seem to matter.  Republicans present a unified front in the face of all criticism, and people figure that if all those powerful people say it's partisan hackery, then it just must be.

      I don't know how to make things stick to them, but I may have an idea about how to win in spite of it.  Stop worrying about being popular and start acting as if we are right all the time.  They will accuse us of being arrogant - but we just call their criticism partisan hackery.  Start accusing anyone who criticizes the democrats as being partisan. It will take a while to take hold, but people are conditioned to accept this as an excuse alrealy, so that will help.  Of course, in order for this to realy work, we would have to present a unified front.  Too much dissidence within the party would undermine this technique.

      I'm beginning to think more and more that in spite of the conventional wisdom, this isn't abound policy or values or the state of the nation. It's about who can appear the most confidant.  People trust confidance.  That's how a lot of con men win people's trust - by appearing confidant and speaking with authority.  The democrats need to show their confidance in themselves by assaulting anyone who challenges them as vigorously as possible and then assaulting anyone who dares challenge their right to do so.

      On the other hand, I may just have inhaled to many paint fumes. Gotta go finish painting the porch.    

      •  on appearing correct (none)
        Interesting point, I think. But the key here is producing an image which, somehow, is untarnishable. The magic of Bush is his teflon don shtick.

        Lately I've been wondering if the "bad publicity is better than no publicity" thing is somehow working for the republicans. The more Bush does wrong, the more the world hates him, the more a certain number of Americans seem to love him. The more we demonize him, the more they love him. It's really uncanny.

        I agree with a lot of other commenters that we have to reconcile ourselves a bit with Realpolitik here. That means, as a political agent you are not committed to fair and balanced, you are not going to admit error or defeat, you represent a viewpoint. The other side will take care of the criticism of you, don't you worry.

      •  Onward Christian Soldiers (none)
        Also, the great thing about having God on your side is that you can never be wrong. And nobody can argue with you. Who can argue with God?
        •  I am reminded of Bob Dylan here (4.00)
          From The Times, They Are A Changin'.  The song: With God On Our Side

          Oh my name it is nothin'
          My age it means less
          The country I come from
          Is called the Midwest
          I's taught and brought up there
          The laws to abide
          And that land that I live in
          Has God on its side.


          But now we got weapons
          Of the chemical dust
          If fire them we're forced to
          Then fire them we must
          One push of the button
          And a shot the world wide
          And you never ask questions
          When God's on your side.

          Arguing may be moot, but argue we must.

          "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

          by BigOkie on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:10:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The problem (none)
        What happens when they're right? If we close ourselves off to criticism, then we become the Republicans ourselves. I want a party that can defend itself with facts, not allegations.
      •  Diary this! n/t (none)

        The Rambling Rover: Politics, society, travel, oh my

        by jonathanjo on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:50:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Since when (3.50)
      has publishing damning information damaged this administration?  Think Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill.  The lobotomization of the US populace is all but complete.

      "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

      by fishhead on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:11:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right (none)
        And the intellectual gelding machine is television. Damn, smarmy, easy, inane, consumerism-worshipping television.

        The greatest blessing bestowed on a people is the absence of ignorance in public office. - Confucius

        by cavanaghjam on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 08:15:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Intelligence report (4.00)
      The Los Angeles Times had this to say on Friday.

      Despite his public support for restructuring the nation's intelligence community, President Bush has done little to ensure that reforms modeled on the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission pass in the coming lame duck session of Congress.

      And the legislation, which has run into stiff opposition from the Defense Department, is thought to have little chance of passage when a new Congress begins work next year.

      The reason for the lack of presidential follow-through appears to be White House reluctance to challenge Pentagon officials -- and their congressional allies -- who have argued that some of the proposed reforms would weaken the Defense Department's ability to focus intelligence assets where they are most needed in time of war.

      The Pentagon controls 80% of the nation's estimated $40 billion annual intelligence budget. Under the restructuring plan based on the 9/11 commission's report and approved by the Senate, much of that control would shift to a new national intelligence director. The House version of intelligence reform would shift less power to the new director.

      Pentagon supporters have suggested that any major reduction in the Defense secretary's budget power could endanger American troops in combat by depriving them of intelligence.

      The lame duck session -- in which Congress will try to finish work on intelligence reform and other bills left hanging when it recessed for the Nov. 2 election -- begins Tuesday. It could run as long as two weeks, but may adjourn in a matter of days.

      Bush has said he hopes Congress will complete a bill to create a strong national intelligence director and counter-terrorism center. His press secretary has said that completing the bill is a priority for the president.

      But House and Senate supporters of major restructuring say they have seen no sign this week of high-level White House involvement to force a House-Senate compromise on the competing versions of the reform bill.

      "It would take [Chief of Staff] Andy Card or Bush making phone calls to get this done," said one Senate aide involved in the negotiations.

      Congressional action during the lame duck session is vital, proponents of creating a strong intelligence director say, because the issue has begun to lose political steam.

      Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), author of the Senate bill, has said she believes it will be nearly impossible to overcome opposition from entrenched bureaucracies and their defenders on Capitol Hill without the political momentum that pushed the House and Senate to act on intelligence reform before the national election.

      When Bush said the day after his reelection that he looked forward to signing an intelligence bill soon, Collins called national security advisor Condoleezza Rice to say she was grateful for the president's remarks -- and to ask for more help to get a bill finished.

      Relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and members of the commission that studied the attacks added their voices at a briefing on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, calling on Bush to push for passage of the legislation.

      But despite the White House pronouncements and these requests for help, negotiations to resolve differences between the House and Senate bills proceeded sluggishly this week.

      House negotiators rejected the Senate's latest compromise proposal. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert sent his chief of staff, Scott Palmer, to negotiate with Collins' staff Wednesday, but no breakthrough was achieved.

      Bush doesn't want to reform intelligence. He wants to politicize it.

      So now that everything is moving "sluggishly" I guess we know how serious Bush was back in July when he said this (Washington Post):

      Asked if anyone at the agency would be fired over the intelligence failure, McLaughlin said the CIA must not be "risk averse." He added, "I can think of nothing that would be more effective in generating aversion to risk than to hold an individual personally accountable for a mistake that might have been made by hundreds of people around the world. . . ."

      President Bush called the report "useful" and said he looked forward to working with Congress on reforming the intelligence community.

      "The idea that the Senate has taken a hard look to find out where the intelligence-gathering services went short is good and positive," Bush said during a political campaign stop in Kutztown, Pa. "We need to know. I want to know. I want to know how to make the agencies better, to make sure that we're better able to gather the information necessary to protect the American people."

      Bush said that among the needed reforms were measures to "bolster human intelligence," make better use of technology and improve coordination among intelligence-gathering agencies.

      While the committee's nine Republicans and eight Democrats voted unanimously to release the report, they expressed some differences about whether the Bush administration exerted undue political pressure on the intelligence community to provide assessments that supported a decision to go to war in Iraq. And Democrats lamented that a second phase of the committee's investigation -- into how the administration used the intelligence it received -- will not be completed until well after the November elections.

      Here's what I think:

      The second phase of the committee's investigation must be particularly damning. And that's why the administration, through its tools David Brooks and other partisan hacks, have raised this issue of the CIA rife with "liberal Democrats" and others. Because when the report is released, Bush and Co. will simply pass it off to their audience as a partisan hack job instead of an honest indictment of the administration.

      Well, Watson, we seem to have fallen upon evil days. -- Sherlock Holmes.

      by Carnacki on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:33:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  bingo! (4.00)
        Bush doesn't want to reform intelligence. He wants to politicize it.

        I was wondering when someone would get to this.  

        You know what that means?  

        Whatever the White House says or does, the CIA has got to confirm it and go lock-step into the abyss.  Throw out the mavericks, throw out the guys who have been working since Carter's time, throw out the guys who vote Repub yet act as the liberal branch of the CIA, throw out the intellectuals, and you come out with an American Gestapo guided by whoever is in the White House.

        Yeah, there is such a thing as Dem CIA and Repub CIA and have been since the CIA first began.  The lines got sharper after the Vietnam debacle.  But they are not all Dems.

        The second phase of the committee's investigation must be particularly damning.

        It is.  See the Village Voice last week.  Porter Goss is going to hack it to bits and rewrite it so that it looks as though the Agency is taking the fall for the ineptness of the White House.  Even 9/11 widows (think the Jersey Girls) have begged Goss to let the report out.  Not until he is finished with it, the worm.

        And that's why the administration, through its tools David Brooks and other partisan hacks, have raised this issue of the CIA rife with "liberal Democrats" and others. Because when the report is released, Bush and Co. will simply pass it off to their audience as a partisan hack job instead of an honest indictment of the administration.

        Plainly, it is a set-up.  I've said it before and I will say it again: I never felt so sorry for the CIA as I do now when it has to do with the security of the nation.  And does Bush really and truly care about that?  Not unless it gets him some mileage.  

        These guys are going to be made the chumps for Bush, when all these guys wanted to do was do their jobs.  Understaffed, undermanned, infighting, lack of leadership.  Did anyone see "Anonymous" on Sixty Minutes last night?

        One-fifth of the people are against everything all the time.--Bobby Kennedy

        by blksista on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:38:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  who is getting purged? (none)
      Seriously folks, lets consider that Tenet and his people came to the conclusion that Iraq's WMD was a slam dunk. Those people who helped produced Powell's "proof" all have to go.

      The question is, is this administration going to reward failure?

      I guess we wont find out until after the change of power in the CIA.

      And pardon me for not loving the CIA that brought us such "liberal" items like El Salvador, drugs for guns for hostages, Chile, etc.  Its a pretty fucking evil organization to start with.

      On top if the newsday piece is shrill and keeps us distracted from real issues like this new intelligence position and what Goss is really doing.

      •  But we don't know (none)
        what the CIA reports actually said. I guarantee you they were couched in probabilities and studded with hedged bets. Not a one of them said, "Slam dunk" or "We know he has these weapons and we know where they are."

        The greatest blessing bestowed on a people is the absence of ignorance in public office. - Confucius

        by cavanaghjam on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 08:19:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's a calculated risk (none)
          Bush knows there are people in the CIA who disagree with his policies, and he can be pretty sure that if he continues to spend his hard-earned capital, these people will eventually balk and go to the press.  If he roots them out now, immediately after being reelected, there will be a breif media flurry, mostly about scandals that are already "over" in most people's minds.  Bad, but less bad than his other options.

          If he'd done a "purge" before the election, he might've been damaged as new shit came to light.  OTOH, waiting till 2008 would give his opponents in the CIA new ammunition to use against him, and it would break when it really matters; when a new Republican is desperately trying to convince us that four more years is all they'll need to turn things around, for reals this time.

    •  Who'll listen to them (none)
      BushCorp and the media will shrug it off the "They're just a bunch of disgruntled liberals who deserved to lose their jobs because they let 9/11 happen and the country will accept it because they can't bear to believe Bush could do anything immoral since he's, supposedly, only sleeping with lovely hit and run Laura. (As if anything else would sleep with him.)
  •  WOAH! (4.00)
    Purging the "liberals"?!

    Friends, I do believe we're getting closer and closer to the end of America.

    "How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?" -John Kerry, 1971

    by Demise on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:13:46 PM PST

    •  For "Liberals" Read - (4.00)

      You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

      by mattman on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:43:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  how can that work? (none)
      So what he's going to purge people because of what party is listed on their voter registration cards?  Is it going to be a "democrat free zone?".

      How else would they know who's "liberal"?

    •  arrgh (3.50)
      I so wish I disagreed with you. The large societal forces at work in the country have momentum. They will clash. This is the familiar sound of history, except we're getting it in real time. The religious nuts will only get nuttier and will gain converts. The rich will get richer and the poor, poorer. Rights will continue to erode. People like us will get angrier and more inclined to reject the system. A threshold will be reached, and something will ignite it all (too bad we're not the gun nut party). This is just extrapolation of current trends. At some point we're looking at a conflict. 20 years? 40? It's easy to look back on thoughts like this years down the road and see how worked up you'd gotten yourself, how things really weren't that bad and there were plenty of sensible options available. I hope that's the case here. I'd love to be wrong, but perhaps Jefferson's tree of liberty requires "watering" at long last.
    •  Well, at least one without the rule of law (none)

      US Code TITLE 5, PART III, Subpart A, CHAPTER 23, Section 2301:

      (a) This section shall apply to--
      (1) an Executive agency; and
      (2) the Government Printing Office.
      (b) Federal personnel management should be implemented consistent with the following merit system principles:
      (1) Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of society, and selection and advancement should be determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills, after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity.
      (2) All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management without regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or handicapping condition, and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights.

      Visit the Diary of the Lying Socialist Weasels, for commentary from the Original Progressive Web Warriors!

      by Jonathan on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:52:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Cmon man (none)
        We're talking about National Security here, silly things like "rights" have no dominion.

        "How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?" -John Kerry, 1971

        by Demise on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:59:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Lest you worry.. (none)
        I'm sure Abu Gharib Gonzalez won't have too much difficulty drafting a new "memo" pertaining to US Code TITLE 5, PART III, Subpart A, CHAPTER 23, Section 2301, rendering it "quaint" or perhaps obsolete in a time of War.

        You know W is for War!

        Dem leadership. Grow a set.

        by Espumoso on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:17:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, unlike the Abu Ghraib issue... (none)
          ...this is likely to generate real lawsuits in real courts that the administration will have to defend.  The Gonzales defense would never have held up in court, IMHO, but was never tried.

          Regardless of whether they draft memos stipulating legal grounds for purging people of a certain political affiliation, the statute is pretty clear.

          Visit the Diary of the Lying Socialist Weasels, for commentary from the Original Progressive Web Warriors!

          by Jonathan on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:21:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It was ajudicated (none)
            The Supreme Court, IIRC, did rule overwhelmingly against Abu Gharib Gonzalez and instructed the Administration to hold hearings to determine each Gitmo prisoner's status; i.e. prove they are enemy combatants and if they are not, they must be held under the Geneva Convention. (Please correct me if I am wrong as I am reciting from memory)

            The moral of the story is that the administration has basically given the bird to the United States Supreme Court and is saying "what you gonna do about it?"

            Seriously, if the administration just decides that the Supreme Court rulings don't matter, who will force them to abide by those rulings. This has happened numerous times in the lower courts. Lower courts rule that, for example, they must release the energy task force documents and the administration basically says, "la la la la la... we can't hear la la la la...."

