Full Version: Porter Goss - DCI Nominee
From http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/10/...goss/index.html
Porter Goss has been nominated by President Bush for the post of Director of Central Intelligence, the head of the CIA. In addition to the usual responsibilities, he will now have the distinction of managing the activities and priorities of the Director of National Intelligence.
He was due to retire from Congress this year but was renowned
It would appear there is some opposition to his appointment:
Not surprisingly the opposition is partisan but such is the way of the world in Washington. Though rumors persisted when Tenet resigned that Goss had been lobbying for the DCI job all along. (links are evading me atm, but I'll keep looking)
Questions for debate:
1) Is Porter Goss the best choice for this position? Why or why not?
2) Is Goss too "partisan" an appointment to be effective in an agency that is supposed to be apolitical?
3) Should Bush have looked for someone outside of Washington for this position in hopes of injecting "new blood" for the CIA?
4) Will Democratic opposition to the appointment affect the presidential election?
Porter Goss has been nominated by President Bush for the post of Director of Central Intelligence, the head of the CIA. In addition to the usual responsibilities, he will now have the distinction of managing the activities and priorities of the Director of National Intelligence.
He was due to retire from Congress this year but was renowned
It would appear there is some opposition to his appointment:
QUOTE
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, will oppose Goss' nomination, his staff said Tuesday.
Last month, when the congressman's name was first mentioned in connection with the top CIA job, Rockefeller and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Goss was too close to the intelligence community and was too partisan to be effective in the post.
Last month, when the congressman's name was first mentioned in connection with the top CIA job, Rockefeller and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Goss was too close to the intelligence community and was too partisan to be effective in the post.
Not surprisingly the opposition is partisan but such is the way of the world in Washington. Though rumors persisted when Tenet resigned that Goss had been lobbying for the DCI job all along. (links are evading me atm, but I'll keep looking)
Questions for debate:
1) Is Porter Goss the best choice for this position? Why or why not?
2) Is Goss too "partisan" an appointment to be effective in an agency that is supposed to be apolitical?
3) Should Bush have looked for someone outside of Washington for this position in hopes of injecting "new blood" for the CIA?
4) Will Democratic opposition to the appointment affect the presidential election?
1) Is Porter Goss the best choice for this position? Why or why not?
2) Is Goss too "partisan" an appointment to be effective in an agency that is supposed to be apolitical?
3) Should Bush have looked for someone outside of Washington for this position in hopes of injecting "new blood" for the CIA?
4) Will Democratic opposition to the appointment affect the presidential election?
No idea. Never heard of him before. As to his partisanship, again I dunno. Big suprise he's a republican, the dems would have probably nominated a dem if they were in power so what is the difference. As for the outside of Washington, what are this guys political aspirations? Where else would we find someone??? Who are viable candidates anyways? What experience is good experience?
The Dems had better have decent reasons for their objections or they will look very petty. Why is he "Too Partisan"?
What the hell is TOO CLOSE to the intelligence community?
2) Is Goss too "partisan" an appointment to be effective in an agency that is supposed to be apolitical?
3) Should Bush have looked for someone outside of Washington for this position in hopes of injecting "new blood" for the CIA?
4) Will Democratic opposition to the appointment affect the presidential election?
No idea. Never heard of him before. As to his partisanship, again I dunno. Big suprise he's a republican, the dems would have probably nominated a dem if they were in power so what is the difference. As for the outside of Washington, what are this guys political aspirations? Where else would we find someone??? Who are viable candidates anyways? What experience is good experience?
The Dems had better have decent reasons for their objections or they will look very petty. Why is he "Too Partisan"?
What the hell is TOO CLOSE to the intelligence community?
1)Is Porter Goss the best choice for this position? Why or why not?
As I tried to highlight in a new topic yesterday regarding an FBI translator who was fired for her actions - essentially being a good employee (that topic generated no interest) - installing a political crony in this position will be disastrous for those agents who are conscientious and do a good job. Who has the guts or sheer chutzpah to speak out when your boss has the ear of both the prez and the VP?!
I imagine the pink slips will be flying fast and furious as Goss cleans out all the agents who were brave enough to speak out (such as Sibel Edmunds) or the ones who don't toe the party line.
2) Is Goss too "partisan" an appointment to be effective in an agency that is supposed to be apolitical?
Is the Pope Catholic? Does a bear poo in the woods? Does Dolly Parton sleep on her back? Of course he’s too partisan! And a partisan extremist (is that redundant?
), to boot! And a weasel...but I digress.
He is so cozy with Bush, Cheney and company, it’s a wonder he doesn’t break his nose when one of them stops short. Plus, he's an odious human being (this is my humble opinion, 'kay?)
He opposes a woman’s right to choose, gay marriage (and adoption), clean needle exchange and medical marijuana, alternative fuels, welfare, “flag desecration” (i.e. first Amendment rights), making it more difficult for a person to appeal the death penalty, campaign finance reform,
He’s all for Bush/Cheney’s energy policy, drilling in the ANWR, soft money for political advertisements, restricting people’s civil rights, prayer in schools, lowering the gun purchase waiting period to 1 day, using the military to “battle drugs and terrorism” (!!!!), more money for prisons, and of course, approving every request for more money for the war, clear-cutting forests, and more. Source
Another Bush/Cheney crony who also happens to be a lifetime politician with very close ties to BushCo installed as head of the department responsible for securing intelligence to keep this country safe is a terrifying thought to me.
2)Should Bush have looked for someone outside of Washington for this position in hopes of injecting "new blood" for the CIA?
Yes, for all the reasons I’ve mentioned.
As I tried to highlight in a new topic yesterday regarding an FBI translator who was fired for her actions - essentially being a good employee (that topic generated no interest) - installing a political crony in this position will be disastrous for those agents who are conscientious and do a good job. Who has the guts or sheer chutzpah to speak out when your boss has the ear of both the prez and the VP?!
I imagine the pink slips will be flying fast and furious as Goss cleans out all the agents who were brave enough to speak out (such as Sibel Edmunds) or the ones who don't toe the party line.QUOTE
Appointing Goss would administer the coup de grâce to intelligence analysts trying to survive while still speaking truth without fear or favor. The only saving grace for them would be the likelihood that they would be spared "multiple visits" by Cheney to the inner sanctum where it used to be possible to produce unvarnished analysis without vice presidents and other policy makers looking over their shoulders to ensure they "had thought of everything." Goss, who has a long history of subservience to Cheney, could be counted upon to play the Cheney/Gingrich/et al. role himself. Antiwar.com
2) Is Goss too "partisan" an appointment to be effective in an agency that is supposed to be apolitical?
