New C.I.A. Chief Tells Workers to Back Administration Policies

[zimv20]

link

whoa.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - Porter J. Goss, the new intelligence chief, has told Central Intelligence Agency employees that their job is to "support the administration and its policies in our work,'' a copy of an internal memorandum shows.

"As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies," Mr. Goss said in the memorandum, which was circulated late on Monday. He said in the document that he was seeking "to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road."

While his words could be construed as urging analysts to conform with administration policies, Mr. Goss also wrote, "We provide the intelligence as we see it - and let the facts alone speak to the policymaker.''

The memorandum suggested an effort by Mr. Goss to spell out his thinking as he embarked on what he made clear would be a major overhaul at the agency, with further changes to come. The changes to date, including the ouster of the agency's clandestine service chief, have left current and former intelligence officials angry and unnerved. Some have been outspoken, including those who said Tuesday that they regarded Mr. Goss's warning as part of an effort to suppress dissent within the organization.

(more)

this is what we get under the bush regime (yes, i'm tired of saying administration). whence curiosity, open debate, compromise and room for changing opinion? this is what will kill this country.

more than anything else lately, i've been dividing people into the curious and non-curious. and i'm finding that everyone i hang out with, like and respect fall into the "curious" category.

bush can't even be bothered to read a newspaper. what a joke.

[Thomas Veil]

There's an old, old saying that if you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people...and if you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you.

(God only knows which of those categories Bush falls into. But either way he's not doing it.)

So this is just more consolidation of power. Ve vill not haff any dissent in zis administration!

[zimv20]

Originally Posted by Thomas Veil

There's an old, old saying that if you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people

but if one is dumb, will they know to do this?

[blackfox]

At the risk of mixing metaphors, how does the saying " the squeaky wheel gets the grease" apply when "all the wheels have come off"?

Interesting strategy. I use "interesting" as any other (more) appropriate adjective would be too depressing this morning.

[mactastic]

While it's probably an appropriate sentiment (not actively championing opposition to the president as an agent) the wording is less than sensitive. The CIA shouldn't be making or dictating policy. That should fall to the president and his advisors.

[zimv20]

Originally Posted by mactastic

While it's probably an appropriate sentiment (not actively championing opposition to the president as an agent) the wording is less than sensitive. The CIA shouldn't be making or dictating policy. That should fall to the president and his advisors.

my read is that it's more insidious -- the new policy will affect the analysis, which is supposed to be completely free of policy considerations. it seems clear that, over the past few years, the "wrong" iraq analyses were unwelcome, and now that will be policy.

[Thomas Veil]

Well, here's a perfect example of what can happen when workers are afraid to disagree with their supervisor:

Portland, Ore. - A Portland lawyer was wrongly linked to the Madrid train bombings because a high-ranking supervisor bungled a fingerprint examination and two of his colleagues were afraid to contradict him, a panel of forensic experts found.

The conclusion shows that human error played a larger role than originally thought in the botched investigation. The FBI had said a hazy and low-resolution fingerprint image caused authorities to connect attorney Brandon Mayfield to the March 11 terrorist attack that killed 191 people.

Mayfield, a convert to Islam, was arrested in May after the FBI said his fingerprint was found on a bag of detonators in Madrid. He was held for two weeks before being released.

The report concluded that the FBI analyst who was first asked to examine the fingerprint was influenced by "the inherent pressure of working an extremely high-profile case." He also felt pressured by the fact that the FBI's database had spit out Mayfield's name as the fourth most likely candidate matching the print, the report states.

Once the first examiner - described as a "highly respected supervisor with many years' experience - made up his mind, the next two analysts, including one court-appointed expert, did not dare challenge him, according to the report.

'Nuff said.

[Sun Baked]

Originally Posted by mactastic

While it's probably an appropriate sentiment (not actively championing opposition to the president as an agent) the wording is less than sensitive. The CIA shouldn't be making or dictating policy. That should fall to the president and his advisors.

Even though you may not like the President, you still have to do your job and keep quiet.

When you're doing this job, it really isn't your job to play politics publicly or hinder your own organization.