            So who will enforce the laws of the United States of America if the Executive branch of government decides that a particular ruling is "obsolete"?

            Seriously. Who?

            Dem leadership. Grow a set.

            by Espumoso on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 05:01:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  err (none)
              First PP above. Substitue, John "5000.00 boob sash" Ashcroft, in place of Abu Gharib Gonzalez.

              Dem leadership. Grow a set.

              by Espumoso on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 05:08:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  But I thought (none)
              it was Ashcroft who argued that Gitmo prisoners must have some rights as prisoners and Gonzalez who argued against it. Ashcroft, of course (not being able to beat a dead man in a debate), caved. So we're getting as AG a man who makes Ashcroft seem like an ACLU lawyer. Seems when you think things can get no worse some hidden fate just laughs. Anyone got a copy of the Book of Job?

              The greatest blessing bestowed on a people is the absence of ignorance in public office. - Confucius

              by cavanaghjam on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 08:29:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Double WOAH!! (none)
      Purging the liberals...from the CIA?!?!?!?!

      Honestly, wouldn't you find snowballs in hell before you found a hotbed of liberals in the CIA?  Damn, is it possible to have Nixonian paranoia AND a God-complex?  I mean, the absolute corruption and evil of these people have no name...yet.  

      I believe someone here called them Busheviks--that's a start.

      I think, therefore I'm damned.

      by AuntiePeachy on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:31:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What disgusts me (none)
    is that 51% of the voting public would probably think this is a good idea. Don't they teach history in school anymore?
  •  Apparently over the missing explosives leak (none)
    see this ominous shot over the bow on the Oct 20 edition of Worldnet Daily.

  •  I couldn't believe this comment when I read it (4.00)
    The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda."

    This looks straight out of the Third Reich:

    The Gestapo is looked on by the Chancellery as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the Führer's agenda.

    ... Wait a second, there's a difference; The Nazis were never this stupid.

    "Let us realize that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
    --Dr. King, "Where do we go from here?" 1967

    by sersan on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:15:43 PM PST

    •  stupidity (none)
      / Wait a second, there's a difference; The Nazis were never this stupid./

      Be glad for that....very glad

    •  More like 1984.... (3.85)
      I swear Karl Rove is seriously reading Orwell every night before he goes to bed. They did such a good PR job in this last electoin that words have lost their meaning, and have been redefined to make dissent impossible.

      - War is Peace
      We're sold an "endless war" on terror to achieve peace, but this begs the question. If it's endless, when will the peace occur? Also, we're "fighting" people to "bring democracy" to the same people.

      What really topped the list for me was during the Falluja thing, the Pentagon starting to refer to the insurgency as "anti-Iraqi" forces! Both sides are using the Iraqi flag! It's quite surreal.

      This whole talk about earning and spending capital is also scarry. He said "he intends to spend his capital in the Middle East." As if this, too, has a "market solution" like Health Care and Education.

      - Ignorance is Strength
      We don't need to know "how" Iraq was going to "thrat" us. We don't need to know "where" the WMD were. We just need to leave all of our thinking up to the Administration and accept their conclusions as fact. The media has already figured out that this is a lot cheaper than investigation.

      During the invasion, when I was debating pro-war guys, many people admitted they did not know Saddam's capabilities or that he was really a threat. They admitted there was no evidence. But They said Bush HAS the evidence and that's enough for them.

      - Freedom is Slavery
      Yea. We're fighting terrorism to "preserve" freedom. But in the meantime, in order to do a good job of preserving it, we will take away quite a big chunk of your freedom. PATRIOT act and Guantanamo bay are perfect examples.

      Everything you know is wrong. Up is down, left is right, right is wrong... - Weird Al Yankovic

      by Florida Democrat on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:22:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, they just killed their enemies (none)

      So if "liberals" are an "elite", how come we aren't in charge?

      by Pam in MA on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:29:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  James Wolcott (none)
      Vanity Fair contributing editor James Wolcott is thinking along similiar lines. Link here

      But that's not the issue with the Goss purge. The issue is that Goss is politicizing the agency, turning it into a strong arm of the Bush regime, guaranteeing that information will be slanted toward the conclusions Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld have already reached, that nary a discouraging word will deter the administration from its path of crusade.

      To have all the executive, congressional, and judicial branches run by one party, a party determined to bring the intelligence agencies into ideological line--that's fascism in the making, my friends.

      Wolcott's always worth a read.

      Well, Watson, we seem to have fallen upon evil days. -- Sherlock Holmes.

      by Carnacki on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 08:34:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There was a name for it (none)
      The Secret State Police (aka the Gestapo) was started by the Nazi's, so it never needed any such purge.

      However, the overall policy of ridding society of "unreliable" elements was called "Gleichschaltung", literally something like "getting into gear", or, more loosely, coordination. The process included firing of political opponents, Jews, etc.

      With the Southern Baptists, the process involved basically a loyalty oath on the inerrancy of the Bible; anyone (say, a professor in a Baptist college)  who would not agree to this was subject to being forced out, tenure or no. I would not be surprised to see some similar issue come to the fore here.

      Anyone see the loathsome response of Sen.  McCain :

      To think that I once thought he was an honorable man.


  •  How disgusting (none)
    Richard Nixon used to tell subordinates to fire everyone at the State Dep't. and suchlike, but no one actually did it.

    Dems--wake up and get these despicable thieves out of power as soon as possible.

    Well, here we are in mid-stream, still staring at that same horse's ass!

    by rhubarb on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:16:22 PM PST

  •  Is Anyone (2.82)
    out there looking to impress Jodie Foster?

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

    by BigOkie on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:16:53 PM PST

    •  Special Secret Serevice Detail (4.00)
      Watch it. There is a special SS enforcement unit whose job it is to deduce threats veiled as obscure historical references.

      We the undersigned urge you to support Federal funding for research using human pluripotent stem cells. -80 Nobel Laureates to Pres. Bush

      by easong on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:23:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hahahaha (4.00)
        If they knew ANYTHING about history they'd already deduced what "SS" originally stood for and understand the REAL threat ain't veiled.

        You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

        by mattman on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:49:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  And you wonder why you're on the TSA watch list? (none)

      Proud Member, Controversial Daily Kos Extremist Group

      by DC Pol Sci on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:11:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  THAT'S Funny (none)
        I guess I shouldn't be wondering, eh?

        The thing is, I have at least a partial belief that it could be true.  If so, everyone here needs to be shitting their bricthes and waiting for the night of the long knives.

        "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

        by BigOkie on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:17:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Congratulations (2.75)
      You're my first Super Troll rating.

      Which is really saying something, considering my dKos user number.

      That's not a mandate. This is a mandate.

      by Malacandra on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:23:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Have one back (1.75)
        asshole.  For thinking you have the right to be the arbiter of taste.

        Ooooh, and I suppose I should be cowering over your mighty "low user number".

        What a prick.

        "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

        by BigOkie on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:29:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  a (4.00)
          doesn't it crawl up your ass when people get all republican and throw their "weight" around.  Low user number = power?  and thus we see power corrupting absolutely even on the left :p
          •  I'd never suggest... (4.00)
            ...that low user number means anything other than that someone has been here for a long time.

            which I have been. And that's relevant to the fact that I had never used the Super Troll rating before. In fact, I rarely give out anything besides 3s or 4s.

            But a joke about assassination is beyond the pale in my opinion... regardless of the low esteem I have for this president.

            Ratings are expressions of opinion - and that's mine. If that makes me a prick or an asshole,  so be it.

            That's not a mandate. This is a mandate.

            by Malacandra on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:51:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  alright, someone explain it (none)
              and the jodie foster thing too.
              •  in 1981, (none)
                John Hinckely, Jr tried to assassinate President Reagan, claiming he was trying to impress Jodie Foster. I believe he was obsessed with her role in Taxi Driver.

                In the movie, Robert De Niro plays a bitter vet driving a cab in NYC, who tries to rescue the young prostitute played by Jodie Foster. The most famous line from the movie is probably, "Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the street."

                It's not exactly clear what the connection with Reagan could be. As far I know, Hinckley is still confined to a mental hospital.

                So if "liberals" are an "elite", how come we aren't in charge?

                by Pam in MA on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 05:32:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  John Hinckley (none)
                John Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan after watching the movie Taxi Driver too many times.

                In that movie, Robert DeNiro plays a character who plots to assassinate the a presidential candidate... and young Jodi Foster played a child prostitute.  

                Hinckley claimed that he was motivated to kill Reagan to impress Jodi Foster, with whom he had become obsessed. Hinckley was found "not guilty" by reason of insanity.

                Also struck by Hinckley's bullets was Press Secretary James Brady, for whom the "Brady Bill" was named. That's the bill that enforces a waiting period and background check on people buying handguns. Brady suffered a very serious head wound that left him disabled for life.

                That's not a mandate. This is a mandate.

                by Malacandra on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 05:32:33 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  I need help (none)
                What are the ratings you are talking about. I am new and don't see any numbers. Sorry for my ignorance.
                •  Ratings (none)
                  After the title of each comment you'll see something like this:

                  (4.00 / 2)

                  These are user ratings for the comment. The first number is the total rating for the comment, the second number being how many people bothered to rate it.

                  You, or any member can rate a comment by the drop-down list under that comment. There are typically 4 choices:

                  1. Troll
                  2. Marginal
                  3. Good
                  4. Excellent

                  When someone posts enough comments that are well received (garnering high ratings) they get a bonus: They are given "Trusted User Status", which allows them to assign another level of rating: "Super Troll".  That's reserved for posts that convey no real information and are offensive, objectionable or disruptive.

                  If the rating for a comment falls below 1, that comment vanishes... to all but "Trusted Users" who may disagree with the initial "banishment" of that comment, and rate it back up so that it appears.  

                  The whole system is intended to allow the community to be self-policing. If someone gets enough bad ratings, they can be booted from the site by Kos.

                  If a "Trusted User" gets enough bad ratings, they can lose their "Trusted User" status. Both of these are reasons why people get annoyed about being Troll or "Super Troll" rated.

                  It takes two people to rate a comment before it actually receives a rating value - so frequently you'll see:

                  (none / 1)

                  BTW, just pulling down the drop-down list to rate a post isn't enough to actually rate it. You also need to push the button that says "Rate All"... which will register your rating 'vote' for every comment on the page. That means that as you look down the list of comments, you can choose your rating for each of them... but only have to hit the "Rate All" button once for them all.

                  That's not a mandate. This is a mandate.

                  by Malacandra on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 06:17:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  why does it say "Rate All", anyway? (none)
                    Seems like whoever wrote the form copied the button from somewhere else and didn't bother to change the text (shouldn't it say "Rate this comment" or just "Rate"?  "Rate All" sounds like it'll rate all the comments, which makes no sense).  That one mislabeled button has got to be the primary source of confusion about the ratings system.  Or am I missing something?  
                    •  Let's say your're in a thread (none)
                      like this one with over 200 comments.  And let's say that by the time you have sifted through all the comments there are 14 that you want to rate.  You can either RECORD your rating of each comment as you read it (one at a time) by hitting the "rate all" button.  But by doing so, you will have, by the time you finish, refreshed your page 14 times.  The less time consuming option is to rate each comment as you read it (but DON'T hit the "rate all" button) and then once you've finished reading and rating them all RECORD all 14 at once by hitting the "rate all" button at the very end.  Not only does it RECORD all 14 comments in one fell swoop, it does so  while only having to refresh your page once.  

                      Clear as mud?

                      "Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is these aren't very bright guys."

                      by Ret on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 08:53:43 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  scoop history (none)
                      Back in the early days of Scoop (the software that runs this site) and (the site that Scoop was written for), the rate button did indeed say "rate." As in, "rate this one comment."

                      That meant that you had to reload the damn story every single damn time you wanted to give a single damn comment a damn rating. It was damned frustrating, and damned slow, and damn near nobody bothered with the damn ratings.

                      Then some smart guy, probably rusty, recoded things to allow a user to rate any and all comments on a page, then submit them all at once via any "rate all" button. And there was joy in Mudville.

                  •  What I think we have here (none)
                    is someone demonstrating how to abuse the ratings in their rating of this post.

                    "Those who betray the trust...are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." - George HW Bush

                    by DavidW in SF on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 12:32:23 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Thank you so much (none)
                    I know it's annoying helping newbies out, but I really appreciate it.
              •  And don't forget (4.00)
                John Hinckley's parents' cozy relationship with the Neil Bushes, if I recall correctly.
      •  The 4's for mojo... (4.00)
        ...because you're right, and you don't deserve the negative ratings.

        For those who don't know this: it's very stupid to tell jokes about hurting politicians, just as it's very stupid to tell bomb or terrorist jokes while standing in line at the airport. It's a great way to get yourself thrown in jail. For real. Happens all the time. As I recall, the Secret Service threw a guy in jail a year or two ago for getting drunk at a bar and telling stupid "burning Bush" jokes about setting Dubya on fire. It's not about whether a threat is intended or credible, it's about whether you give them an opportunity to make an example of you.

        So don't do that anymore, huh, kids? It's not worth it -- the jokes really aren't funny.

        We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. - Anaïs Nin

        by Valentine on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:26:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Neither post deserved a zero (3.40)
        BigOkie's post was certainly dark and ugly humor (which I rated a 2. If it had been hidden I would have rated it up to visibility.) I can understand a zero rating for the sentiments expressed, though do not necessarily agree.

        However, Malacandra certainly does not deserve retaliatory "Super-Troll" ratings. He was not abusing the ratings, nor was his comment in any way "Super-Troll". I rated up accordingly.

        "Those who betray the trust...are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." - George HW Bush

        by DavidW in SF on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:32:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And you don't deserver a one (none)
          I'm rating you up, not because you rated me up (although I appreciate that) but because I don't see anything about your post that warrants a Troll rating at all.  

          Needless to say, I obviously think you are being generous to BigOkie with a 2... and generous to me as well. I can't imagine what someone considers trollish about that.

          And yet you received a one.
          I almost expect that it was a mistake.

          Troll ratings are for folks who are being rude, crude, willfully disruptive and obnoxious. They aren't for people who you merely disagree with. Or people who are taking sides with people you disagree with.