Is the Pope Catholic? Does a bear poo in the woods? Does Dolly Parton sleep on her back? Of course he’s too partisan! And a partisan extremist (is that redundant?
), to boot! And a weasel...but I digress.QUOTE
In another highly unusual development, three top CIA officials have come out swinging against Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.), the chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, and a Cheney favorite to be installed as interim Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) on the departure of George Tenet. On June 23, Goss' Republican majority on the committee inserted a caustic attack on the CIA into an intelligence authorization bill, branding the Agency a "dysfunctional organization," and proposing to turn over major responsibilities and budget control to the Pentagon, where Straussian Stephen Cambone is Rumsfeld's new Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. That post was created in March 2003, specifically to challenge the CIA Director for control over America's intelligence assets.
The very next day, a letter from outgoing DCI George Tenet was posted on the CIA's open-source website, blasting Goss, and defending the Agency's high-priority focus on global terrorism, weapons proliferation, and the ongoing crisis in Iraq. Addington Memo
The very next day, a letter from outgoing DCI George Tenet was posted on the CIA's open-source website, blasting Goss, and defending the Agency's high-priority focus on global terrorism, weapons proliferation, and the ongoing crisis in Iraq. Addington Memo
QUOTE
According to Al Martin, in 1983 Goss was involved in Iran-Contra profiteering with Jeb and Neil Bush’s Destin Country Club development fraud – a fraud out of which he made about $3 million illegally. He then became involved with Carlos Cardoen and Swissco Management, and the fraud that Swissco Management committed, not only in Florida, but throughout the United States, in those so-called illicit 'tax-swap deals,' which Senator Bob Graham of Florida also profited in.
<snip>
He initially opposed an Inquiry into 9/11… Source
<snip>
He initially opposed an Inquiry into 9/11… Source
He is so cozy with Bush, Cheney and company, it’s a wonder he doesn’t break his nose when one of them stops short. Plus, he's an odious human being (this is my humble opinion, 'kay?)
He opposes a woman’s right to choose, gay marriage (and adoption), clean needle exchange and medical marijuana, alternative fuels, welfare, “flag desecration” (i.e. first Amendment rights), making it more difficult for a person to appeal the death penalty, campaign finance reform,
He’s all for Bush/Cheney’s energy policy, drilling in the ANWR, soft money for political advertisements, restricting people’s civil rights, prayer in schools, lowering the gun purchase waiting period to 1 day, using the military to “battle drugs and terrorism” (!!!!), more money for prisons, and of course, approving every request for more money for the war, clear-cutting forests, and more. Source
Another Bush/Cheney crony who also happens to be a lifetime politician with very close ties to BushCo installed as head of the department responsible for securing intelligence to keep this country safe is a terrifying thought to me.
2)Should Bush have looked for someone outside of Washington for this position in hopes of injecting "new blood" for the CIA?
Yes, for all the reasons I’ve mentioned.
1) Is Porter Goss the best choice for this position? Why or why not?
It depends on what the CIA's role will be in an era with a separate "intelligence czar". Goss seems to be the perfect political appointee to a mid-level department. That he may have lobbied hard for the position says to me that he has political aspirations beyond what he is asking for. Bush I also was a Company guy, and this might be the same roadmap he's following.
It's curious that our current administration would announce this so quickly after publicly declaring that another level of intelligence bureaucracy should be instituted above the CIA. Goss is way too controversial for any other post (voted against ACLU positions at every opportunity, just as an example) that Congress could give him a nod on. He'll never be confirmed as Secretary of Education, for example. But he does not need to be pro-choice in order to gain acceptance as the head of the CIA -- it's a very specific position that makes no policy and does not affect the national debate. Not only that, he's "got experience" with it and he actually wants the job. I can only conclude that this was cronyism at work.
2) Is Goss too "partisan" an appointment to be effective in an agency that is supposed to be apolitical?
Of course he is. That's the whole point. By making the CIA just another department, under the "czar" model, our current administration can claim that the nominee is just a caretaker while they try and get the intelligence system under control. Meanwhile, the new czar gets the hot seat and the CIA job becomes another sweet deal.
3) Should Bush have looked for someone outside of Washington for this position in hopes of injecting "new blood" for the CIA?
It depends on whether or not they actually wanted indepedence from their intelligence community. Why shouldn't they be able to spin intelligence right from the source? I find it interesting that with all the blame put on the way intelligence has been managed up until now, a Company guy would be put in charge.
On the other hand, playing devil's advocate, with Tenet trying to retain his position with obsequiousness because he was a Clinton designate, it might be that a Bush/Cheney guy could be the only person who would be able to tell them the truth, rather than try and figure out what they want to hear. I don't know Goss personally, and only know of him through what I've read, which is not flattering. So I can't really make a judgment on how much of a Cheney lapdog he is.
4) Will Democratic opposition to the appointment affect the presidential election?
I doubt it. This whole affair has the feel of a fly-by-night political show on both sides. The election is too far away at this point.
It depends on what the CIA's role will be in an era with a separate "intelligence czar". Goss seems to be the perfect political appointee to a mid-level department. That he may have lobbied hard for the position says to me that he has political aspirations beyond what he is asking for. Bush I also was a Company guy, and this might be the same roadmap he's following.
It's curious that our current administration would announce this so quickly after publicly declaring that another level of intelligence bureaucracy should be instituted above the CIA. Goss is way too controversial for any other post (voted against ACLU positions at every opportunity, just as an example) that Congress could give him a nod on. He'll never be confirmed as Secretary of Education, for example. But he does not need to be pro-choice in order to gain acceptance as the head of the CIA -- it's a very specific position that makes no policy and does not affect the national debate. Not only that, he's "got experience" with it and he actually wants the job. I can only conclude that this was cronyism at work.
2) Is Goss too "partisan" an appointment to be effective in an agency that is supposed to be apolitical?
Of course he is. That's the whole point. By making the CIA just another department, under the "czar" model, our current administration can claim that the nominee is just a caretaker while they try and get the intelligence system under control. Meanwhile, the new czar gets the hot seat and the CIA job becomes another sweet deal.
