logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> What's going on at the CIA?, Scandal, power play, or militarization
TedN5
post May 9 2006, 01:06 AM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Porter Goss resigned abruptly as CIA Director after serving a little more than one year. Almost immediately General Michael Hayden, head of the NSA, was nominated to be the new CIA Director. Speculation is rampant as to the real reasons Goss resigned, why Hayden is being put forward, and why key Republicans and many Democrats oppose his nomination.

Here are a few relevant articles

MSNBC Article

Independent Article

USA Today Article

Myway Blog

NYT "Hobbled on Iran"

David Corn Speculation

Rawstory

Larry Johnson Article

Hundreds of other reference are available.

1. Was the resignation of Goss related to the Cunningham scandal?

2. Was Goss's departure more evidence of Bush Administration incompetence?

3. Is General Hayden the right person to succeed Goss?

4. Have US intelligence agencies been improved since 9/11 or have they been politicalized?

This post has been edited by TedN5: May 9 2006, 03:08 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 3)
lederuvdapac
post May 9 2006, 02:13 AM
Post #2


*********
Mr. Free Market

Sponsor
August 2006

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,940
Member No.: 2,573
Joined: March-4-04

From: A New Yorker in DC
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



1. Was the resignation of Goss related to the Cunningham scandal?

Like everyone will answer...its possible but not the overriding factor in his resignation. His conflicts with Negroponte and his general failure to turn the CIA in the right direction are main causes.

2. Was Goss's departure more evidence of Bush Administration incompetence?

Nobody can tell the future. Goss seemed like a good pick at the time but he didnt do what was expected of him, its not a measure of Bush's incompetence by any stretch.

3. Is General Hayden the right person to succeed Goss?

From my understanding Hayden will be a solid choice for CIA Director. He is a strong leader who knows the intelligence game from the inside and can get respect. He has more experience in intelligence than anyone military or civilian. I know there are concerns about his ties to the DoD being a military man (keep in mind he is the 5th uniform man who was nomianted director if the CIA)...but I see it in a different light. Maybe being in the military will give his dissent from DoD more weight as he has inside knowledge of both. We need a strong choice who will revamp the agency and Hayden seems to be the best choice at the time.

4. Have US intelligence agencies been improved since 9/11 or have they been politicalized?

Improved? Three different CIA Directors since 9/11...any argument towards improvement is mistaken. I think Hayden is an improvement, but I've been wrong before (many times whistling.gif )

This post has been edited by lederuvdapac: May 9 2006, 02:13 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mustang
post May 9 2006, 03:59 AM
Post #3


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 204
Member No.: 1,903
Joined: December-2-03

From: Rogers, AR
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



Is General Hayden the right person to succeed Goss?

I'm uncomfortable with Hayden in that position. He's a career SIGINT officer being put in charge of an agency that is desperately trying to rebuild its HUMINT capability. It just doesn't pass the simple logic test.

Also, that bit about him having "more experience in intelligence than anyone military or civilian" is absolutely untrue. Both the military services and the civilian intelligence community have a number of outstanding professionals who have spent two decades or more working operational intelligence - Hayden has been a staff officer, with a SIGINT focus, for nearly his entire career.

This post has been edited by Mustang: May 9 2006, 04:00 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wertz
post May 9 2006, 10:34 AM
Post #4


Group Icon

*********
Advanced Senior

Sponsor
January 2003

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 3,235
Member No.: 181
Joined: October-23-02

From: Franklinville PA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



1. Was the resignation of Goss related to the Cunningham scandal?

Of course it was. Goss resigned, effective immediately, for no stated reason in the early days of a five-year plan. None of the proferred reasons has the urgency and immediacy that could account for such a departure apart from his involvement in the bribery scandal - even if it only extends so far as his relationship to former Director of Intelligence Dusty Foggo (though I won't be surprised when if it's found to extend much further).

2. Was Goss's departure more evidence of Bush Administration incompetence?

Incompetence? No. It was simply the result of inbreeding among the quail flushing classes. Goss was appointed solely to politicize the CIA. His failure to do so even more effectively is due to appointments having to be made from within the ever-shrinking pool of those within arm's reach of the Oval Office's ideology - a congenital defect, if you will, arising from corporate crony incest.

3. Is General Hayden the right person to succeed Goss?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (That would be a "no".) Never mind his supervision of the warrantless surveillance of American citizens or his targeting of political opponents to the Bush administration or his inexperience with human intelligence or his non-civilian status or his ignorance of the Constitution in relation to civil rights or his possible links to the Cunningham scandal. For me, President Bush describing him as "the right man to lead the CIA at this critical moment in our nation's history" is enough to demonstrate that he is the worst possible choice. Let's not forget that, nineteen months ago, President Bush described Porter Goss as "the right man to lead this important agency at this critical moment in our nation's history". Is further argument required?

4. Have US intelligence agencies been improved since 9/11 or have they been politicalized?

For those who hate the US Constitution and would like to see our country as an autocratic police state and for those who would like the CIA to forget all this stupid "collection of intelligence" nonsense and focus on the important work of toppling foreign governments for no reason other than that they are bad for American business, they have made huge leaps forward - which, of course, means they have been nothing but politicized. I don't even see where this point is worthy of debate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 2nd, 2021 - 09:46 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.