          I dropped a zero-bomb on BigOkie (and I wasn't the first - or second - to do so) because not only did I think his joke was in horribly bad taste, but because I believe that it comes perilously close to behavior that could expose him - and possibly even dKos - to scrutiny by federal agents.

          Others pointed out that BigOkie could be receiving a visit from the Secret Service - I suspect that he thinks they're kidding... and they may have been kidding. However, I actually know someone this really happened to. Not a "friend of a friend" - but someone I've been very close to for many years.

          She was a teen-ager when she wrote a letter to President Nixon at the height of the VietNam war, and she posed a rhetorical question - something along the lines of "How would you like it if someone was dropping napalm on your family and neighbors?".

          That was enough for her household to get a scary visit from the Men in Black, wanting to see if this represented a credible threat to the President. They take stuff like that seriously, even when it's meant rhetorically. Or as a joke.

          No, they didn't drag her off in cuffs... but then again, she was just a naive teenage girl.


          Perhaps it's post-election stress... and/or the edginess of the news these days... but people on this blog are really testy lately, and we're turning on our own. And that's pretty scary, too.

          That's not a mandate. This is a mandate.

          by Malacandra on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 11:46:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  O fer the lurv of gawd (none)
        Congratulations to you, too. You get my first Self-Important Grouchy Puss rating, which mysteriously appeared among your drop-down menu rating options. Golly, Bill Maher must make you weep.

        god bless our tinfoil hearts

        by aitchdee on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:06:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bill Maher (none)
          Golly, Bill Maher must make you weep.

          Only when he's licking Ann Coulter's boots.

          That's not a mandate. This is a mandate.

          by Malacandra on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:09:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hey ... (none)
            I regret yelling at you earlier today. Bitching people out isn't really my style, and it wasn't my business anyway.

            The joke made me laugh (with more genuine mirth than I've felt in nigh two weeks), but not because I'm amused by the misfortunes of others. I just thought the question--that simple, smartly unelaborated question--was awfully clever. Truly, it was the wit of the delivery that struck me funny, not the suggestion of, er ... anything unpleasant. The complications a joke like that might lead to --  well, that simply didn't occur to me.

            And of course with or without complications, if it offened your sensibilities you had every right to say so. I'm real sorry about the 1 - that was doubly unnecessary. I've looked at a handful of your posts; you're a good writer and we agree on many things. For what it's worth, I'm sure I'll have no problem making it up to you someday.


            god bless our tinfoil hearts

            by aitchdee on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 02:57:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you... (none)
              I appreciate your olive branch, and am grateful for it.

              I was genuinely sorry - based on your posts & web page - that you had formed a poor opinion of me. I agree that it appears that we're basically on the same side of many issues.

              Frankly, I think this has been a rough month for most of us here... so we may be more inclined to misjudge and/or snap at each other.

              That's not a mandate. This is a mandate.

              by Malacandra on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 12:48:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  First On the List (none)
    Whoever talks to Knut Royce, or is suspected of talking to Knut Royce, or kind of thinks like someone who is suspected of talking to Knut Royce, is first on the list.
  •  Why McCain is an asshole (4.00)
    "I think this kind of shakeup is absolutely necessary," Mr. McCain said on the ABC News program "This Week." "One thing that has become abundantly clear, if it wasn't already: this is a dysfunctional agency, and in some ways a rogue agency."

    Does old McCain understand that the people being pushed out are the ones who were right about Osama Bin Laden and Iraq's WMD? And that the people being promoted by Goss are the boot-lickers who gave Cheney the intelligence he wanted?

    •  McCain (none)
      Is McCain stepforded?
      •  Sounds like he has been buggered... (4.00)
      •  Face Facts (3.50)
        McCain is and always has been a bubblehead, even if his heart is in the right place on a few issues.

        The guy is such an Eagle Scout he probably really believes that what's going on at the Agency represents a much-needed housecleaning instead of a partisan purge.

        McCain is currently serving as Bush's useful idiot on the issue.  Maybe he can be our useful idiot on other issues in the future.  Let's just not forget that he's basically a dope.

        I never rode shotgun on a hearse before.

        by angry blue planet on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:34:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Another example of why I get irked ... (4.00)
      ...when Democrats get all mushy over McCain, saying he is a straight shooter who maybe should even be the vice presidential nominee on a Democratic ticket. This guy, however "honest" he may be, is not our friend, and never was, no matter what George Bush did to him in 2000.

      Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy.

      by Meteor Blades on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:22:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Befuddlement (none)
        Yes - too have been totally confused by the degree to which McCain has been used to try to support Progressive arguements. (BTW: I personally dont like using DEM to represent progrssive agenda...please see the record of the DLC for why.)  Here for example is a very good reason to think McCain is a total yahoo:

        Here is a McCain story from around OCT 28th about using Federal ID system to track travel history.  

        Here is the summary posting from where I found it:
        (there is a particularly good comment about how to contact your rep/senator regarding the legislation)

        Here is the original story on ZDNet:
        (there are lots of links including drafts of the legislation)

        Here are excerpts from ZDNet:
        Because the House version is nearly three times as long, its authors had more room to promote private agendas.

        One section anticipates storing the "lifetime travel history of each foreign national or United States citizen" into a database for the convenience of government officials. It mentions passports, but there's nothing that would preclude recording the details of trips that Americans take inside the United States.


         Still, the Senate bill is no prize. A last-minute amendment added by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would require the Department of Homeland Security to create an "integrated screening system" inside the United States.

        McCain envisions erecting physical checkpoints, dubbed "screening points," near subways, airports, bus stations, train stations, federal buildings, telephone companies, Internet hubs and any other "critical infrastructure" facility deemed vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Secretary Tom Ridge would appear to be authorized to issue new federal IDs--with biometric identifiers--that Americans could be required to show at checkpoints.


        god this is getting easier...this is mostly compiled from an email I sent to in OCT.

      •  Absolutely (4.00)
        Any guy who can have his honor trounced and then end up stumping for the offender because he believes it will result in support for his presidential nomination in 2008 is no one we want to be associated with.
        •  It is not that BushCo trashed him. (none)
          That is politics.

          McCain's rim job of BushCo is contemptable is becasue they trashed his wife and his kids. Any man who can eat the asshole of the person who trash those he loves has no honor.

      •  Hurry, and check (none)
        I wonder if McCain is suddenly grown a rectangle box on his back.  Might be he is hearing voices telling him what to say.  
      •  feel sorry for the old guy (none)
        no matter what George Bush did to him in 2000.

        Poor John McCain needs to get himself a copy of Co-Dependent No More.

        god bless our tinfoil hearts

        by aitchdee on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:30:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Frankly both Mcain and Graham are neocon friendly (none)
      .  The neocons aren't bad on domestic police. They all think if themselves as being in the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt.  You should realize the TR had such an agressive foriegn policy that Mark Twain literally thought him a wackjob.
    •  Calling McCain an Asshole (4.00)
      Is an insult to rectums everywhere!  It is abunddantly clear that he will say whatever he must to reinforce his main principle: It's all about John McCain.

      I can appreciate his patriotic service to our country, his once in a while stance on something principled, etc.  When he failed to savage Chimpo for South Carolina 2000 he made a conscious decision to be their ass monkey.  Today was just another performance.

      "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

      by BigOkie on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:30:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  McCain and Graham are neocon friendly (2.50)

      .  The neocons aren't bad on domestic policy. They all think if themselves as being in the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt.  You should realize the TR had such an agressive foriegn policy that Mark Twain literally thought him a wackjob
      •  A portion of the NeoImps ... (none)
        ...have been, at least in the past, practically social democrats on domestic policy. But it's always a bad idea to lump them altogether on anything.  

        Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy.

        by Meteor Blades on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:40:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Of course he understands (none)
      It's a classic good/bad cop routine

      Bush - bad cop
      McCain - good cop

      It helps to give the republicans a moderate face and it's working like magic.

    •  McCain is a 'party wife' (4.00)
      Gawd, when are people going to look at the facts and see his voting record is ultra-conservative? Or see how he was torn apart by Rove in 2000 (black baby?!) and now is endorsing the Rovian candidate.

      When I press people about why they trust or even think highly of Rove they say stuff like "He has a reputation.." blah blah. In other words the tv-man said McCain is to be repsected and the left buys it just as much as the right. Pathetic.

    •  McCain's Capitulation (none)
      Yes, I think he knows [that the purges are of the honest].  It looks to me like something really unpleasant happened to him around the time of the GOP convention and he has decided to make his peace with the Borg.
  •  Horror writer (4.00)
    This quote from H.P. Lovecraft seems appropriate to this topic and these days under this administration:

    "I recall that the people went about with pale and worried faces, and whispered warnings and prophecies which no one dared consciously repeat or acknowledge to himself that he had heard. A sense of monstrous guilt was upon the land, and out of the abysses between the stars swept chill currents that made men shiver in dark and lonely places."

    Well, Watson, we seem to have fallen upon evil days. -- Sherlock Holmes.

    by Carnacki on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:22:29 PM PST

  •  CIA Head released from hospital (none)

    Reuters-After a year in intensive care, CIA head Porter Goss has been released from Walter Reed hospital, & may return to his post as head of the CIA soon.
    A spokesman had no comment on whether he will testify to the Gramm Commission about the Fort Dix Massacre. The commission is still investigating just who was behind the terrorist bombing that wiped out all of Goss' entourage & left him severly injured . . .
    •  Careful, Dude (4.00)
      I got flamed for a snarky reference to Jody Foster.

      I hear Gitmo is lovely this time of year.

      "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

      by BigOkie on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:38:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're just determined to get ... (4.00)
      ...a government visit, eh?

      Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy.

      by Meteor Blades on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:38:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The thing is, (none)
        MB, that once upon a time a comment like this was comical because of the absurdity of the suggestion.  Now. . .it's funny in a dark, gallows humor sort of way.

        I'm not one given to hyperbole either, but things like this just do not seem over the top anymore.

        "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

        by BigOkie on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:22:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Having been the recipient of ... (4.00)
          ...government visits (both overt and covert) in the 1960s, '70s and '80s, I'm not one who thinks all references this is hyperbole. I just think people should not provide any excuses by making ambiguous comments about activity such as in the above post. It's one thing to talk about authoritarianism and how dictatorially inclined the Bush folks are. Quite another to hint at a violent response.

          Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy.

          by Meteor Blades on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:28:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Right-winger gleeful about purge two weeks ago (4.00)
    I googled "CIA purge" this morning to see if any other sources had come up and found this, dated October 30th:
    The CIA in deep Qaqaa

    Editor's note: Jack Wheeler's unique intelligence site To the Point features concise, accurate analysis of geopolitical happening around the globe. This column and others like it are available on his site to members only.

    By Dr. Jack Wheeler
    © 2004

    Since new CIA Director Porter Goss blocked the October Surprise agency left-wingers had prepared against Bush (discussed in "Porter At The Pass" last week), they desperately rigged another one, working with Mohammed ElBaradei at the U.N.

    What nobody is focusing on in Al Qaqaagate is that the CIA is behind it. The anti-Bush lefties are now known as the "Rogue Weasels" at Langley, and they are frantic to do whatever they can to elect Kerry. They cooked up this entire phony "tons of missing explosives" scandal, sweet-talked the head of the U.N.'s nuclear inspection agency, ElBaradei, to carry their water and leak it to CBS - which drooled at the opportunity to spring the story on election eve. They then briefed Kerry and prepared his instant assault on Bush once the surprise broke.

    But some clever pro-Bush Langley folks, seeing they couldn't spike the story at CBS, sweet-talked the New York Times into jumping the gun, spoiling the surprise and giving the Bush campaign time to tear the phony scandal apart. Then they leaked it to Drudge, whose website promptly blew the lid off the whole scam.

    The Al Qaqaa scandal (the site of the "missing" explosives in Iraq is named Al Qaqaa - isn't that just too beautiful?) becomes Al Qaqaagate, and Kerry ends up looking like the opportunist fool he is, so clueless he doesn't realize he's accusing American soldiers in Iraq of "incredible incompetence" rather than Bush.

    This was the last gasp of the Rogue Weasels. Porter's Purge is coming - upwards of 80 Bush-hating left-wing Kerry stooges are going to be fired at the CIA in November. Looks like the pro-America guys are going to be running the Company once again.

    World Net Daily

    Anything to it? Don't know. I'm not sure who this Dr. Wheeler person is, other than what I've seen at his website, which is pretty nutty (one fine quote: "All forms of leftism and liberalism are based on an atavistic belief in Black Magic. All are based on the primitive fear of the envious Evil Eye.") and offers Wheeler's "insights" for the low, low price of $8.98 a month.

    •  Anything to this? (none)
      World Net Daily or not, I'm inclined to believe that the first half of the first and last paragraphs come from someplace real. The filler in between is just atavistic belief in Black Magic.
    •  There is a more recent article in that site (none)
      Check it out....  The thing is that they are talking about this openly.

      TTP Intelligence Bulletin - Dr. Jack Wheeler
      Friday, November 12, 2004

      "The Sheriff," as new CIA Director Porter Goss is becoming known, is getting rave reviews from the agency's rank and file for serving notice to the Rogue Weasels that their left-wing views and attempts to sabotage the Bush Administration will receive zero tolerance. "Watch for a lot of road kill on 123 (Route 123, the highway in McLean, Virginia that goes past the CIA main entrance) as the weasels scurry away," I'm told.

      Found lying on the roadside yesterday (11/11) was weasel leader Mike Scheuer, who wrote the Bush-trashing "Imperial Hubris" book under the pseudonym "Anonymous." While a lot of what Scheuer wrote was right on the mark, namely his withering criticism of the FBI and of senior agency guys (like Tenet) doing the CYA dance over 9/11, he twisted it all into bashing Bush and making an argument for John Kerry-type terrorism-is-a-nuisance-and-law-enforcement problem. That the CIA Review Office allowed him to write this book is a scandal never to be repeated under Sheriff Goss's watch.

      But even better news than the departure of the CIA weasels is the departure of their counterparts on the National Security Council of the White House. Bob Blackwill's sudden resignation from the NSC, where he was Bush's key advisor on Iraq and Iran, is a cause for real celebration.

  •  You forgot Poland (none)
    err, was that Plame?

    You forgot to purge the admin of the Plame leakers.

    (Not to mention all fo the other staffers who are being disloyal to the Constitution and the American people.)