3) Should Bush have looked for someone outside of Washington for this position in hopes of injecting "new blood" for the CIA?
It depends on whether or not they actually wanted indepedence from their intelligence community. Why shouldn't they be able to spin intelligence right from the source? I find it interesting that with all the blame put on the way intelligence has been managed up until now, a Company guy would be put in charge.
On the other hand, playing devil's advocate, with Tenet trying to retain his position with obsequiousness because he was a Clinton designate, it might be that a Bush/Cheney guy could be the only person who would be able to tell them the truth, rather than try and figure out what they want to hear. I don't know Goss personally, and only know of him through what I've read, which is not flattering. So I can't really make a judgment on how much of a Cheney lapdog he is.
4) Will Democratic opposition to the appointment affect the presidential election?
I doubt it. This whole affair has the feel of a fly-by-night political show on both sides. The election is too far away at this point.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Aug 10 2004, 11:38 AM)
He is so cozy with Bush, Cheney and company, it’s a wonder he doesn’t break his nose when one of them stops short. Plus, he's an odious human being (this is my humble opinion, 'kay?)
He opposes a woman’s right to choose, gay marriage (and adoption), clean needle exchange and medical marijuana, alternative fuels, welfare, “flag desecration” (i.e. first Amendment rights), making it more difficult for a person to appeal the death penalty, campaign finance reform,
He’s all for Bush/Cheney’s energy policy, drilling in the ANWR, soft money for political advertisements, restricting people’s civil rights, prayer in schools, lowering the gun purchase waiting period to 1 day, using the military to “battle drugs and terrorism” (!!!!), more money for prisons, and of course, approving every request for more money for the war, clear-cutting forests, and more. Source
He opposes a woman’s right to choose, gay marriage (and adoption), clean needle exchange and medical marijuana, alternative fuels, welfare, “flag desecration” (i.e. first Amendment rights), making it more difficult for a person to appeal the death penalty, campaign finance reform,
He’s all for Bush/Cheney’s energy policy, drilling in the ANWR, soft money for political advertisements, restricting people’s civil rights, prayer in schools, lowering the gun purchase waiting period to 1 day, using the military to “battle drugs and terrorism” (!!!!), more money for prisons, and of course, approving every request for more money for the war, clear-cutting forests, and more. Source
Well, I am not sure what his political views have to do with his capacity to protect our countries from a terrorist attack. Although I personally disagree with Rep. Goss about everything across the political spectrum, I do not believe that that takes away his ability to do the job. The fact of the matter is, I want somebody who is qualified and competent--regardless of his/her political leanings.
Now, what scares more even more is this:
QUOTE(ABC News)
Retired Adm. Stansfield Turner, who was CIA chief during the Carter administration and supports Sen. John Kerry's presidential bid, said Goss' selection marked "a bad day for the CIA." Goss was chosen simply "to help George Bush win votes in Florida, he said.
Lastly, I am going to try and not be cynical about this. I have faith that the President will nominate the best man for the job. Perhaps this man is Goss: he claims to have 'spearheaded' the investigation on possible intelligence failures. Source He has Army and CIA experience and obviously he has his time on the HousePermanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
The bottom line is: of course Bush is going to appoint a partisan. So would Kerry. As long as they have the experience and the capability to protect our nation I am fine.
njs6 hit it right on the nose. Goss may be a partisan...but he is extremely qualified for the position. He knows the CIA and he knows how the intelligence world works. From what i have seen, although he is a partisan, he is respected by both parties in both houses of Congress as well as the intelligence community.
I do not see it as a wise move for the Democrats to block the appointment of Goss. It could easily backfire and be used against them. Goss is going to be head of the CIA, not the head of some important political position. Politics are not important, only qualifications which Goss certainly has.
I do not see it as a wise move for the Democrats to block the appointment of Goss. It could easily backfire and be used against them. Goss is going to be head of the CIA, not the head of some important political position. Politics are not important, only qualifications which Goss certainly has.
The Democrats are going to attack whoever Bush nominates. It would not surprise me in the least if Goss is a fall guy to detract from who they really want in there.
Goss, although possessing the black mark of being a Republican, has solid credentials. It doesn't matter, however, to certain Democrats who block appointees for the sheer joy (apparently) of being able to do so.
I highly doubt Goss will be confirmed, but then the charges of stone-walling will be levelled and the next guy (probably the one Bush really wants) will get in.
Goss, although possessing the black mark of being a Republican, has solid credentials. It doesn't matter, however, to certain Democrats who block appointees for the sheer joy (apparently) of being able to do so.
I highly doubt Goss will be confirmed, but then the charges of stone-walling will be levelled and the next guy (probably the one Bush really wants) will get in.
This article has an interesting viewpoint on the nomination of Goss. It looks like the Democrats are between a rock and a really hard place. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Can't you see it now? Shots of burned out buildings, soldiers' funerals, weeping women, as a somber voiceover tolls...the spin machines would be ecstatic. So, do the Demos just roll over and meekly accept the nomination? It will be interesting to see what happens.
Here is a comment on Goss from a previous CIA director:
QUOTE
Any Democratic delay or filibuster would run the risk of making them appear more interested in seeking political advantage at a time of extraordinary concern over possible al-Qaida attacks, than in protecting the nation from such attacks.
Bush has put both Edwards and Kerry in the position of needing to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’
A vote to confirm would be a vote of confidence in Goss, and thus, in Bush as well, while a ‘no’ vote would give Republicans campaign ad fodder. By this point, even part-time TV watchers could almost write the script for such ads hemselves: “When President Bush tried to appoint a new CIA director to help protect the nation against al-Qaida, John Kerry and John Edwards stood in his way. Call Kerry and Edwards and ask them ‘why.’” [URL=http://msnbc.m sn.com/id/5661536/]MSNBC[/URL]
Bush has put both Edwards and Kerry in the position of needing to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’
A vote to confirm would be a vote of confidence in Goss, and thus, in Bush as well, while a ‘no’ vote would give Republicans campaign ad fodder. By this point, even part-time TV watchers could almost write the script for such ads hemselves: “When President Bush tried to appoint a new CIA director to help protect the nation against al-Qaida, John Kerry and John Edwards stood in his way. Call Kerry and Edwards and ask them ‘why.’” [URL=http://msnbc.m sn.com/id/5661536/]MSNBC[/URL]
Can't you see it now? Shots of burned out buildings, soldiers' funerals, weeping women, as a somber voiceover tolls...the spin machines would be ecstatic. So, do the Demos just roll over and meekly accept the nomination? It will be interesting to see what happens.
