Bush Nominates Goss as CIA Director

[IJ Reilly]

Good discussion here:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/fedagencies/july-dec04/goss_8-10.html

It seem to me that Bush has nominated a politician for a job that needs more than ever to remain above politics.

[zimv20]

good discussion.

i agree that the CIA head needs to be an advocate of the intelligence, not someone who is used to compromise.

[kuyu]

I'm not too familiar with this guy's politics. But his background in intelligence seems to qualify him for the job.

There is definately a partisan argument to be made, but I can't name anyone more qualified to head-up our intelligence community than a former Army/CIA intel operative.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not too familiar with this guy's politics. But his background in intelligence seems to qualify him for the job.

There is definately a partisan argument to be made, but I can't name anyone more qualified to head-up our intelligence community than a former Army/CIA intel operative.

You should read the discussion on the NewsHour. At least one of the panelists said that this background more nearly disqualifies him as a person who could institute the needed reforms at the CIA. But I think this is at least partly the point of this nomination. Goss is also on record as being opposed to the intelligence services reorganization recommended by the 9-11 Commission. So it seems the Goss nomination is part of the Bush administration's overall efforts to avoid instituting the commission's recommendations. He's also been known as a partisan in the House.

So much for independence. So much for reform. At least we know for certain where Bush stands on these issues, even if he won't come right out and say it.

[zimv20]

I'm not too familiar with this guy's politics. But his background in intelligence seems to qualify him for the job.

he's the head of an oversight committee. as blaming 9/11 on the failures of intelligence seem to be the accepted practice, why should we reward someone on the oversight committee (which, to many, also failed)?

[SPG]

This nomination is nothing more than a land mine. Goss isn't qualified or inclined to be a reformer and that's the way gwb wants it. A controversial appointment? In regards to blowing the cover of Plame as a CIA operative Goss said it wasn't worth investigating "Bring me a blue dress and some DNA and I'll have an investigation." You would be hard pressed to find someone more controversial. So then why? To set up the dems as "not serious on fightin terra". But that's okay the Dems haven't taken the bait. They all know that this guy will be out of a job come January anyway.

Oh yeah, anyone see the clip of Goss admitting to Michael Moore's camera crew that he wasn't qualified anyway? He didn't even do a background on who he was interviewing with...great choice.

[IJ Reilly]

Can you post a link to that video?

It will be interesting to see how Kerry addresses the nomination. In a way, it's too easy. Kerry is fully behind the 9-11 Commission's recommendations, which I think is the right position to take and politically wise as well. The Goss nomination is yet more evidence that Bush isn't prepared to make the tough calls or provide the leadership required to improve national security. Kerry can easily draw a line straight from Bush's opposition to the formation of the 9-11 Commission to his nomination of an opponent of their recommendations as CIA director. Nominating a partisan with no management experience is just icing on the cake.

Apparently the Bush people think they're being terribly clever about this nomination, but I'll be darned if I can figure out how. It looks pretty dumb to me.

[SPG]

Can you post a link to that video?

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

[LethalWolfe]

That was a good link, thanx IJ.

I really don't know enough about this to comment so I'm just going to compliment and leave.


-Lethal

[3rdpath]

nice link...

The White House dismissed the Moore interview transcript as "ridiculous hearsay"...

so i guess the video is "ridiculous seesay"...

[IJ Reilly]

Holy frigging cow...! Unbelievable.

[IJ Reilly]

Okay, I believe I finally figured out the Goss nomination.

Such an obviously flawed candidate was never intended to be confirmed. He was put up as a big, fat target for the opposition to criticize, so when he's forced to withdraw, the White House can blame Democrats for "playing politics with national security."

[skunk]

As clear a case of "from the horse's mouth" as I've ever seen...

[kuyu]

Wierd how the question isn't in the video??? Did Moore ask him if he's qualified to be CIA director, or if he's qualified to be a field operative in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan?

Perhaps Moore asked him if he's qualified to infiltrate the Alqeada regime and fix their computers!

Judging from his response, I think Moore asked him if he could get a job as an operative at the CIA today.

Steve Jobs doesn't know how to program complex 3D models, or master audio, or scrub video. Perhaps he's not qualified to run Pixar. Better yet, Jobs doesn't know how to design a powerbook or how to build one. He doesn't have the technical skill to design a production scheme. He lacks to foreign language skills necessary to speak to the Apple factories in China. As well, I doubt he if very familiar with all foriegn cultures. How on Earth does he run Apple???

Seriously, I don't know anything about this guy. But this line of reasoning would get every single one of us fired from our jobs. Not to mention it's an answer with no question. :confused:

[skunk]

Wierd how the question isn't in the video???
That is a good point: I'd have liked to see the question asked, too.

[IJ Reilly]

Does it really matter very much? Clearly, the man is saying he's not qualified to work at the CIA today. Since he worked for them years ago, I presume his answer was offered in that context. So now the spin's got to be that while he may not qualified to work at the CIA, he's still the most qualified person in Earth to run it. The sell just got that much tougher.

[LethalWolfe]

Does it really matter very much? Clearly, the man is saying he's not qualified to work at the CIA today. Since he worked for them years ago, I presume his answer was offered in that context. So now the spin's got to be that while he may not qualified to work at the CIA, he's still the most qualified person in Earth to run it. The sell just got that much tougher.

He's saying he's not qualified to be a field op. He isn't saying he's not qualfied to head it up. There is a huge difference between being qualified to be work in the field and being qualifed to manage/lead. Joe Gibbs isn't qualified to play football anymore I guess that means he's a crappy head coach. Oh... wait...

I'm not saying Goss is/is not qualfied to run the CIA (I don't know enough about him), but saying he isn't qualifed to head the organization because he couldn't get a job today as a field op is just stupid.

Talk about spinning a non-story.


Lethal

P.S. For those that don't follow American Football: Joe Gibbs is a Hall of Fame head coach w/3 super bowl wins out of 4 appearances in 12 years of coaching. He also has the 3rd best winning percentage of any NFL head coach.

[IJ Reilly]

I get the point. But the man's got no management experience either. So what exactly is he qualified to do at the CIA? It's not a "just because" thing for me.

[skunk]

It is rather an important post, after all.

[zimv20]

i think we're starting to see reasons why bush picked him...

link (http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2003310030460)


Article published Oct 3, 2003
Goss says CIA leak not worthy of committee action

By CORY REISS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Porter Goss said Thursday that the uproar over allegations that White House officials purposely identified a covert CIA agent appears largely political and doesn't yet merit an investigation by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, which he chairs.

Goss, who was a CIA agent himself from the early 1960s to 1971, said he takes such leaks seriously, but he distinguished between a willful violation of federal law and an inadvertent disclosure.
Goss also said no one from the intelligence agencies has raised the issue with him since syndicated columnist Robert Novak identified the agent in a column July 14.

"I would say there's a much larger dose of partisan politics going on right now than there is worry about national security," said Goss, R-Sanibel. "But I would never take lightly a serious allegation backed up by evidence that there was a willful -- and I emphasize willful, inadvertent is something else -- willful disclosure, and I haven't seen any evidence."
Goss said he would act if he did have evidence of that sort.

"Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation," Goss said.

(more)

[mactastic]

I'm not sure I understand how calling not one but something like seven different reporters and divulging the name of a confidential agent each time can fall into the catogory of an 'inadvertant disclosure'. Can anyone enlighten me?