  •  First things first....he still needs to win this.. (4.00)

    That hasn't happened yet.

    I think it would be a most interesting and appropriate juxtaposition to have this topic and the Diary on "Election Is Not Over" joined on the front/center page.


    Just a suggestion. Thank you.

  •  no surprise (none)
    who did you think was sitting in office anyway, besides that is exactly what kind of power you get with a second term.
  •  More and more... (3.95)
    This administration is reminiscent of a Soviet style operation...

    You have the information ministry which puts a happy face on every story,

    you have a stranglehold on dissent,

    you have a series of alliances with marginal states dependent on the generosity of the superpower for survival,

    you have every illness of top leaders being treated as a "cold",

    you have a personality cult of the figurehead leader,

    you have an impenetrable cloak of secrecy surrounding the government's decision making,

    you have a gulag of clandestine prisons kept hidden from courts or the world press,

    and NOW we have purges of the intelligence community.  

    Is this a democracy?  Or a one-party dictatorship?

    •  If we're going to keep ... (4.00)
      ...comparing the Bush administration to totalitarian dictatorships, I wish everybody would switch from references to Nazis and the Gestapo to the Soviets and the NKVD or KGB. Not that the latter comparison is any more historically accurate than the former, but if we're going to use such inflammatory language, let's at least choose references that provide us a propaganda edge. Many people have heard the Nazi comparison and they shrug it off or go into a fighting mood. But when you start saying Bush is acting like a Stalinist, you might get some mileage.

      My personal preference is that we do neither, and simply call what is happening unAmerican, unpatriotic, unconstitutional and authoritarian  without dragging in comparisons with the murderers of millions of people.

      Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy.

      by Meteor Blades on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:53:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  murderers of millions (none)
        I agree that Sovietesque language his more bite. Less hackneyed.

        As for murderers: 100,000 today, 1,000,000 tomorrow?

      •  Hitler was third in the mass murderer stakes (none)
        behind Stalin and Mao.  I hope Bush isn't competing.  His current tally of 100,000+ is quite high enough.

        The willow knows what the storm does not: that the power to endure harm outlives the power to inflict it.

        by LondonYank on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:03:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Please .... (4.00)
          This is too much.  I take back seat to no one in my despising of Bush and his like; but I don't think that our system is so centralized that anything like the coup envisaged in these comments can take place.  That there is a fascist current in our body politic cannot be doubted; but short of a Great economic Depression (possible but in my opinion unlikely), I find it hard to believe it will get very far.  We are neither Germany, with its long tradition of subservience to authority, nor Russia, with its equally long tradition of state violence.

          The immediate danger is the castrating of our intelligence community.  It means more stupid decisions, more wasted lives, and possibly more vulnerability to a terrorist attack.  This is the meaning of the purge, and it is exactly in line with past practice of the Bush administration.  Let us not forget that if he had not been asleep at the wheel on August 6, we might just have escaped the attacks of September 11.

          •  Given the over-maximizing of (4.00)
            the national debt and the gaping rents in our national saftey net during the mild first term,
            you still find a mid world wars economic dip unlikely?

            and who will speak out when they come for you?

            by nargel on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 08:05:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you (none)
            for injecting a note of reason into this discussion.  The talk of looming fascist dictatorship I've been reading here since the election over is way over the top.  It almost smacks of wish fulfillment at times.  

            I know that discussions of policy and political strategy can be a tad prosaic, but I find this kind of repetitive melodrama even more tedious.

            In January, George Bush will be inaugurated along with a Republican-controlled Senate and House.  We need to get used to that reality and discuss strategies for advancing an opposition agenda and winning races in 2006 - hopefully something more realistic than stockpiling assualt weapons and silk-screening Che Guevera tee-shirts for a revolution that ain't gonna happen.

            Sorry to rain on the parade.  Just my two zlotys.

            "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

            by fishhead on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 11:57:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I dunno; maybe you think that it just cannot (4.00)
            happen here?  It can.  Not exactly along the lines of Hitler's rise to power and consolidation of power, but very like.  The measure of disbelief is just the same as what occurred in Germany.  Not Germany, with its history of philosophy and ethics and dissent.  Not Germany, with its history of literature, art and music.  Yeah, Germany.  Substitute the U.S. for Germany...

            We've seen Americans dust off the fact that 100,000 brown-skinned, non-Christian, and mostly non-combatants have died at our hands.  It's civilians that usually get the brunt of the kind of fighting we have done.  It is the same adage of burning down the village in order to save it.

            What is coming next?  Any amount of suppression from taking the vote from blacks once more, to getting rid of abortion and to starting another creative blacklist in Hollywood, in academe and in industries.  Take your pick.  It's going to be attempted.  Nay saying about what is actually occuring is merely assuring them the victory and the means to moving on to the next door closing, the next window shutting.  It's really up to us.

            I'm really wondering whether the Dem leadership, especially those in Congress, will finally refuse to lie down for these guys.  I'm wondering whether they are really listening to us instead of feathering their own beds, and patenting their shrugs and eyerolls to their constituencies.  I'm really wondering when folks on DKos will stop apologizing for the likes of John McCain, who sees where his bread is buttered regardless of his internal feelings about Bush.

            One-fifth of the people are against everything all the time.--Bobby Kennedy

            by blksista on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:14:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  pepperoni (none)
            I don't think that our system is so centralized that anything like the coup envisaged in these comments can take place.  That there is a fascist current in our body politic cannot be doubted; but short of a Great economic Depression (possible but in my opinion unlikely), I find it hard to believe it will get very far.

            Personally, I refuse to worry about any of this fascist nonsense until I can no longer get pizza delivered to my door.

            god bless our tinfoil hearts

            by aitchdee on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:04:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  purges up close and personal (none)
        To get a very intimate feeling of what the Soviet purges in the 1930s felt like, I recommend Yuri Dombrovsky's The Faculty of Useless Knowledge. In it you see that not only the people who get purged but also the people doing the purging are human beings, some stupid, some venal, some heroic. It's a masterpiece and will make you shudder in the present kooky climate of Bushworld.
      •  how about bolshevik- a party coup (none)
        that eventually led to stalinism

        hope is on the way!

        by Errol on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:11:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ideology (none)
        Ideologically, the best comparison is to Mussolini's Fascist Italy.  I'll probably be writing some on that in the months ahead.  Many many years ago when I was in college I did a paper on Fascism, syndicalism and the corporate state, I may have some of those notes around somewhere.
        •  read this article then (none)
          the parallels to fascism are just too close with the current administration.

          1.Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

          1. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
          2. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
          3. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
          4. Rampant sexism.
          5. A controlled mass media.
          6. Obsession with national security.
          7. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
          8. Power of corporations protected.
          9. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
          10. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
          11. Obsession with crime and punishment.
          12. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
          13. Fraudulent elections.

          Click on the link to read the whole article with extended definitions and citations.
      •  i make it even simpler (none)


        I  call anti-freedomism

        I might be Cheney'd up, but I'm not that Georgie!

        by circuithead on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:45:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Stalinism (none)
        or hatred of it, was what got the original neocons going, so it definitely would be more provocative to start calling them Stalinists.

        I agree with being careful about the comparisons between the Nazis and the Bushies. But I think what people are getting at is less of a side by side comparison with a mass murderer and more of a call to pay attention when certain powerful variables all come together - e.g., religious fervor, a sense of the president being "called" by God or destiny, the focus on character and moral values at the expense of liberal, urban intellectuals... and on and on.

    •  You forgot the rigged elections... (4.00)
      not that I believe the election was rigged <cough> <cough>
      •  They have rigged elections (4.00)
        The proof is in the documentary "Unprecedented". Jeb Bush purged the voter rolls of Florida residents who shared the names with convicted felons. That is proven. Stop saying it hasn't been proven. It has.
        •  The cough, cough (none)
          is implying sarcasm


          --jamie "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Thomas Jefferson

          by jamie ahmad on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:40:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I know (none)
            It wasn't directed at you, it was just the fact that we have to joke about something that is basically a fact that set me off. I've been reading a lot lately about how there is no evidence that Bush stole this election. That may be true but he got away with it four years ago so how naive do we have to be that they would play it straight this time. You'd think that would be enough justification  for the Democrats to call for paper trails or a recount no matter what. But they didn't - because they didn't want to hurt their reputations or jeopardize their careers. Yes, those things are so much more important than democracy itself.
  •  So let me get this straight. (4.00)
    His Nibs is going to kick a bunch of competent people, who were actually paying attention and doing analysis, out of the CIA, and replace them with yes-men who are going to tell him exactly what he wants to hear or risk going the way of the ousted pinko traitorous liberals?

    I would like to start an office pool here on dKos to predict how long it is going to take this country to recover from the Bush administration, but I'm almost 50 and it's not likely that I'll live long enough to check even the most optimistic prediction. sigh

    Isn't it ironic that the 51% of the electorate who voted for a chimpanzee includes everyone in the US who doesn't believe in evolution?

    by Our Man In Redmond on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:45:57 PM PST

  •  Bright Side (none)
    a/k/a Silver Lining:

    When the Dems return to power, they can, in turn, purge all the neo-cons, wing nuts, etc., --- since this IS establishing a precedent.

    Just a happy thought :)

    •  Though we need to heed. . . (4.00)
      . . .the fate of the Thermidoriens.  They got rid of Robespierre, and were sitting down to write execution orders for their list of enemies, when it became apparent that the hordes of people in the streets were singing and chanting, and celebrating The End of the Reign of Terror.

      Being pragmatists, they tore up their list, and disappointedly turned their thoughts to righting the ship of State.

      Just 'cause one side has a purge, doesn't mean the next guys get one, too. . .

      When only the govemment lacks virtue, there remains a resource in the people's virtue; but when the people itself is corrupted, liberty is already lost.

      by Robespierrette on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:50:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dark side (none)
      I honestly believe there will be no return to power. The last two fucked-up/botched/stolen elections were the closest we'll ever come again to free elections.

      I've said it over and over and over ...

      These people are not going to leave. Ever.

      Short of a revolution.

      •  I honestly believe you're wrong (none)
        The Democrats controlled the White House and Congress for most of twenty straight years in the middle part of the twentieth century.  Four years of Republican control and we're ready to admit defeat?  We need to quit making excuses for the Democratic Party's failure to make electoral inroads during Bush's first term.  

        I honestly believe that Bush was not elected on Nov. 2nd as a result of massive voter fraud.  He was elected because more people voted for him than voted for Kerry.  We need to get out of denial, even though it may mean accepting truths about a large mass of the American electorate that we'd rather not face.  A lot of people like Bush and his policies.  We need to find a way of countering that.

        But I'm willing to admit naivete.

        "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

        by fishhead on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:07:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  No, not a happy thought (none)
      that is the wrong way for America.


      --jamie "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Thomas Jefferson

      by jamie ahmad on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:41:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hmmmm... (4.00)
    They've already purged the military of staff critical of Rumsfeld's Iraq War plans, remember General Shinseki?

    Now they're purging the CIA... and planning drastic changes to the judiciary branch. They control the FCC.  

    Excuse me for ringing the alarm, but are Bush and his minions carrying out some sort of silent coup? I do recall that Hitler and Stalin purged their governments of political rivals once they took power.

    Some might say, `nah, get outta here! That will never happen here,' but stranger things have happened. Like the Red Sox winning the World Series.    

    •  Purging starting at the FDA also (4.00)
      Pfizer, Merk have their own ideas about who should be in the FDA deciding how risky our meds are..
      Doctor  Who Cited Drug's Risks Is Barred From FDA Panel
      The Food and Drug Administration has told a researcher that he cannot be part of an advisory panel that will meet early next year to review the safety of a class of drugs, COX-2 inhibitors, used to treat arthritis and pain. The reason, the agency said, is he publicly stated that he thought one of these drugs caused heart problems and that Pfizer, its maker, knew that and was covering it up.

      The scientist, Dr. Curt D. Furberg, a professor of public health sciences at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, N.C., was not barred forever from the panel, an F.D.A. spokeswoman said. Instead, Dr. Furberg was asked not to participate when it took up an issue in which he was seen to have an intellectual conflict of interest

      So honest doctors can be there, they just can't speak up nor vote against Pfizer. Nice, heh ?

      What's theoretical about it ??!?

      by lawnorder on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:08:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  intellectual conflict of interest (none)
        I don't understand this phrase. If someone has a conflict of interest, they cannot be expected to exercise their authority fairly. In his capacity as a safety reviewer he has no authority, only the responsibility to report his beliefs to the panel.

        Compare this to a real conflict of interest: Blackwell as Bush's campaign manager and as highest judge of elections in Ohio. Suppose we were to convene a panel with the problem posed: who should win the election? Clearly Blackwell would be expected to vote "Bush" and we couldn't fault him for that; the putative panel in this case would be a body charged with deciding who they as a panel want to win the election.

        But being Ohio secretary of state is not being appointed to a panel whose function is to assert a judgment about who should win the election. The function of this office is to assert who did win the election.

        Isn't "intellectual conflict of interest" a contradiction somehow?

    •  At least we don't have to go quietly -- (4.00)
      From my earlier comment, here are selected congresspeople you can write to.


      Pat Roberts, of Kansas,
      Orrin G. Hatch, of Utah
      Mike DeWine, of Ohio
      Christopher S. Bond, of Missouri
      Trent Lott, of Mississippi
      Olympia J. Snowe, of Maine
      Chuck Hagel, of Nebraska
      Saxby Chambliss, of Georgia
      John Warner, of Virginia
      John D. Rockefeller IV, of West
      Virginia, Vice Chairman
      Carl Levin, of Michigan
      Dianne Feinstein, of California
      Ron Wyden, of Oregon
      Richard Durbin, of Illinois
      Evan Bayh, of Indiana
      John Edwards, of North Carolina
      Barbara A. Mikulski, of Maryland

      For the House, check out its the committee website:  The email is  Individual members are:

      Peter Hoekstra, Republican, Michigan
      Sherwood L. Boehlert, Republican, New York
      Jim Gibbons, Republican, Nevada
      Ray LaHood, Republican,    Illinois
      Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Republican, California
      Richard Burr, Republican, North Carolina
      Terry Everett, Republican, Alabama
      Elton Gallegly, Republican, California
      Mac Collins, Republican, Georgia
      Jo Ann Davis, Republican, Virginia
      Mac Thornberry, Republican, Texas
      Jane Harman, Democrat, California
      Alcee L. Hastings, Democrat, Florida
      Silvestre Reyes, Democrat, Texas
      Leonard L. Boswell, Democrat, Iowa
      Collin C. Peterson, Democrat, Minnesota
      Robert E. (Bud) Cramer, Jr, Democrat, Alabama
      Anna G. Eshoo Democrat, California
      Rush D. Holt Democrat, New Jersey
      C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Democrat, Maryland

    •  And on coronation day (none)
      We'll all find out that the 4000 troops will be on hand to round up all of the attending Democrats. Treason, don't ya know.
  •  I guess..... (none)
    we'll soon see how "tough" Reid is and if Kerry will be "true to his word" that he will passionately fight for our democratic principles. It really bothers me to see how our Dem reps have basically "just bent over" for the Dork. I'm beginning to think that they don't deserve our support anymore.
  •  What can the people purged at the CIA do ? (none)
    ...I doubt if many will come forward. There are secrecy agreements and they all know what will happen to them if they double-cross the Bushes

    [But] they are not being silent. They just have to be careful..