Here is a comment on Goss from a previous CIA director:
QUOTE
"This is the worst appointment that's ever been made to the office of director of central intelligence because that's an office that needs to be kept above partisan politics." -- Retired Adm., Stansfield Turner, director of the CIA in the Carter administration. Newsday
4) Will Democratic opposition to the appointment affect the presidential election?
I think that DaffyGrl summed this up very well in her post. If the Democrats support Goss it will be seen as an endorsement of Bush and his policy on terror, in a way giving up some of the 'distinction' in policy they are claiming. If they block the nomination, let the attack ads begin.
I personally think that the latter position is much more dangerous with respect to the upcoming election. Kerry and Edwards need to vote "yes" here, and either the rest of the Democrats need to muster enough "No" votes or they need to concede this appointment.
Just to play devil's advocate here for a minutes - doesn't the president have the authority to fire the Director of the CIA at his whim? If he does, then this really should be a non-issue for the Democrats. If Bush is re-elected then any kind of opposition now is just going to make the next 4 years that much harder for the country and politics in general. Not to mention the Democrats will look really bad around election time for blocking this appointment. Now if Kerry wins, then I don't see Goss as having his job for more than 6 months unless Kerry and Edwards really feel he is the most qualified person.
I think that DaffyGrl summed this up very well in her post. If the Democrats support Goss it will be seen as an endorsement of Bush and his policy on terror, in a way giving up some of the 'distinction' in policy they are claiming. If they block the nomination, let the attack ads begin.
I personally think that the latter position is much more dangerous with respect to the upcoming election. Kerry and Edwards need to vote "yes" here, and either the rest of the Democrats need to muster enough "No" votes or they need to concede this appointment.
Just to play devil's advocate here for a minutes - doesn't the president have the authority to fire the Director of the CIA at his whim? If he does, then this really should be a non-issue for the Democrats. If Bush is re-elected then any kind of opposition now is just going to make the next 4 years that much harder for the country and politics in general. Not to mention the Democrats will look really bad around election time for blocking this appointment. Now if Kerry wins, then I don't see Goss as having his job for more than 6 months unless Kerry and Edwards really feel he is the most qualified person.
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Aug 10 2004, 10:30 AM)
Questions for debate:
1) Is Porter Goss the best choice for this position? Why or why not?
2) Is Goss too "partisan" an appointment to be effective in an agency that is supposed to be apolitical?
3) Should Bush have looked for someone outside of Washington for this position in hopes of injecting "new blood" for the CIA?
4) Will Democratic opposition to the appointment affect the presidential election?
1) Is Porter Goss the best choice for this position? Why or why not?
2) Is Goss too "partisan" an appointment to be effective in an agency that is supposed to be apolitical?
3) Should Bush have looked for someone outside of Washington for this position in hopes of injecting "new blood" for the CIA?
4) Will Democratic opposition to the appointment affect the presidential election?
QUOTE
Cube Jockey, you're very close to the heart of this matter. Whether or not Goss ever gets the job of CIA Director hinges on the election. The Senate is not going to vote on Goss's nomination before November. If Bush wins he's in. If Kerry wins, there's no way Goss gets the job.
As to the questions:
1. Goss was a predictable choice, but he's not the best one. He's a Republican partisan and a staunch defender of the president. Despite what you might think Amlord and lederuvdapac, George Tenet (who was appointed by Bill Clinton survived as long as he in did during Bush's tenure precisely because he wasn't a partisan puppet). Particularly disturbing to me is how Goss, an ex-CIA agent himself has downplayed the outing of Valerie Plame.
Goss also came to Bush's aid a few months earlier, during the Joseph Wilson-Valerie Plame scandal. One would think that a former CIA spy might be appalled by reports that a White House official had publicly exposed the identity of an undercover agent, especially as an act of political retaliation against the agent's spouse. The blatant politicization of intelligence is, or should be, anathema to any professional spy—or prospective CIA director.
But Goss waved off the whole business. In an interview with his hometown paper, the Herald-Tribune of southwestern Florida, Goss said the uproar was the result of "wild and unsubstantiated allegations, which are being obviously piled on by partisan politicians during an election year." There was no need to mount an investigation, he said, because there was no evidence of "willful disclosure" (though how he reached that conclusion without an investigation, he didn't say). Then, in a jab against Bush's favorite target, Bill Clinton, Goss cracked, "Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation."
http://slate.msn.com/id/2104981/
2. Yes. He's well-respected on Capitol Hill, but he's far too partisan for the job.
3. Bush isn't a reformer. He's a protector of the status quo and Goss is just the man to maintain that protection.
4. No. Most people could care less about Goss, though they should. He is a co-sponsor of Patriot Act II and that alone rules him out of the job as far as I'm concerned. If I were in the Senate I would vote against his confirmation. Slate's Fred Kaplan writes:
Goss has generally been a cheerleader for the CIA. Asked during the Frontline interview about the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11, he said: "I don't think 'failure' is the right word. … Here we are, a nation at peace going along and all of a sudden some bad guys come along and they are playing by different rules. … They have simply come in and done something that is, to us, unthinkable." (Subsequent to that interview, Goss served as co-chair of the congressional joint inquiry into 9/11 and came to a more critical assessment of the agency's intelligence lapses, but his predisposition to the CIA remained one of support.)
Finally, there is the question of independence. Most official panels on reforming intelligence emphasize the need to separate analysis from policy—professional objectivity from politics. At least since June, Goss has been campaigning to be the next CIA director, and in that time he has served energetically as a shill for Bush's re-election. His record might make him a good candidate for director of operations, but his behavior makes him a bad one for director of the CIA.
Goss is the wrong man for this CIA at this critical time in American history.
It seems, from reading several newspaper stories, that Mr. Goss is acknowledged as partisan by parties on both sides of the fence. The only differences in their views seem to be whether or not that is a good thing or a bad thing.
My opinion is that this country doesn’t need a(nother) bureaucrat. Bureaucrats have no imagination, they are not creative, they do not think for themselves; they are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the master they serve. And Goss is a most loyal bureaucrat. And, as the NY Times points out, Goss may have some ’splaining of his own to do regarding intelligence/terrorism/9/11.