It makes everyone look bad when you do, let the face men of the agency play politics.

So while the message isn't exactly a bad one, the delivery (wording) and the explanation behind it are less than ideal.

[Xtremehkr]

The CIAs job is to provide intelligence, why the need for directives concerning whose policies to respect or support?

The CIA aren't the GOP, they are not the RNC, they are the CIA. They gather intelligence, this one is pretty hard to spin folks. The Whitehouse is looking for specific information and they'll have interference from those bothered by facts or the truth it seems.

The Whitehouse should have reprimanded itself after the last intelligence gaffe concerning Iraq, but are now trying to make the CIA toe the line even more.

I fail to see where values apply to this Administration.

[zimv20]

collection is only half the CIA's job. the other is analysis. i fear for the latter.

[Xtremehkr]

Originally Posted by zimv20

collection is only half the CIA's job. the other is analysis. i fear for the latter.

I think that is what is under attack with this directive.

[themadchemist]

Originally Posted by Sun Baked

Even though you may not like the President, you still have to do your job and keep quiet.

When you're doing this job, it really isn't your job to play politics publicly or hinder your own organization.

It makes everyone look bad when you do, let the face men of the agency play politics.

So while the message isn't exactly a bad one, the delivery (wording) and the explanation behind it are less than ideal.

Isn't this the problem with appointing to head the CIA a career, partisan politician like Porter Goss?

[mactastic]

Originally Posted by Sun Baked

Even though you may not like the President, you still have to do your job and keep quiet.

When you're doing this job, it really isn't your job to play politics publicly or hinder your own organization.

It makes everyone look bad when you do, let the face men of the agency play politics.

So while the message isn't exactly a bad one, the delivery (wording) and the explanation behind it are less than ideal.

I thought that's what I said...

[Sun Baked]

Originally Posted by mactastic

I thought that's what I said...

I missed the part where you were talking about the career peons ducking and keeping their mouth shut until the political landscape changes.

It's not like the CIA needs to keep the public confident that the entire organization is working together publically, while they talk around the water cooler about the idiots in charge behind closed doors.

[Desertrat]

It is in the interpreting of the data that one's personal views can enter into an analysis. Several commentaries about CIA mid- and upper-level people not being objective have been publicized recently. It seems to me that the totality of Goss' statement indicates that he wants objectivity.

See Jack Wheeler's columns in World Net Daily about CIA middle- and upper-echelon people. I read a lot of his stuff back when he wrote for Strategic Investment (financial newsletter) and he's quite astute at viewing world events.

An analyst with a personal axe to grind can create intelligence failures which can result in events like the destruction of the World Trade Center--which is why the CIA is not supposed to "support" or "subvert" the policies of ANY administration/regime.

'Rat

[mactastic]

It's also why you aren't supposed to stovepipe or cherrypick intel. Looking at only the parts that support your views is just as bad as someone else looking at the intel and championing opposition based on their own selective use of the data. It's why you shouldn't have an 'Office of Strategic Plans'.

[Thomas Veil]

Well, looks like two more of the CIA's top guys decided not to play ball with the new regime.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two more top officials at the CIA's clandestine unit are retiring in the latest sign of upheaval in the agency under its new director Peter Goss, The New York Times reported Thursday.

The two officials have headed operations in Europe and the Far East and were in the highest level of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, the powerful unit that recruits foreign spies and conducts covert operations overseas, the newspaper reported.

The newspaper quoted an unnamed intelligence official as saying that there would be no public announcement on the retirement of the two chiefs and that neither could be identified because they were working under cover.

A former intelligence official described the two as "very senior guys" who were stepping down because they did not feel comfortable with new management, The New York Times reported.

Undercover or not, I'd like to see an anonymous tell-all book by at least one of these guys. In fact, I have a feeling books by former Bush officials could turn into a whole new industry in this country.

[Xtremehkr]

So in reference to "Repubicans are shocked, SHOCKED, that this could happen!" that thread, did the Democrats ever try anything on this level?

It's a wonder they lost power at all if they were so evil.