    What's theoretical about it ??!?

    by lawnorder on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:03:32 PM PST

  •  Loyalty (4.00)
    Disloyal to Bush?  Isn't there a higher loyalty here?  Isn't it better to be loyal to the countries best interestes instead of to a president?  They are probably more likely to get rid of the competent individuals that knew the real risks and dangers--these were the folks that made the most noise against the President's horrible decisions.  How much longer will those in the intelligence community continue to really work for the good of this country?  

    As others has said in this comment thread, this only sets up a situation in which the administration only hears what it wants to hear.  That has already shown to be problematic in the current War against Terror.

    My only question is: who are they going to use to replace the competent intelligence folks?  If we can use the Iraq war as an example, it will probably be the guys that ran some battleground state's Bush-Cheney 04 campaign...

    I used to be paranoid until I lost my self-esteem. Who is going to waste their time following me?

    by Mote Dai on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:06:03 PM PST

  •  Impeach my ass! (4.00)
    Just say for example I have lots of people working for me and their job is to dig up the dirt on everybody.  They are highly paid experts and they do a good job, so these are the people who know where all the bodies are buried.  Then I get mad at them because won't buy the doll that Mattel made in my image and give it to their kids for Christmas, and so I fire their asses.  

    Now I have lots of people running around loose who know all my dirty secrets and no longer have even the ghost of a reason to keep their silly mouths shut.  In fact, out of spite, they might all write kiss-and-tell exposes that make it the the New York Times' bestseller list.  Take the poll.  Should I fire these assholes?

    [Hint:  If you want me to get impeached say yes.]

    Well, we can still hope, can't we?

    •  to all those dumped by Bush: (none)
      get ready, get set... PUBLISH!

      Liberals are conservatives who have been through treatment.

      by marjo on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:18:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Who read (none)
        all the thoughtful and intelligent books written by smart people who seemed to know the truth about Bush and his administration? There have been plenty of them. Yet the people who needed to be educated didn't read them.Don't most of us tend to read literature that confirms our own suspicions and opinions?

        Also, with a Republican majority everywhere in the government, who would vote to impeach? No one.It's going to take a Republican respected by both sides to finally get fed up,listen hard to his or her conscience, put self-interest aside and act.

        What are the chances?

        •  Republican with a conscience? (none)
          But, like I said, we can still hope can't we?

          And it's true that most of the people who need to read the books don't read the books, but then the word does get out there, anyway, in a diluted form through TV appearances and other book tour coverage.

          The really scary thing is to contemplate what Chimp plans to do next if he thinks these folks (meaning the alleged left liberals in the CIA) are dispensible.

        •  for simply personal reasons (none)
          enquiring minds want to know the dirty details so I have fresh stuff to bitch about.

          Liberals are conservatives who have been through treatment.

          by marjo on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:28:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Realisation time. (4.00)
    The cold war right wing nuts who were balanced out by the USSR's left wing nuts have no-one to stop them anymore.

    Its sad, its horrifying, but I believe the time has come to come to terms with the fact the US is sliding towards fascism at an extremely fast rate.

    •  Hope not! (none)
      But I fear you may be right.

      What's theoretical about it ??!?

      by lawnorder on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:10:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes It's All About Lack of Consequences (none)
      Across the board, in everything they do.

      As long as there are little or no consequences to their interests, they're free to rule instead of just governing.

      That's what's keeping Tony Blair in office; so long as there's no serious competition, he's free to pursue policies 80% of his people oppose.

      Same for government, same for the economy, same for science, same for everything.

      The lack of a comparable nation-state enemy allows them to advance their interests even with massive harm to the nation. Owning the media of course minimizes the harm that voters will even know about.

      We've been here before in both history and science fiction.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 05:20:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  CIA, our hotbed of liberalism (4.00)
    Damn these pious Republicans!!! They are taking away the last true haven for liberalism, the CIA.  No longer can we spread our pernicious moral laxitude in places like El Salvador and Nicaragua!
  •  "democratically elected leader "- (4.00)
    you must mean John Kerry

    hope is on the way!

    by Errol on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:08:41 PM PST

  •  Anotehr LIE: Goss w/b bipartisan.. (none)
    Before the election, Goss said he would treat everything in a bipartisan fashion.

    What's theoretical about it ??!?

    by lawnorder on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:09:11 PM PST

  •  We need to take CIA refugees into the fold (4.00)
    of our very own think tank devoted to transparency and democracy and traditional American principles (like less torture, fewer gulags, and more mozzarella on pizzas).

    George Soros sponsors institutes in transition states in Eastern Europe making the switch from totalitarian dictatorship to democracy.  Maybe he should realise that the USA is a transition state too - in the other direction.  

    Whether it's Soros or some other aggregation of liberal cash, we need to have think tanks where these refugees of the CIA purge can go and write their memoirs, safe in a comfy institutionalised and patriotic setting which will stand up for them.

    The willow knows what the storm does not: that the power to endure harm outlives the power to inflict it.

    by LondonYank on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:10:17 PM PST

  •  Since when was intelligence either Democrat... (4.00)
    ... or Republican.

    Isn't intelligence neutral by definition?

    We must urge our Senators and Representatives no to give an inch anymore to these bastards.

    We must impede tham any way we can.  For the sake of democracy.

    •  EXACTLY! (none)

      But this administration has long been committed to choosing the connected in favor of the competent.  (Compare James Haveman and a guy named Burkle from Johns Hopkins--and tell me which one is more competent pick for rebuiliding the Iraqi health system.)

      That said, I must say, that, frankly, the CIA, in certain circles, hasn't been competent.  I wouldn't have chosen guys with such problem resumes to rebuild.  A guy who got booted fromt the CIA for shoplifting bacon shouldn't be anywhere near the DCI.

      And from what I read/hear/pickup, there are likely serious counterintel problems/issues with the #2 and #3 guys as well. (What will the career guys do?  Bow out?  Sit out?  Watch and record?)

      But they're loyal, cardcarrying, and disgrunteld...Just like those National Socialists were...hmm.

  •  The Message I Sent to My Senators and Congressman (none)
    I just read a Newsday article claiming that President Bush has ordered a purge of disloyal and Democratic agents from the CIA. Firing agents based on their personal beliefs is absolutely unacceptable behavior that makes a mockery of freedom of speech and undermines the very foundation of our Democracy. Furthermore, especially in these dangerous times, a balance of perspectives is very important in our intelligence community; the Bush administration's systematic exaggeration of questionable intelligence in the run up to the Iraq war only reinforces the necessity of dissenting viewpoints. This decision can only make us less safe.

    I understand that you have little personal power to stop Bush's actions with regard to the CIA infrastructure, but please, please force the media to scrutinize this decision. You owe it to us, your constituents in the terrorist target of New York City, to make sure that this unsound and unconstitutional decision gets the wide publicity it deserves.

    Thank you for your time. I very much appreciate it.

    Visit the PagodaBlog for hackneyed totally original political and philosophic commentary.

    by Juppon Gatana on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:20:12 PM PST

  •  CC Times filters "purge of liberals" (none)
    The Contra Costa Times today printed (on page A17) the Newsday story on the CIA purge, but strangely omitted the "money quote" (in bold):

    "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."

    There was also an LTE denouncing "angry left liberal" Markos ("Daily Kos") Moulitsas, and the old contractors in Fallujah comment. I would have included a link, but it isn't in the on-line edition.

    "Those who betray the trust...are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." - George HW Bush

    by DavidW in SF on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:33:00 PM PST

    •  The CC Times LTE referenced (none)
      was Tom Schiller's post Ralph's Gift

      "Those who betray the trust...are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." - George HW Bush

      by DavidW in SF on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:49:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sensing a disturbing trend... (4.00)
      First there was Ashcroft saying:

      "The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war. These encroachments include some of the most fundamental aspects of the president's conduct of the war on terrorism."

      And now..
      "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."

      Anyone seeing some type of pattern here???


      We must go forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom! - Kodos as Clin-ton - The Simpsons

      by Czarvoter on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:53:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It always struck me as (none)
        odd that Bush wanted to nominate a new Cia director two mos before an election , He knew he would win , and maybe everyone else knew it too , I thought Bush should have waited and let mcclaughin handle things untill the election was over ...

        That has always bothered me, the dems rolled over because they did not want to be obstructionist , umm I mean checks and balances , and Goss the Boss got in ,

        Pass the F**king Koolaide  my head is hurting and I am very afraid ..

        •  I was thinking the same thing...... (none)
          as well. The Dems rolled over basically on this Goss nomination most notably Harman, and our hero John Kerry. I was so pissed that even Bob Graham and Bill Nelson testified in support of Goss. I mean anybody could tell given Goss's statements in the past he was a partisan hack and we let a partisan hack in charge of our frickin intelligence agencies. Jesus Christ.

          Everybody thought well Kerry was going to win anyway, so just nominate him and not put up a fight which is what really really irks me about Dems, we roll over instead of fight thinking fighting will make us unlectable and then we lose because people think we're weak and we lose ground on the issues we capitulated on as well to make it worse.

          So I wasnt surprised Goss was going to wreck havoc and pull stunts like this. Purging the CIA is not something I would have imagined especially a month on the friggin job but it was still fairly predicatable.

          But I was always worried about if there were some Pentagon Paper style leaks out there, would we even know about them given the Bush friendly media out there. It doesnt matter how much leaks out there, if the mainstream media wont cover them, who will ever know about them.

    •  The CC Times (none)
      my recently ex-local newspaper, was founded some fifty years ago (as you doubtless know) by rootin' tootin', super-wealthy sportsman-cum-publisher the late Dean Lesher. I worked at the Times briefly, years ago. The hallways and common areas were crammed with gory oils of wild-eyed cowboys slaying half-naked indians, and where there wasn't an ugly painting, the mounted heads of a taxidermied moose hung forlornly instead. Gun collections too, in long pierglass cases. Damn depressing place to work. The Leshers had a shooting range on their Moraga estate--former Republican Senator John Nejedely's sons (with whom I went to school) used to target practice there (and ice skate; the Leshers had a rink).

      Dean Lesher was buried next to his wife Margaret (who died some dozen years ago under bizarre circumstances--remember that strange story?) at Oakmont Memorial Cemetery in Lafayette. Their absurdly outsized headstones dominate the landscape.

      The paper has been owned by Knight Ridder for at least a decade now; I don't remember the name of the succeeding publisher. I recently read, however, that a Stanford University media education group has determined that the Contra Costa Times is "meticulously fair."

      Balderdash. They have never been any such thing and I'm not the least surprised to hear they left out the provocative thrust of this (rather huge!) story. Nothing has changed; I bet the bad oil paintings and pathetic dismembered moosehead are still stuck all over the walls, too. It's an entrenched theme with the Times, mediocrity.

      god bless our tinfoil hearts

      by aitchdee on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:53:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  A shot in the foot (none)
    I thought that intel agencies are loyal to the president/government/country by definition and by default.

    Another thing I think to know about intel agencies is that you do not cross them in a way that has realworld consequences (though some foulmouthing is always tolerated by them) because they are the main basis for the power of any government.

    Somehow I have the impression that Bush is shooting himself in the foot with this and it makes me smirk. If they turned against him in a rather discreet way for the Plame thingy, it will be fun to see what they do when the purges start in earnest. The Abu Ghraib pics will seem nothing aganst what will come out, and Bush better convert the SS into a praetorian guard or he'll risk going the way of Arafat.

    IMHO Bush and his friends should be worried now that this has transpired. I'll go get some popcorn and some beer and giddily wait for the games to begin :-)

  •  What about the portion (none)
    of the 9/11 report that was withheld, as it named specific persons in the CIA who were faulted? Are these the people being dismissed? Or are they the ones being kept on?

    I'm so damned frustrated about all these reports/investigations that never come to a conclusion!!!!!!

    •  We'll never see that report (none)
      unless it's leaked. Goss will sit on it. And I'd bet the ones named are staying.

      So if "liberals" are an "elite", how come we aren't in charge?

      by Pam in MA on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:27:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't want that knee-jerk (none)
        "it's hopeless, they have it all wrapped up"

        and this is not to offend....

        but when we bring up a topic and it dissolves into our favored suspicions, I think it just spins our energy.

        that said, anyone have real leads as to the status of those reports?

        •  Sorry, but (none)
          I've seen so many hopeful posts wondering when it's going to be released. I haven't heard anything about it (outside the blogosphere) since the statement that it would be released after the election.

          If there are no leads, does anyone have suggestions about who to direct our energies toward?

          So if "liberals" are an "elite", how come we aren't in charge?

          by Pam in MA on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 05:15:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  The new world order.. (none)
    is about to happen.

    Links To The Left..

    by Wisdom on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:37:05 PM PST

  •  Ah well... (none)
    so it begins.

    Can we all here at dKos call for a mass trip to the National Archives to gaze lovingly at our Constitution before they decide it needs to be put away for "national security reasons?"

    Seriously, I've thought of just going there and hanging around saying, "I just wanted to get one look at it before they destroy it."

    Oh, yeah, I forgot, they'll loot it b/c it has a treasure map on the back. </snark>

  •  Purge for what? (none)
    So he gets people in there totally loyal to him i.e. tell him what he wants to here. That of course spells disaster and makes every country out there refuse to pool their intelligence with us. Probably shut down all their operations.