Even with all the hype about Goss’ former CIA service making him super-qualified, this too may be considered a detriment.
An interesting factoid: only once before in history has a Congressman served as head of the CIA - George HW Bush.
My opinion is that this country doesn’t need a(nother) bureaucrat. Bureaucrats have no imagination, they are not creative, they do not think for themselves; they are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the master they serve. And Goss is a most loyal bureaucrat. And, as the NY Times points out, Goss may have some ’splaining of his own to do regarding intelligence/terrorism/9/11.
QUOTE
Last week, Mr. Bush attempted to transform the powerful new position of national intelligence director, as proposed by the commission, into a neutralized bureaucratic cipher by depriving the office of any real authority.
Even under normal circumstances, it's questionable whether a president should try to install a new C.I.A. chief a few months before an election.
Mr. Goss, who has served as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee since 1997, shares some of the responsibility for the oversight breakdown. NY Times
Even under normal circumstances, it's questionable whether a president should try to install a new C.I.A. chief a few months before an election.
Mr. Goss, who has served as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee since 1997, shares some of the responsibility for the oversight breakdown. NY Times
Even with all the hype about Goss’ former CIA service making him super-qualified, this too may be considered a detriment.
QUOTE
Former CIA analyst Mel Goodman, a senior fellow for intelligence reform at the Center for International Policy, said "Goss has all the wrong credentials," according to centre's National Security Project website.
"He's former CIA, a senior operations officer. An over-reliance on operations has been a big part of the problem. He's from the Hill, so he's a deal-cutter and a compromiser when what we need is a strategic thinker.
"That was (former director) George Tenet's problem — he tried to please everyone and that's a big part of why he was a failure," Goodman said. Toronto Star
"He's former CIA, a senior operations officer. An over-reliance on operations has been a big part of the problem. He's from the Hill, so he's a deal-cutter and a compromiser when what we need is a strategic thinker.
"That was (former director) George Tenet's problem — he tried to please everyone and that's a big part of why he was a failure," Goodman said. Toronto Star
QUOTE
Two experienced voices on the Senate Intelligence Committee put the debate over Goss into clear relief.
Its ranking Democrat, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, said, "The selection of a politician -- any politician from either party -- is a mistake. Having independent, objective intelligence going to the president and the Congress is fundamental to America's national security."
But Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine, a Republican who serves on the committee, said that is precisely Goss' strength. "He'll be someone who can walk in to the president and look him in the eye and tell him what the truth is and not flinch." Cincinnati Post
Its ranking Democrat, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, said, "The selection of a politician -- any politician from either party -- is a mistake. Having independent, objective intelligence going to the president and the Congress is fundamental to America's national security."
But Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine, a Republican who serves on the committee, said that is precisely Goss' strength. "He'll be someone who can walk in to the president and look him in the eye and tell him what the truth is and not flinch." Cincinnati Post
An interesting factoid: only once before in history has a Congressman served as head of the CIA - George HW Bush.
Is Porter Goss the best choice for this position?
Probably not, according to of all people, Porter Goss. According to himself, he isn't even qualified to be a modern CIA staffer - let alone lead an agency.
Apparently he was interviewed for that Moore propaganda movie and Moore has him on tape stating:
Probably not, according to of all people, Porter Goss. According to himself, he isn't even qualified to be a modern CIA staffer - let alone lead an agency.
Apparently he was interviewed for that Moore propaganda movie and Moore has him on tape stating:
QUOTE
"I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified...I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably..And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day: 'Dad you got to get better on your computer.' Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have"
I don't know how good a choice this is regardles of whether a Republican or Democrat made the choice.
When Goss says, "I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified," or, "I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably," I don't think you need to resort to partisan politics when making an assessment of this guy.
So for the first question, I don't think he's the best choice.
As for whether this becomes a partisan issue, people have said that there are already people on both sides that have praised Goss. I think the issue comes down to his qualifications for the job. Is he qualified enough? I hope that's the debate in accepting his nomination. I wouldn't like to see this turn into "the opposition is being partisan."
I will say that given the above quote, I do question the president's judgement especially considering his past relations in intelligence with the likes of Ahmed Chalabi.
I do think new blood is needed because if you're trying to get out of Cold War intelligence and into terrorism intelligence, using Cold War relics isn't helpful.
When Goss says, "I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified," or, "I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably," I don't think you need to resort to partisan politics when making an assessment of this guy.
So for the first question, I don't think he's the best choice.
As for whether this becomes a partisan issue, people have said that there are already people on both sides that have praised Goss. I think the issue comes down to his qualifications for the job. Is he qualified enough? I hope that's the debate in accepting his nomination. I wouldn't like to see this turn into "the opposition is being partisan."
I will say that given the above quote, I do question the president's judgement especially considering his past relations in intelligence with the likes of Ahmed Chalabi.
I do think new blood is needed because if you're trying to get out of Cold War intelligence and into terrorism intelligence, using Cold War relics isn't helpful.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Aug 11 2004, 09:28 PM)
Is Porter Goss the best choice for this position?
Probably not, according to of all people, Porter Goss. According to himself, he isn't even qualified to be a modern CIA staffer - let alone lead an agency.
Apparently he was interviewed for that Moore propaganda movie and Moore has him on tape stating:
Probably not, according to of all people, Porter Goss. According to himself, he isn't even qualified to be a modern CIA staffer - let alone lead an agency.
Apparently he was interviewed for that Moore propaganda movie and Moore has him on tape stating:
QUOTE
"I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified...I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably..And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day: 'Dad you got to get better on your computer.' Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have"
daytonrocker, please don't let Michael Moore dupe you into agreeing with his silly non-logic. Goss was making a salient point about how the qualifications for case officers have changed, and Moore tries to make it sound like he's not qualified to run the place. This is like saying that Bill Parcells isn't qualified to coach the Dallas Cowboys because he doesn't have the skills to be a cornerback today. You know, he's not fast enough, wouldn't have the height to guard today's big receivers. That's just stupid. Management skills don't require that you be able to do every single job under you, or there wouldn't be any CEO's. Following this logic, to be head of Treasury you would have to be competent in printing press technology. Ridiculous.
Or more likely, partisan, like Nancy Pelosi who said Goss was qualified before the "Democrat attack machine" got to her and she contradicted herself.