    The man needs therapy.

    •  that was one of the points in the article (none)
      Goss the boss has little faith in intelligence gathering by proxy or sharing intelligence so he is actually fulfilling two needs:
      • cementing obedience to the great leader
      • further diminution of trust with with "allies" and other countries (eg intelligence and resource sharing)

      I heard Tony Blankley on Diane Rehm show one morning 3 weeks ago talking about the unsubordinate officials at the CIA - maybe he was framing the discussion / priming the pump at the time?

      hes got some funny accent - from OZ? does anyone know?

  •  part of a plan (none)
    this is all part of a plan.

    now they are going to invade iran and syria.

    just watch...give em 2 years.

    I might be Cheney'd up, but I'm not that Georgie!

    by circuithead on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:50:09 PM PST

    •  CIA Mission/Values/Vision Statement (4.00)

      From the Agency's website, here are the CIA's Vision, Mission, and Values:


      We will provide knowledge and take action to ensure the national security of the United States and the preservation of American life and ideals.


      We are the eyes and ears of the nation and at times its hidden hand. We accomplish this mission by:

      -Collecting intelligence that matters.

      -Providing relevant, timely, and objective  
      all-source analysis.

      -Conducting covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve United States policy objectives.


      -In pursuit of our country's interests, we put Nation before Agency, Agency before unit, and all before self. What we do matters.

      -Our success depends on our ability to act with total discretion and an ability to protect sources and methods.

      -We provide objective, unbiased information and analysis.

      -Our mission requires complete personal integrity and personal courage, physical and intellectual.

      -We accomplish things others cannot, often at great risk. When the stakes are highest and the dangers greatest, we are there and there first.

      -We stand by one another and behind one another. Service, sacrifice, flexibility, teamwork, and quiet patriotism are our hallmarks.

  •  We are not a democracy (none)
    anymore, this country is a fascist state and has been for awhile now.
    The election just put the nail in the coffin for those that believe in democratic principles, it will be tough for freedom loving citizens to exist under this govt but what choice do we have.
    Its a sad day for America and for those around the world who depend on us for hope and inspiration, we are now the new Ayatollah on the religious block, only we are a real threat to world peace and no one can stop our crusade to cleanse the world of nonbelievers.
    •  we actually have never been a democracy. we are a (3.00)
      •  Come on (3.50)
        If "democracy" has any meaning in the modern world, and it DOES, then what we wanted to be and thought we were is a DEMOCRACY.  Of course not in some obscure technical word-origins sense of the word.  But it MEANS, by very common usage, a form of government in which the people have a lot of freedom of thought and expression, and have some real influence on what their government is free to do.  These people ARE taking that away from us, on purpose, and very vigorously.  Get real.
      •  NFN (none)
        i gave you a 4 because you're right and people really should learn the difference.
      •  We are a democratic republic. (none)
        Or we were anyway.  I don't know whether we are authoritarian, or an unconstitutional democracy now.    He may or may not have been elected, but such a high percentage of those who may have elected him were so uninformed that the press definately failed us.   We are definately losing our constitutional rights now. This is a very secretive government, that no longer has to answer to anyone.
        •  Exactly (3.66)
          A republic is a form of democracy.

          I hear that phrase, usually from Republicans, and always think that it's comparable to saying "That's not a car, it's a sedan".

          That's not a mandate. This is a mandate.

          by Malacandra on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:46:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Just because (none)
          people make ill-informed choices doesn't mean that the US is not a democracy.  It does have some serious need of electroal reform though.

          The US needs to get rid of gerrymandering and election supervision by partisan politicos by having a single, federal, non-partisan agency drawing congressional district boundaries and supervising federal elections as they do in most other western indutrialized nations.  This should be a key plank in the Democratic Party platform.

          "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

          by fishhead on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:13:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The point? (none)
        I always hear conservative pundits use this line but have never figured out whether there is something substantive to it or whether it's just pedantry. I'm thinking there must be some substance - - it must touch on some sore ideological point for them. They are correct, this is a republic. But why make such an issue of always pointing that out? I'm thinking it must be related to some plank in their ideology about the role of government or how decisions are made or something - - and they bring it up because of some mistaken assumption on the left that is predicated upon this incorrect classificaiton. I'd just like for them to expand upon it sometime and to say why it's important in the debate. Because otherwise, I agree with the commentors here - - calling ourselves a democracy is just casual language. It gets tossed around liberally, paired with words like "capitalist" and "representative". Nobody is trying to claim that all 295 million of us come together to vote on individual decisions, one man one vote.
        •  if you really want to know (none)
          The points of the "conservative pundits" are two, first, that the republic form of government is less likely to succumb to mob rule, and second, that our founding fathers very consciously set up the US government as a republic, not a democracy.

          The distinction is that the republic form of government has a leader, elected by the people, who makes decisions within the context of a formal written constitution and a government that has checks and balances between various branches, while a democracy has the decisions made directly by the people unconstrained by any other factor.

          By this argument Britain, for example, is a democracy because its parliament is directly elected by popular vote, and makes the decisions. There is no separate executive branch or judicial branch, and there is no written constitution. (One may dive into a quagmire of argument at this point.) In the U.S., there is an executive branch that makes many of the decisions, but those decisions are tightly constrained by the constitution and by the congress and the supreme court.

          The theory is that a democracy will tend towards mob rule, with no restraint on pure popular opinion, while a republic will be more respectful of the rights of individuals, as those rights are protected by a written constitution, an electoral systems that weigh minority votes more heavily, and the balance between three separate branches of government.

          It's an important distinction, and is one of the reasons that the proposal to "throw away the electoral college" gets no respect. One might as well just have a popular vote on every topic under the sun, sort of like California.

          •  Ah. (none)
            Okay, this is what I was after. I have to hand it to you, I thought the answer was going to be that it was just pedantry. Your final paragraph takes it from theory to practice using one good example, but not one that is starkly defined in terms of the ideological battle of con vs. lib. I don't think scrapping the electoral college is necessarily a liberal plank. I'm trying to think of other instances where we see a conservative vs. liberal pundit rasslin' match on tv and the conservative wants to make the point that "no no, Jim, see that's what's wrong with you liberals. In advocating X, you again mistake America for a democracy when it is in fact a republic. So your rosy depiction of X is automatically invalid since it is based on a false premise."
      •  Maybe just maybe (none)
        you might look up democracy and republic in the dictionary, you might be surprised at the definitions of each, we used to be a democracy, at least by my reading of the definition.
        Have a great week and be safe.
  •  So basically (3.83)
    Bush is purging the intelligence community of intelligence.
  •  Gutless senate democrats have themselves to blame (4.00)
    The democrats resort to the "let's not fight this one" argument on key issues so often that it is becoming harder and harder to believe that they are a genuine opposition party and not some fake allowed to exist only to fool the naive.
    •  Yes indeed (4.00)
      They are the most gutless wonders ever.

       Peter Goss? fine fellow (let's not fight we might get hurt)

       Rigged vote counters? no proof (let's not fight we might get mud on us)

       Gonzales? o.k. (let's not fight, wait for the SC nominees)

       9/11 secret report? no need to read it (secret handshake to agree not to discuss, too difficult)

       Abu Gurib prison? let's make sure it doesn't hurt our troops (bury it)

      And now purge in the CIA?
       do I expect different? Yes.  Well they get a spine? no.

      •  So, as much as I hate this (none)
        Nader proves in the end to be right about one thing:  There is no real difference between the two parties. The Repubs are now in charge and the Dems roll over for them.  Given the lack of guts displayed so far why not just give up the charade and change their name to "Demopubs".

        How can you be an opposition party when you refuse to oppose anything?

        In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. H.L. Mencken

        by mentaldebris on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:11:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Didn't Hitler do that too?? just wondering (none)
  •  Calling this a "PURGE" (none)
    should make everyone nervous. I defy anyone to cite any example where the word "purge" is used in a positve or even neutral way.

    Stalin purged all the intellectuals and so did Mao during his Cultural Revolution . . . .

    Now they will be doing in the schools . . . no evolution, no sex education  . . .  revisionist history!

    Yeah . . . I'm scared! I'm afraid we're in for a rough ride. The only thing that gives me some hope is that there are 48% of us out here in the wilderness . . . We can't be so scared that we are not willing to fight back.


    by jhewett on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:28:45 PM PST

  •  Letter to the Public Editor Chicago Tribune (4.00)
    Dear Mr. Wycliffe:

    Still think it was a good idea for the Tribune to endorse Bush for re-election?,0,707331.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

    Purging the CIA of professionals who are not politically acceptable to Bush is an abomination unworthy of a third world country.  Will the Tribune be reporting on this mess?  Who is this Porter Goss character anyway?  A hitman for Tony Soprano?

    Our country just went through its worst attack since Pearl Harbor.   The 9-11 commission tells us we must reform the intelligence community, that it is not doing its job efficiently.  What does Bush do?  He fires the very people whose skills we desparately need to protect us from the terrorists.

    Bush looked into the soul of Putin and liked what he saw: he saw himself.

    Shame on the Tribune for caring so little about the protection of our country that it would continue to support such a dangerous fool.  When will real Americans finally stand up and tell it like it is?  When will the Tribune accept its responsibility to speak for what must be done to protect our country?  How can your paper continue to be associated through silence and other forms of appeasement with this shameful behavior?

    What is essential is invisible.

    by bebimbob on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:31:32 PM PST

  •  Hmmm... (4.00)
    Something tells me the "Anonymous" section of many bookstore's "Politics" shelves are going to get a lot more crowded...
    •  Next Time, Tears Will Not Be Enough (3.50)
      Imperial Hubris by Anonymous (Mike Scheuer, former head of the Bin Laden group at the CIA until 1999) is worth reading and rereading, by patriotic liberals as well as patriotic conservatives.  The response by the Bush administration to the act of war by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was, in fact, treasonous.  Iraq was the wrong war, with the wrong enemy, at the wrong time.  Mike Scheuer documents the tragedy.  He also offers suggestions, which are worth considering, even if you don't agree with all of them.

      Now the CIA disloyals (meaning those who put the security of the country ahead of their personal oath to the president) are being purged, starting with Mr. Scheuer, and now the former acting director.  All who won't drink the Kool-Aid that the war in Iraq is somehow protecting us from the stateless Al Qaeda are at risk.  This week, the purge may continue.

      If Mr. Scheuer is right, the next attack on America, the "next Manhattan", is coming.  This is for real.  And this is really serious.  We all have to get out of the Slough of Despond and try to figure out a way to act to this, first as Americans, but also as Democrats.  For most of the 20th century, our party has been the party the people turned to when they thought about national security.  Since the George Birch Republican agenda is no longer concerned with national security, it's a good time to take that back.  Because the next time, tears will not be enough.  By refusing to take the threat seriously and using the tragedy of 9/11 as a pretext for neocon dreams, George Birch has made the next disaster inevitable.  It will be their fault that we did not respond, did not prepare.

      And after we take back the Presidency from the George Birchers, I propose we nominate Richard Clarke and Mike Scheuer, two patriots who sacrificed their careers for their country, for the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

  •  Pissing off a whole bunch (4.00)
    of professional spooks isn't something I would recommend for anyone.  Even a US President is treading on thin ice to do so.  There is so much potential blowback it isn't even funny.  And the blowback will probably look like a series of strange coincidences working against the person that pissed them off, coincidences that look suspicious but have little to no evidence of foul play.

    The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

    by mikepridmore on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:49:28 PM PST

    •  mm (4.00)
      fundamentalism/conservatism/absolutism are self-destructive philsophies because they implode on  themselves.  stuff like this is good because you can see the entropy starting to set in. these types of organizations can't last forever.  the scary thing is not knowing how much damage they'll inflict on the periphery on their way down.

      blowback's a bitch.  

      •  Thanks for that (none)
        I'm beginning to feel a little better now. I'll enjoy watching the implosion, hopefully it will be soon.
        •  Sweet schadenfreude... (none)
          Herr Bush is starting to overplay his hand.  And as he does, there will be payback.  Before the election, McCain was already criticizing the war in Iraq (which didn't stop him from kissing Bush's ass, but that's another story).  

          Anyone know if Powell is definitely planning on leaving?  When he's out of there, expect to hear him speaking out.

  •  Making enemies (none)
    If the Dems haven't figured it out yet this administartion is not about uniting, it is about suppression and corporate dominance. The goal is to divide, label, and eliminate opposition.
      What do you think would have happened if W wasn't elected?  How close would we be now to a civil war?  Would the religious right accept their democratic christian brothers and sisters as leaders of our democracy? Would there be honest dialogue and open discussion?
     I have serious concerns for our country.
  •  Hmmm ... (1.40)
    I would submit that;

    a) Someone who was disloyal to the President (their boss),


    b) Someone who leaked information (illegal)


    There are two types of government employees.

    Political Types and Career Types.

    The minute an employee begins to act in a political manner - that is the moment that they can be legitimately "purged".

    Most career CIA employees are non-partisan and do not get involved with the politics of government (at work).  Those that do - do so at their own peril.

    Good riddance.

    •  You are correct (none)
      Anyone who leaked confidential or classified information would not only be in danger of dismissal, but perhaps jail time, as well.

      Getting rid of people according to political affiliation is quite another matter.

      Visit the Diary of the Lying Socialist Weasels, for commentary from the Original Progressive Web Warriors!

      by Jonathan on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:03:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just to clarify (none)
        "Disloyalty" can mean a lot of things.  If it means that you don't agree with the President, or if it means that you refuse to slant your statements and findings to fit the party line, then I disagree that such is grounds for dismissal--we're talking about career employees, not political appointees.  If it means that you refuse to do your job, then yes, you can be dismissed, and rightfully so.

        When you become a federal employee with classified access, you sign a form that stipulates you can be fired -- or much worse -- if you disclose restricted information.  Leaking such information is a crime, and regardless of whether anyone thinks it's information that should come out, you take significant chances by leaking it.  The people who did so knew what they were risking.

        Visit the Diary of the Lying Socialist Weasels, for commentary from the Original Progressive Web Warriors!

        by Jonathan on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:12:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  If they do something illegal (none)
      Then use something we fanatic left wingers call a Court to try them and put them in prison.

      Two possibilities:

      1. We are firing a bunch of people that did nothing wrong.

      2. We are firing a bunch of people who leak sensitive information so they can spend more time writing books (with sensitive information).

      If they broke the law, then use the institutions of law to bring them to justice.  That is how our Democracy/Republic is supposed to work.  Purging is how dictatorships work.

      The bad news: I am rating your comment at 2.
      The good news: That will bring up its average.


      --jamie "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Thomas Jefferson

      by jamie ahmad on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:59:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I respectfully disagree. (none)
      If you read the CIA mission statement (above in thread) it is obvious that the "boss" is the
      American public.  If the Pres. is willfully and with malice aforthought harming them and about to
      greatly increase same, then their duty is to blow the whistle on the treasonous thug themselves.

      and who will speak out when they come for you?

      by nargel on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 08:33:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Um (none)
      a) Someone who was disloyal to the President (their boss),

      Government employment does not require "loyalty" to the "boss". That is very fascist thinking. In fact the legal system around civil servants is designed to dissuade loyalty strongly.

      The "boss" of the cia isnt the president. It is the United States Government. The intelligence agencies serve the senate, the house, the pentagon,  the state department and the administration.

      This is not yet a dictatorship as your post seems to presuppose. Civil servants have a duty to do their job honestly and Without political consideration. Whereas you seemingly prefer their primary consideration to be political loyalty. find a history book. Look up Patronage. And then consider why the military  and the state department consider it necessary to have their own intelligence angencies.

      The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed) My other Drunken ravings

      by cdreid on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:19:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is just screaming 'lawsuit' (4.00)
    I have a feeling that purging people according to political party membership is going to run into trouble:


    § 2301. Merit system principles

        (a) This section shall apply to--

            (1) an Executive agency; and

            (2) the Government Printing Office.

        (b) Federal personnel management should be implemented consistent with the following merit system principles:

            (1) Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of society, and selection and advancement should be determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge and skills, after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity.

            (2) All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management without regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or handicapping condition, and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights.

    Visit the Diary of the Lying Socialist Weasels, for commentary from the Original Progressive Web Warriors!

    by Jonathan on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:01:58 PM PST

  •  Don't Miss 60 Minutes (none)
    THE REAL SPOOK is being interviewed by Steve Kroft.

    He is calling Kroft "Sir" --  talk about a career spook!

    This guy is for real.

    •  After watching him... (none)
      ...and my comments about a terrorist nuking of LA, Chicago, and/or NYC as a win-win proposition for Bush, I am now more afraid for our country. Because you know one of those three cities will be the target...OK, maybe D.C., but I doubt that. Bush is very good at protecting his own ass and now that they control everything, no need to nuke that. However, if they allow terrorists to nuke one of those three cities, they wipe out alot of their political opposition and can then push the Patriot acts II, III, etc through, effectively ending democracy.

      Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. -Tom Paine

      by Alumbrados on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:42:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't Forget Houston -- OBL vs. #41 (none)
        OBL would love to nuke #41.  Plus, all those refineries and all that oil.

        Right in Bushco's back yard.

      •  But think of the economic losses! (none)
        No way do they want an attack on one of the large commercial marketplaces in the U.S.

        They are, after all, corporatists. They want, above all, a strong stock market. They demand power, sure, but it's all about money at the end of the day. . .

        Our one saving grace - Democrats are consumers, too. And the "Blue States" are the most affluent, spending the most on goods, etc., etc. We may be their enemy, but we're also essential to lining their pockets.

        When only the govemment lacks virtue, there remains a resource in the people's virtue; but when the people itself is corrupted, liberty is already lost.

        by Robespierrette on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 05:07:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Real CIA vs. Bush CIA (none)
    During the runup to the war, I read and I believed it did a great job in uncovering the deception and lies that this war was based on.If little ole me knew there weren't any nuclear weapons or WMD in Iraq, I think Bush & Co. knew it too. Salon also showed that there were a lot of CIA employees in key areas that were kept out of the information loop because there was a special office directly linked to the CIA director that issued so-called "intelligence" about Iraq. I inherently don't trust the CIA but from the reading I've done I believe there are good people there that were unfairly blamed for 9/11 and Iraq and now are facing the loss of a job/career.
  •  This story is horrifying!! Where's the karma.... (none)
    ...when you need it!?!?

    Like many comments here, I'm totally perplexed by the Teflon nature of this as dissenting citizens must search far and wide to find it's Achilles heel.

    It's got to be there's like Bush & Co is like the just keeps seeping into our government and lives, no criticism, facts or opposition affect lives on to overwhelm us and suffocate us.

    There just HAS to be something that will take this power down.

  •  55 million (none)
    non believers have alot of financial clout... more then half the wealth in the US probably.. we need to learn how to use it collectively... the power they have is nothing without a financial base
  •   We need another Admiral Canaris (4.00)
    Admiral Canaris is the hidden hand of the Wehrmacht Resistance. On New Year's Day 1935, he becomes head of the Abwehr. He serves as its chief for the next nine years until an outraged Hitler fires him in 1943 blaming him for the defection of key German spies to the Allies in Turkey. His connections to the Resistance are discovered when the Gestapo fall upon the conspirators' safe at Army headquarters in Zossen. He is executed only weeks before the end of World War II.

    Urbane, astute, observant even in matters that seemed vague and remote, Canaris is a steathly lover of adventure, and an affectionado of Mediterranean countries. He speaks Spanish fluently and has a close working relationship with Spain's Franco whom he warns against allying with Hitler, providing clear evidence that Germany will lose the war.

    Initially hoping to steer Hitler away from his malevolent ambitions, Canaris soon gives up and devotes himself with utmost secrecy to using the Abwehr to help the army conspirators plan and carry out its numerous assassination and coup attempts throughout their six-year effort.

    Canaris also divulges a number of secrets to England about Hitler's war strategy - from Hitler's impending western offensive against the Low countries and France to Hitler's plan to invade Britain. He also misleads Hitler into believing that the Allies will not land at Anzio in 1943.

    Canaris is directly involved in the 1938 and 1939 coup attempts, and in March 1943, he personally flies to Smolensk to plan Hitler's assassination with conspirators on the staff of Army Group Center. He is not in a capacity to be of help on July 20, 1944 because he has already been placed under house arrest.

    The Nuremburg Trials reveal Canaris's strenuous efforts in trying to put a stop to the crimes of war and genocide committed in Russia by Reinhard Heydrich's Einsatzgruppen forces. It is also revealed that Canaris prevented the killing of captured French officers in Tunisia.

    "I die for my fatherland. I have a clear conscience. I only did my duty to my country when I tried to oppose the criminal folly of Hitler."

  •  55 million (none)
    non believers probalby control more then half the wealth in the ocuntry.... political power is nothing without financial power.. we need to learn how to use it collectively. The corporations will dance to 55 million consumers, and  then they can put pressure on Bush.
  •  Is It Really A Purge? (none)
    I recently read that a great number of CIA and related/similar people are considering resigning, and many have already done so. I wonder if the Administration isn't playing "You can't quit, I fire you." That could certainly be spun more easily to their advantage, regardless the cost to our security. And spin has clearly been a higher priority for Bush & Co. than reality.
  •  It's Official: CIA to become the CYA (4.00)

    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. -Tom Paine

    by Alumbrados on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:43:50 PM PST

  •  CIA "disloyalty" (none)
    When CIA officers leak information with the obvious intent of undermining and discrediting the national security policy of the administration in charge, then purging at the least is in order.  A more thorough and systemic reorganization is what's really needed.  What's really disturbing is that members of the CIA would so willingly place politics at a higher priority than national security.  What's equally disturbing is that we're reading about back office power politics of a clandestine agency splashed on the pages of the WA Post and NY Times.
    •  Plame? (none)

      Yeah, and, well, I'm waiting for the guys who bandied about an undercover officer's name in the open and clear, to, er, go up against the wall.

      And I'm waiting for Drunyon (that lass who sold her country (during time of war) to Boeing) to get shot for treason too.

      But she's got nine months at a country club (for billions of dollars of misalocated taxpayer money) and the a corner office in the West Wing.

  •  The Permanent Majority (none)
    Sometimes an opponent manages to thwart you by doing something unexpected.  But worse is when your foe tells you straight out what they intend, and you still fail to stop them.  

    In this case, we know the Republican intention without a doubt.  Tom Delay has announced many times that Republicans will hold a permanent majority in congress.  Maybe you think it's an idle boast.  Maybe you even take it as a sign of Republican overconfidence.  If so, I submit, you haven't been paying attention.

    With a losing popular vote, and power gained through court maneuvers, many people expected Bush to take a timid, moderate course.  Those people were dead wrong.  

    Bush gutted agencies of legitimate scientists and replaced them with loyal sycophants.  He charged into war for his own reasons.  He changed American foreign policy more than all the presidents since WW II.  There was no civil right immune to erosion.  There was no lie too audacious, no cost too high to secure more power to their hands.  And through it all, half the populace applauded.

    Now, having convinced the public that a legitimate war hero was actually a traitor, and having had just as much luck selling the idea that liberal = immoral, why stop there?  

    Any action they can take to demonize Democrats, any action, they'll take it.  Do you think they wouldn't dare revive Mccarthyite tactics?  Get over it, we're past that already.  They have four years, a compliant press, and a corps of fanatical followers.  They will do everything they can to assure that by 2008, Osama bin Laden is seen as a secondary threat to that of Democrats.

    What did Huey Long predict?  They'll call it "anti-fascism."

  •  Someone STOP ME (4.00)
     I am convinced we have just witnessed the beginning of the establishment of the fascist state.  Please refute the following paranoid delusions so I can return to a `normal' life.

    1.    The `party' is taking control of the airwaves.  I think Howard Stern is immoral and offensive, so I don't watch or listen to him.  Ask him if he thinks he lives in a free society.  I find the hypocrisy nauseating that the same network that is the mouthpiece for the `moral majority' also carries the most liberal primetime programming on television.

    2.    The leaders of the `party' only give lip service to a two party system.  The vice president hasn't met the senator running to replace him because he meets in private with his `party' colleagues and refuses to meet with the other side.  Of course the press didn't report this, it came from the mouth of a senator from the opposing party, so it can be easily discredited.  The opposing party is not viewed as the opponent, but the enemy.  Having survived the secrecy of the Nixon "enemies list", democrats are now confronted by Ann Coulter who has openly declared that ALL democrats are traitors.  This would include, I presume, the ones buried at Normandy and Arlington - there must be at least one.  She refused to compromise, as all bigots do, and has not been dismissed but promoted.  Come along now, it isn't difficult to translate traitor to terrorist.

    3.    Not all `party' members are bigots, but every bigot I have ever met is a member of the `party'.  At the risk of being branded a bigot myself, I have great faith that those reasonable and rational members that remain in the `party' can put a halt to this madness.  The party is grand and old.

    4.    The leader of the `party' has listed as a top priority for his second term to reinstate the line item veto, which has been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court for placing too much power in the hands of one branch of government - and an individual at that.  Thank God the leader is willing to work with anyone who agrees with him.

    5.    The leader of the `party' believes he has been anointed by God to lead his great nation and believes it is his duty to `liberate' the world.  Hitler didn't START his political career by killing 6 million innocent people - and I'm sure not ALL of them were innocent.  Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

    6.    One of the legislative leaders of the `party' said "I AM the government", which I am having trouble translating to `we the people'.  Hitler didn't operate alone.

    7.    The `party' has a document called `The Patriot Act' which allows them to strip any citizen of their constitutional rights by labeling them a `terrorist'.  A large number of  `party' members voted solely on their right to bear arms - the second amendment to the constitution that they also just voted to waive.  There must be more than a few of them that are the Tim McVeigh sympathizers and right-wing militiamen eager to become the `jack-booted thug' ATF patriots they so despised.

    If the line item veto passes, let alone the reversal of Roe/Wade, I will know the courts are under control and will have to seriously think about leaving - the blue states are doomed as well.  Look what happened to the governor's office in California.  After a millionaire `party' member paid a dollar per signature to get the recall on the ballot, the `party' continued their infamous smear campaign.  My county used electronic voting machines for that election - only to have them banned a few weeks later.  What happened to my vote for the governorship?  I think they were testing the machines for the presidential election and found out that they worked perfectly for their purposes.  And now we're using the incredibly creative method of borrowing our way out of debt - Gray Davis could never have come up with that one.  Another decorated soldier vs chickenhawk `party' member.  Maybe this can be stopped before the mid-term elections - I fear not.

    I have given up on the SCLM for their irresponsible coverage of this campaign.  They are so paranoid of being branded that they won't discuss anything mildly controversial - let alone something as explosive as squelched CIA reports.  They are slaves to their corporate masters, as are we all.

    I am trying to purge my mind of all political thought because these issues are becoming an almost paralyzing fear which prevents me from doing `constructive' things.  I am not completely `distracted' and `detached' from the goings on of the government as most of society is.  I must get back to my life of detached servitude so the `party' can carry on as it chooses.

    What happened to the president we saw at ground zero?  He can't be diabolical enough to pull it off.  Is he brilliant or is he stupid?  My mind is completely fractured.

    I think I am already seeing the delusional nature of my thoughts as I complete this diatribe.  Thanks for letting me vent, I just need a little reassurance.  

    But just in case I'm right - there's an impeachment petition at  It won't be easy though.  The leader is not so foolish to be caught in the Clinton perjury trap.  That's why he refused to `testify' to the 9/11 commission, but agreed to grant an audience to `chat'.  He prefers to look directly into the camera, into your eyes, and mislead.

    There I go again.

    •  Not going to convince you (none)
      We definitely have a right-wing authoritarian government which is edging its way towards fascism. We're not quite there yet because killing the "disloyal" isn't yet an official goal and despite the election paranoia, it isn't certain that we have a dictatorship yet.

      You might want to take a good look at what David Neiwert has to say. He wrote a series titled The Rise of Pseudo Fascism which lays out what has been happening in detail.

  •  A modest proposal (none)

    Papa Bush would be a steadying influence here.  What are HIS thoughts?  

    I'd respect Papa Bush more than Goss's immediate bacon-stealing underlings.

  •  May I suggest a loyalty oath for the new CIA... (none)
    "I swear to you Adolf, George Bush, as leader and (sorry), President of the nation, loyalty and bravery.  I vow to you and to the representatives appointed by you (and Halliburton), obedience unto death, so help me God."

    I'm a baaaad kitty, I am...