June 5, in the Chattanooga Times Free Press:
QUOTE
"If Goss is nominated for the post, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that she would support him. Pelosi worked closely with Goss during the congressional investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. Whoever replaces Tenet needs to be independent of political pressure, Pelosi said. Goss, who worked for the CIA before becoming a congressman in 1988, has shown that ability as chairman of the House Intelligence panel, she added."
carlitoswhey, While I agree with your point in principle (and the reason I called Moore's film a propaganda movie), I'm not sure I agree with the substance.
To be fair, Moore wasn't asking about his qualifications to lead the CIA. However, I believe there may be a problem with his qualifications for a couple reasons.
The Bill Parcells/cornerback is an excellent example, but misguided. Bill Parcells would not be qualified to be a cornerback, but he is very well qualified to instruct a cornerback on how to do his job. Parcells knows the nuances of any position at a level that in most cases, exceeds the people playing those positions.
To make this some comparison of Goss, this would be like Bill Parcells saying he doesn't know anything about cornerback conditioning programs (i.e. running backwards, etc) or knows very little about the statistics presented to him before gameday, but he'll still lead you to victory.
This would make it extremely difficult to earn the respect of his peers and facilitate change at an organization that seems to be in desperate need of it.
If this were a diplomatic or administrative appointment, many of these issues would be moot because of executives under him. But at an organization that is resistant to change and critical to our security, this is no time to be forcing unqualified decisions down people's throats.
For the record, I'm not convinced that the CIA is as "broken" as we are being led to believe. Before 9/11, the administration repeated what we know now - Iraq did not have any stockpiles of WMD left, was not a threat to it's neighbors, and was adequately contained. It was only after 9/11 that all this changed.
So, much of what the CIA has provided has been found to be true. It's only what was done with the information that created the mess we're in. I firmly believe that Bush will allow the CIA to be literally destroyed and be built back up again then step up to the plate and be accountable for his bad decision making. This doesn't mean he was lying, but it means he was negligent. Again, pre-9/11, the administration's story was very different and reflective of what we know today. When the post-9/11 data doesn't match what we knew before then, it seems wrong to rebuild the CIA. So, what exactly is being fixed?
If we're going to start from scratch, get someone who knows the system - not the politicians.
To be fair, Moore wasn't asking about his qualifications to lead the CIA. However, I believe there may be a problem with his qualifications for a couple reasons.
The Bill Parcells/cornerback is an excellent example, but misguided. Bill Parcells would not be qualified to be a cornerback, but he is very well qualified to instruct a cornerback on how to do his job. Parcells knows the nuances of any position at a level that in most cases, exceeds the people playing those positions.
To make this some comparison of Goss, this would be like Bill Parcells saying he doesn't know anything about cornerback conditioning programs (i.e. running backwards, etc) or knows very little about the statistics presented to him before gameday, but he'll still lead you to victory.
This would make it extremely difficult to earn the respect of his peers and facilitate change at an organization that seems to be in desperate need of it.
If this were a diplomatic or administrative appointment, many of these issues would be moot because of executives under him. But at an organization that is resistant to change and critical to our security, this is no time to be forcing unqualified decisions down people's throats.
For the record, I'm not convinced that the CIA is as "broken" as we are being led to believe. Before 9/11, the administration repeated what we know now - Iraq did not have any stockpiles of WMD left, was not a threat to it's neighbors, and was adequately contained. It was only after 9/11 that all this changed.
So, much of what the CIA has provided has been found to be true. It's only what was done with the information that created the mess we're in. I firmly believe that Bush will allow the CIA to be literally destroyed and be built back up again then step up to the plate and be accountable for his bad decision making. This doesn't mean he was lying, but it means he was negligent. Again, pre-9/11, the administration's story was very different and reflective of what we know today. When the post-9/11 data doesn't match what we knew before then, it seems wrong to rebuild the CIA. So, what exactly is being fixed?
If we're going to start from scratch, get someone who knows the system - not the politicians.
Goss' selection seems to duplicate a common theme over the past 10 years for this country: failure to acknowledge the change in paradigm from bilateral intel and conflict (Cold War) to one that is more of a matrix of threats and intelligence requirements. This is reflected in our military, our state department (to a lesser degree) and most certainly from our intelligence organizations.
The selection of a partisan cold war spook now serving in the House of Representatives further codifies this stagnant approach. My issue isn't his ideology, I'd have the same issue if a Democratic administration were doing the same thing. Its based in my firm belief that the DCI and the incoming Director of National Intelligence need to be people that have some fresh approaches and thinking as to how to manage the acquisition, processing and sharing of information. Take intel to its root and that's what we're talking about: collaboration.
On NPR the other day I heard mention of some small circles throwing around names like Steve Jobs for the position of DNI. That kind of thinking I would wholeheartedly support. I'd love to see some innovative thinking out of the DCI position as well. From what I've reviewed about Porter Goss, I just don't see "innovation" being in his vernacular.
Doc
The selection of a partisan cold war spook now serving in the House of Representatives further codifies this stagnant approach. My issue isn't his ideology, I'd have the same issue if a Democratic administration were doing the same thing. Its based in my firm belief that the DCI and the incoming Director of National Intelligence need to be people that have some fresh approaches and thinking as to how to manage the acquisition, processing and sharing of information. Take intel to its root and that's what we're talking about: collaboration.
On NPR the other day I heard mention of some small circles throwing around names like Steve Jobs for the position of DNI. That kind of thinking I would wholeheartedly support. I'd love to see some innovative thinking out of the DCI position as well. From what I've reviewed about Porter Goss, I just don't see "innovation" being in his vernacular.
Doc
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Aug 12 2004, 09:44 AM)
So, much of what the CIA has provided has been found to be true. It's only what was done with the information that created the mess we're in. I firmly believe that Bush will allow the CIA to be literally destroyed and be built back up again then step up to the plate and be accountable for his bad decision making. This doesn't mean he was lying, but it means he was negligent. Again, pre-9/11, the administration's story was very different and reflective of what we know today. When the post-9/11 data doesn't match what we knew before then, it seems wrong to rebuild the CIA. So, what exactly is being fixed?
If we're going to start from scratch, get someone who knows the system - not the politicians.
If we're going to start from scratch, get someone who knows the system - not the politicians.
Firstly, thanks for not taking me to task on my 'ridiculous' and 'silly' comments - was a little hot-headed in retrospect.