  •  Ladies and Gentleman, (none)
    please enjoy your FREEDOM while it lasts, because the 2001-2004 version of the CIA spied on the American people more than at anytime in its history.

    Now that FIDEL BUSH has visons on purging not just the CIA but putting "ALLIE G" in Charge at  THE NOJUSTICE Department. I would expect CIVIL LIBERTIES to continue to be a thing this BUSHMOB will not tolerate........if you heard Ashcroft on Thursday....crying that those not supporting the Dear Leader....are terrorists........

    Thank you Red Staters (including my own backassward state NC)for giving all our rights away!!!!

  •  Excuse me, (none)
    ...but are we saying that the previous "CIA purge" diary's comments were 'vanished' from the database?
  •  and if so... (none)
    We are living in insane times. But it's not unprecedented.

    In Germany, Hitler did this too.

    It was the process of "Gleichschaltung".
     All branches of government were completely cleaned of opposition members and the regime filled up their vacancies with loyal Nazis.

  •  Sorry if this is a repeat thought.... (none)
    couldn't scan all 267 posts!  

    Seems like folks are missing one important point. It is not the purge (chistka in Russian) itself that worries me so much as the thought that this is likely a setup for things to come that they don't want leaked. Bush thinks he has a mandate, remember, that he is God's instrument, etc. There's a lot more coming down the pike and any early warning system is being dismantled.

    Judging by how badly they treated Tenet and how he just rolled over after resigning, I highly doubt anyone purged is going to ring any warning bells.

    - K

  •  Abolish the CIA (3.50)
    Who are the liberals are the CIA?  Ray McGovern, with his timely analysis AFTER the invasion of Iraq?  "Anonymous", with his timely departure AFTER the coup in America?  Let's at least get an honest appraisal of what the CIA is before we start defending its "liberals" within.

    The CIA works for Wall Street and the Republican Establishment--and the Republican Establishment comprises, sadly, at least a few Democrats, like October Surprise (and 9/11) apologist Lee Hamilton.  The CIA conducts operations to fill big banks with cocaine and heroin profits.  The CIA creates chaos in oil-producing regions.  CIA "liberal" Kenneth Pollack wrote the book on why liberals should support a careful invasion of Iraq.  And now he has penned a book on US "options" concerning Iran, a country which has the temerity to wish to sell its oil for euros.  So when the time comes, hey, this liberal over here Ken Pollack says we should invade Iran.  The partisan divide on foreign policy bridged once again...

    Seriously, do not be fooled by the talk of liberals at the CIA.  The CIA has to be dismantled and its war criminals punished.  They go into "the Agency" wet behind the ears and come out as sociopathic monsters.  And beware of the "former" tag.  Once CIA, always CIA.    

    •  Look... (none)
      do you actually think that the CIA is going to be punished the way in you wish for its effed up policies?  Don't kid yourself.

      You are right.  The CIA has been filled with a bunch of anti-Stalinist liberals and Opus Dei enthusiasts.  They are hardly progressives.  However, there are the rank and file officers who felt royally shat upon when Bush and Tenet started screwing them when what they found out wasn't in line with what the White House wanted.

      Once the CIA is filled with more of Bush's neo-con flunkies, it is going to get progressively worse.  They are not going to be thinkers.  They are going to be propagandists.  It's going to be worse than what occurred during the Dulles brothers and Helms.

      Don't get me wrong.  The CIA has been the handmaiden in incursions from Vietnam to Grenada, from El Salvador, Chile and Iran, and now Iraq. I don't applaud this history, and I don't think anyone who knows about it has forgotten.

      Once the CIA is compromised further in the name of some quioxtic national security excuse, everyone is going to be at risk. You can choose your battles, but it adds up to one big war at home.

      One-fifth of the people are against everything all the time.--Bobby Kennedy

      by blksista on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:29:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm totally confused (none)
    The CIA was responsible for wrong information about WMD in Iraq, and misled Bush, Kerry, and everybody else, and we got into a nasty war. Now there's a move to reorganize the CIA under a plan that aims to put it under a larger intelligence organization, as suggested by the panel that reviewed how we got into Iraq.

    What is wrong with this?

    Here's a Guardian article on the topic that doesn't seem to make it sound very bad, particularly considering that the Guardian generally hates everything about Bush. I'm starting to wonder whether the Daily Kos participants are permanent members of the tin foil hat brigade--seeing conspiracy in everything that takes place. Help me understand what is going on, please!,1280,-4615385,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704

    •  but that's not a Guardian article (none)
      that's just from the news feed of the Associated Press. When the Guardian comes out with its own analysis, that may be something to read.
    •  The CIA is pissed (none)
      they did not give Bush the wrong information.

      Bush ignored the information they gave him and it discredits their organization and conviently lays the blame squarely off of Bush's shoulders. The audacity of this man is unbelievable.
      He seems to hold nothing sacred.

    •  Nothing (none)
      Reading the article you linked, nothing looks wrong. As it frames the problem as trying to fix the problems from 9/11 & Iraq WMD CIA related failures.  This is fine. (though some people argue that most of the CIA was against invading Iraq, and that the Whitehouse and Tenet just picked the information that supported their cause, and ignored any evidence to the contrary).

        The article in the diary though makes it look like they aren't going after the people who failed.  Rather they are going after people who don't support Bush ('liberal democrats') who 'leak' facts to the press.

      Getting rid of people who have a different view is not healthy in an intelligence agency that should be looking at all the options.  The CIA is not based in Washington DC as it is meant to have separation from the government and not be pressured in this way.

      Thats why this is bad.  Fixing the CIA is a noble cause, but firing dissenters and filling it with Neo-con yes men is going to do a whole lot of harm. As all options/ scenarios will no longer be looked into.  

    •  You missed the following tidbits: (2.00)
      • The CIA had correct information about WMDs but that information was not relayed to the White House because:
      • Convenient and erronrous reports were produced by people sympathetic to Bush's foreign policy
      • Those people are not being removed, in fact they are being promoted.
      • Under the pretext of "fixing" the CIA Bush is purging all those who he dims "disloyal" and for the first time it was publically annouced that it means all liberal-leaning employees.

      That is the gist of the thing. Guardian missed the fact that the reorganization is a disguise for a purge of all people who might disagree with Bush. In fact its a beauty. Bush used his insiders within CIA to get what he wanted, and then managed to discredit the whole organization when it came out that the data was fabricated. Then he used that to "reorganize" CIA so that ... he gets rid of last vestiges of people who might oppose further manipulation. And who says George is dumb?

  •  Loyalty to the president? (4.00)
    The CIA, and any other part of the government, owes 0% loyalty to the president. Respect for the office, yes. Loyalty no. The only loyalty for any govenment person is and should be to the constitution. This administration thinks we just had a cornation rather than an election.

    Once the purge is completed, Bush and co. can make any statement concerning intelligence and have absolutely no one to blow the whistle. What is worse, once the political hacks get installed you will see a more visible CIA giving public support to Bush. You will see them on talk shows, etc.. I wouldn't be suprised if they rewrite the last 4 years showing how no one in the administration made a single mistake involving intelligence. 2004, no, it's 1984.

    •  against all enemies (none)
      foreign and domestic.
    •  I'm a Texan too (none)
      Thank God there's more than one of us.  Totally agree with your assessment.  I feel like history is so little taught, or so little read, that folks have no idea why the US is (or was) considered so ground breaking.  Because it is a government of laws, not of men.  Not only doesthis concept provide the ultimate 'check and balance' on power, it also provides continuity between different administrations.  Good comment.

      I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it. - Thomas Jefferson

      by ktxlib on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:42:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  purging leaks? (none)
    What about Plame?
  •  the dems really need (none)
    a department that can make sure the media
    picks up on things like this.
    This is why we need a liberal news channel.

    The general public doesn't get this kind of
    information unless they happen to read the

    This is why they think Bush is a great president.

  •  Let's Hope (none)
    they shoot themselves in the foot with this one.

    damn them and their "mandate"

    seems to me it is all about cover-up and secrecy
    somehow, someday, somewhere they are gonna piss the wrong
    person off.

    Hopefully it will be Jesus so for once the "heartland" will listen!

  •  A Historical Event: (none)

    Remember, way back in early 2001, when the CIA caught an FBI Mole?  The Hanssen Mole business helped Bush bolster his post-inaugural "Honeymoon" period, and helped get Bush off on the right foot.  Certain liberals on the "to be purged" list helped make that happen at a politically propitious time.

    But all that's historical, and, of course, long forgotten...

  •  This sounds like... (none)
    they believe that purging the "Unconverted" is some kind of serious reform of the CIA. Pretty much just another manifestation of their overarching belief that the real problem with the U.S. Defense, Intelligence, and Foreign Policy communities is that some people in these professions haven't accepted the Administration's beliefs as gospel. Everyone has to be a "team player", which basically means anyone with a dissenting opinion or independent analysis is just getting in the way.
  •  Unfortunately (none)
    this one doesn't surprise me at all.

    We have a long tradition of independent agencies in this country. Independent, agreed upon by both parties, so that politics doesn't interfere in the good of the nation. This has been true of agencies such as the CIA, as well as in certain committees in congress such as the intelligence committee that oversees the CIA. The intelligence committee is barely holding on to some modicum of integrity but...

    This administration is hell bent on a complete take over of the government and it's institutions. It is in complete power grab mode. There isn't a thought in these peoples heads about "the good of the nation." It is all about power, power, POWER, POWER.

    "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." - Theodore Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 08:07:31 PM PST

  •  If they succeed (none)
    in purging the CIA and making it a party-owned agency adhering to one particular ideology then the first thing the next Democratic President it going to have to do is completely dismantle it and build an entirely new intelligence agency.

    A one-party intelligence agency with the power, capabilities, and funding of the CIA cannot be allowed to exist.

    Remember that Putin ran the KGB, was democratically elected, and is now recreating a totaliterian state all in the name of security.

    "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." - Theodore Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 08:12:23 PM PST

  •  No dissent allowed (none)
    This administration refused to allow any dissent at all.  Thus, if you don't stick to the original hypothesis, you are out.  That's the exact philosophy that JFK followed during the Bay of Pigs.  Only victory was considered.  

    Of course JFK learned from this mistake and fixed up his act.  Thus, during the Cuban Missile crisis he talked to all sides, and encourgaged people to shoot down each other's ideas.

    But in this administration - no way.

    And as a conservative, I'm disgusted.

    Downtown Lad (Gay Conservative)

  •  Forgotten Lessons: CIA and the Vietnam War (none)

    "In the end, the story of intelligence and the Vietnam conflict is one of competing forces: many potent influences on policy, some of the most significant of them extraneous to Vietnam, versus the obligation CIA's officers had to present their findings candidly, to try to "tell it like it is." As a working-level participant in some of this history, the author can attest to the frustration CIA officers experience when they find no one listening to them downtown. It may be ever so, when intelligence comes up against committed policymakers grappling with intractable, highly charged crisis situations. But the obligation to present candid intelligence findings still applies. One balm for such frustrations when they do occur is the fact that since CIA's founding, every US President, Republican and Democrat alike, has asked for, received, and often benefited from the input of dispassionate, professional intelligence. It is a safe bet that Presidents will continue to need and even welcome such inputs, whatever their ultimate influence on policy decisions.

    It is also the author's view that in these episodes Agency officers performed their greatest service when they maintained CIA's professional intelligence integrity without regard to whether candor would or would not prove congenial to their DCIs and to policymaking consumers. To the degree that CIA officers withheld or modified their judgments, they were not only distorting intelligence but also undercutting CIA's very raison d'etre."

    If this lesson has indeed been forgotten, it's not only a dark day for the CIA, but for the nation.

  •  CIA (none)
        A few points.
        1. The next time the CIA fucks up, which occurs about every 8 months, who's Bush gonna blame?
         2. In the horrid event of another terrorist attack on the US, won't all those fired CIA agents rush to tell the public who's to blame?
         3. Maybe this makes me a heretic, but good old non-partisan George Tenet rolled over and played dead for Bush. Richard Helms did the same for Nixon, and Allen Dulles for Kennedy. Maybe it's not so bad to have the CIA seen for what it is, an agency who serves at the president's pleasure.
  •  Purging is needed (none)
    If there is any agency that screams out for purging, it is the CIA.  They were blind about the 9/11 threat and totally wrong about Iraq's WMD threat.  Bush should have purged this incompetent agency four years ago.  And I would expect the same when a Democrat becomes president.  A president should purge any intelligence agency that's more focused on undermining his authority than with facing the real threats we face.

    For those worried about a Republican president purging liberals and democrats, all I can say is let's win the next election and we can put the shoe on the other foot.

  •  Our fifth estate is gone (none)
    because of media consolidation.  We are a democracy in the sense the Iran is a democracy.  Iran's leaders are elected, but only those approved of by the mullahs can run, and there is no free press. We are a very sick democracy.
  •  Like Cassandra of Troy (none)
    always told the truth, but was cursed to be never be believed. I guess God commanded Bush not listen to the truthsayers!

    "The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country." ~ Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

    by Ralfast on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:47:54 PM PST

  •  Tracking Neocon Motives (none)
    At the risk of being issued a tin foil hat, I think it is possible to extrapolate from George Bush's policies and actions their ultimate goal.  So far everything he has done has been about reducing the assets of the United States and its people.  Huge tax cuts for the rich, unprecedented military spending, running up oil prices, all to transfer the wealth of the United States to the corporations and defense contractors and oil companies that own everything on our planet.  Outsourcing our jobs to low wage countries creates higher corporate profits and lowers the standard of living in America.  Many people have two and three jobs to try to feed house and clothe their families on Walmart-scale pay.  They want all of us to have to spend all of our time and energy trying to survive, so they will have no challengers to their conquest of the world.
    Borrowing huge sums from China and Russia leave the US indebted to its historical enemies.
    Saudi Arabians engineered and carried out the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, all to scare America into going along with its own destruction.  He can never catch Osama, he owes billions to Osama's daddy.  So instead, let's go bankrupt the United States and avenge W's daddy at the same time in Iraq.  
    Using religion as a smokescreen, he persuaded millions of god-fearing, well-meaning people to re-elect him, and stole a few million extra votes just to be sure.  The Bible says that even the devil can quote scripture for his own purposes.  
    Bush is telling the truth when he says he wants an ownership society.  He wants them to own US.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site