You make some Interesting points, but yours in particular lead me to a different conclusion. I thought that Goss was a good move because I didn't believe that we were going to tear down the CIA and re-build it. Figuring someone that knows the system may be better placed with the politics and nuance to engineer the small changes that were being contemplated.
If we are really headed for big time change, I would more agree with doluctus' idea to see Steve Jobs (or better yet a Rumsfeld or Giuliani - someone that knows security at a macro-level, but is more of an executive type) break things down without being beholden to the system.
Probably won't matter anyway, this appointment will be filibustered and kicked around until the election or something bad happens...
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Aug 11 2004, 09:28 PM)
Is Porter Goss the best choice for this position?
Probably not, according to of all people, Porter Goss. According to himself, he isn't even qualified to be a modern CIA staffer - let alone lead an agency.
Apparently he was interviewed for that Moore propaganda movie and Moore has him on tape stating:
Probably not, according to of all people, Porter Goss. According to himself, he isn't even qualified to be a modern CIA staffer - let alone lead an agency.
Apparently he was interviewed for that Moore propaganda movie and Moore has him on tape stating:
QUOTE
"I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified...I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably..And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day: 'Dad you got to get better on your computer.' Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have"
Vintage Michael Moore.
The quote in it's entirety.
QUOTE
REP. GOSS: It is true I was in CIA from approximately the late 50's to approximately the early 70's. And it's true I was a case officer, clandestine services office and yes I do understand the core mission of the business. I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified. I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably. And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day, "Dad you got to get better on your computer." Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have.
-- Rep. Porter Goss, March 3, 2004, Washington, DC
-- Rep. Porter Goss, March 3, 2004, Washington, DC
Porter Goss was talking of agents in the field.
He seems like a good choice. He has experience (worked for CIA and headed Intelligence Committee) and has been a critic of the way CIA has been run. He may be our best chance to get the organization up to snuff.
Also he may be able to get the funding from Congress needed to do the job. IMO the CIA could have done far better at interdicting terrorists and perhaps even preventing 9/11 if the Congress had given the Agency the money they requested to do the job.
The 9/11 Commission report IMO was a massive cover-up of this fact. You cannot ask any organization to do a job and then refuse to fund it for that activity. This is what happened to anti-terrorism in the 90s and into 2001. Perhaps Goss will have better luck with his associated on the Hill.
I don’t see this man as too partisan. He has a job to do and will have to work with both parties to get the job done.
Also he may be able to get the funding from Congress needed to do the job. IMO the CIA could have done far better at interdicting terrorists and perhaps even preventing 9/11 if the Congress had given the Agency the money they requested to do the job.
The 9/11 Commission report IMO was a massive cover-up of this fact. You cannot ask any organization to do a job and then refuse to fund it for that activity. This is what happened to anti-terrorism in the 90s and into 2001. Perhaps Goss will have better luck with his associated on the Hill.
I don’t see this man as too partisan. He has a job to do and will have to work with both parties to get the job done.
QUOTE(keric @ Aug 13 2004, 01:01 AM)
The quote in it's entirety.
QUOTE
REP. GOSS: It is true I was in CIA from approximately the late 50's to approximately the early 70's. And it's true I was a case officer, clandestine services office and yes I do understand the core mission of the business. I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified. I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably. And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day, "Dad you got to get better on your computer." Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have.
-- Rep. Porter Goss, March 3, 2004, Washington, DC
-- Rep. Porter Goss, March 3, 2004, Washington, DC
The full quote still doesn't change much keric. It begs the question, do we want someone to head the CIA that is a politician and bureaucrat (i.e. doesn't understand the latest and greatest intelligence operations) or do we want someone that is intimately familiar with the details and speaks the language.
Now I'm not expecting the new head of the CIA to be able to walk down to the basement where the guys cracking codes from Al Qaeda broadcasts are sitting at their computers, but I would like the new head of the CIA to understand the general premise of how they do their job.
I can draw a parallel example to the business world. During my career in the IT industry I have worked for and with managers who were very technically competent and not only were able to provide management guidance but technical leadership as well (I would place myself in this category). I have also worked with people that didn't know the first thing about IT, basically spent their time working with microsoft project, sending emails and making decisions where they didn't really understand the problem or the ramifications in the first place. I can guarantee you that the technically competent guy was more effective and productive with his job 9 times out of 10.
What I'd really like to see in a new head of the CIA is someone younger that has grown up in the organization and has some good ideas on how to change things for the better and shake the organization up. I don't think Goss fits that bill, he is a politician and a bureaucrat, nothing more. That won't get you change, it'll get you more of the same old thing.
QUOTE
carlitoswhey,Aug 12 2004, 07:22 AM
June 5, in the Chattanooga Times Free Press: "If Goss is nominated for the post, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that she would support him. Pelosi worked closely with Goss during the congressional investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. Whoever replaces Tenet needs to be independent of political pressure, Pelosi said. Goss, who worked for the CIA before becoming a congressman in 1988, has shown that ability as chairman of the House Intelligence panel, she added."
June 5, in the Chattanooga Times Free Press: "If Goss is nominated for the post, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that she would support him. Pelosi worked closely with Goss during the congressional investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. Whoever replaces Tenet needs to be independent of political pressure, Pelosi said. Goss, who worked for the CIA before becoming a congressman in 1988, has shown that ability as chairman of the House Intelligence panel, she added."
Could Nancy Pelosi (the Democrat Minority Leader Of the House of Representatives) really be a stooge (or covert operative) for the "vast right-wing conspiracy"? 
Will some of Goss' opponents (like DaffyGirl) call for Pelosi's immediate resignation as Minority leader? Or from Congress? How could the sinister ties of Porter Goss have gone by so unnoticed by the Democratic Leader? Or did these malevolent entanglements only begin after Ms. Pelosi's original high appraisal and recommendation?
Regardless of how Pelosi is spinning away her previous praise and support for Goss , I'm going to shake off my partisan shackles and take her at her word...first words that is.
Interesting topic, but I think the real question is,
When a bureaucracy does an investigation of another bureaucracy, finds total ineffectiveness, lack of cohesion, and inefficiency, then recommends that what is needed is another bureaucracy on top of all the others, do you really believe that adding another layer is going to do ANYTHING to make the current bureaucracy more effective?
I'm surprised at all you libertarians following this Judas goat.
The 9/11 commission may have the best of intentions (but then again, they are politicians), but as usual we have people whose strongest skills are raising money and getting people to like them -- and spending other people's money.
Please read this article by the one true constitutional scholar in Congress, Ron Paul (R-TX): http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst082304.htm
For the time-challenged, some quotes:
If this strikes you as sensible, or trenchant, or possibly even correct, please visit his weekly column page and just start browsing. I guarantee he's the most interesting and insightful legislator you're likely to come across any time soon.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/welcome.htm
When a bureaucracy does an investigation of another bureaucracy, finds total ineffectiveness, lack of cohesion, and inefficiency, then recommends that what is needed is another bureaucracy on top of all the others, do you really believe that adding another layer is going to do ANYTHING to make the current bureaucracy more effective?
I'm surprised at all you libertarians following this Judas goat.
The 9/11 commission may have the best of intentions (but then again, they are politicians), but as usual we have people whose strongest skills are raising money and getting people to like them -- and spending other people's money.
Please read this article by the one true constitutional scholar in Congress, Ron Paul (R-TX): http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst082304.htm
For the time-challenged, some quotes:
QUOTE
But what exactly is going on here? These hearings amount to nothing more than current government officials meeting with former government officials, many of whom now lobby government officials, and agreeing that we need more government! The current and past architects of the very bureaucracy that failed Americans so badly on September 11th three years ago are now meeting to recommend more bureaucracy. Why on earth do we assume that former government officials, some of whom are self-interested government lobbyists, suddenly become wise, benevolent, and politically neutral when they retire? Why do we look to former bureaucrats to address a bureaucratic failure?
QUOTE
The Commissioners recommend the government spend billions of dollars spreading pro-US propaganda overseas, as if that will convince the world to love us. What we have forgotten in the years since the end of the Cold War is that actions speak louder than words. The US didn't need propaganda in the captive nations of Eastern Europe during the Cold War because people knew us by our deeds. They could see the difference between the United States and their Soviet overlords. That is why, given the first chance, they chose freedom. Yet everything we have done in response to the 9-11 attacks, from the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq, has reduced freedom in America. Spending more money abroad or restricting liberties at home will do nothing to deter terrorists, yet this is exactly what the 9-11 Commission recommends.
QUOTE
Our nation will be safer only when government does less, not more. Rather than asking ourselves what Congress or the president should be doing about terrorism, we ought to ask what government should stop doing. It should stop spending trillions of dollars on unconstitutional programs that detract from basic government functions like national defense and border security. It should stop meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations, but instead demonstrate by example the superiority of freedom, capitalism, and an open society. It should stop engaging in nation-building, and stop trying to create democratic societies through military force. It should stop militarizing future enemies, as we did by supplying money and weapons to characters like Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It should stop entangling the American people in unholy alliances like the UN and NATO, and pledge that our armed forces will never serve under foreign command. It should stop committing American troops to useless, expensive, and troublesome assignments overseas, and instead commit the Department of Defense to actually defending America. It should stop interfering with the 2nd amendment rights of private citizens and businesses seeking to defend themselves.
If this strikes you as sensible, or trenchant, or possibly even correct, please visit his weekly column page and just start browsing. I guarantee he's the most interesting and insightful legislator you're likely to come across any time soon.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/welcome.htm
2) Is Goss too "partisan" an appointment to be effective in an agency that is supposed to be apolitical?
60 Minutes aired an interview last night with another CIA agent (Mike Sheuer) who resigned, saying
Scheuer believes that OBL has been underestimated by this administration, and that the US risks "an extraordinarily long and bloody war" against al-Qaeda. I tend to believe him.
And Goss has put an exclamation point on partisanship in the CIA. He seems to be sweeping out the “old” management with a large partisan broom and stocking the CIA with Bush yes-men and fanny-kissers. So what, one might say, happens all the time. Well, just how effective are yes-men and fanny-kissers going to be when the intelligence uncovered might be unpopular, or contrary to the Bush White House's rosy picture? Or worse, when an attack happens that one of those “liberal democrats” warned about?
One of the themes running through all the articles on the CIA shakeup is that the orders have come from the White House to “get rid of "soft leakers and liberal democrats" in the CIA. To me, this is an ineffectual means of creating a more effective intelligence agency (i.e., not fanny-kissers), not to mention it skirts the edge of wrongful termination (remember the woman with the Kerry bumper sticker who was fired?). I think it is frightening to think about a CIA devoted to toeing the party line and using the president’s rhetoric as a guideline to addressing intelligence-gathering instead of doing what it has to do, regardless of popularity.
QUOTE
The two top officials running the CIA's clandestine service resigned this morning, following a series of clashes with Director Porter J. Goss's chief of staff.
Stephen R. Kappes, the deputy director of operations, and his deputy, Michael Sulick, announced their resignations at a senior staff meeting, according to former CIA officials. WA Post
Stephen R. Kappes, the deputy director of operations, and his deputy, Michael Sulick, announced their resignations at a senior staff meeting, according to former CIA officials. WA Post
60 Minutes aired an interview last night with another CIA agent (Mike Sheuer) who resigned, saying
QUOTE
that he was leaving the agency because he "concluded that there has not been adequate national debate over the nature of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and the forces he leads and inspires, and the nature and dimensions of intelligence reform needed to address that threat." ABC News
Scheuer believes that OBL has been underestimated by this administration, and that the US risks "an extraordinarily long and bloody war" against al-Qaeda. I tend to believe him.
And Goss has put an exclamation point on partisanship in the CIA. He seems to be sweeping out the “old” management with a large partisan broom and stocking the CIA with Bush yes-men and fanny-kissers. So what, one might say, happens all the time. Well, just how effective are yes-men and fanny-kissers going to be when the intelligence uncovered might be unpopular, or contrary to the Bush White House's rosy picture? Or worse, when an attack happens that one of those “liberal democrats” warned about?
One of the themes running through all the articles on the CIA shakeup is that the orders have come from the White House to “get rid of "soft leakers and liberal democrats" in the CIA. To me, this is an ineffectual means of creating a more effective intelligence agency (i.e., not fanny-kissers), not to mention it skirts the edge of wrongful termination (remember the woman with the Kerry bumper sticker who was fired?). I think it is frightening to think about a CIA devoted to toeing the party line and using the president’s rhetoric as a guideline to addressing intelligence-gathering instead of doing what it has to do, regardless of popularity.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.