Goss is "not qualified" to be CIA Director

Straight from the horses mouth.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5944517

to cover Bush's backside.

http://www.mattgunn.com/#cantgetciajob081104

On one hand, you can make a strong argument that the Goss comments aren't newsworthy. What he's really saying is that he couldn't get hired today as a CIA field operative, not that he couldn't be director of the CIA. They are, of course, very different jobs requiring different abilities. Moreover, if we limited prospective intelligence leaders to those who speak Arabic and are algorithmically-inclined, we'd be drawing from a shallow pool.

On the other hand, his acknowledgment that he doesn't have "the cultural background" is concerning. Perhaps he's merely saying that his ethnicity wouldn't allow him to go undercover, but there's another possibility: he doesn't have the kind of confidence in his expertise in Middle Eastern affairs that would enable him to lay out a comprehensive vision for the agency to assess and eradicate potential threats.

In their recommendations, the 9/11 Commission repeatedly emphasizes the importance of reimagining our analytic capabilities so we can locate potential threats from Islamist terrorists. One of the reasons I don't have much confidence in the Bush administration to do this effectively is because the main advisers to the president – Condoleezza Rice is a good example – didn't come into office with a sufficient background in understanding of the Islamic world. Others have to pick up the slack, and therefore I think it's fair and important to ask Goss specifically what he meant when he says he "probably doesn't have the cultural background" to get a job at the CIA today.
more............

Knight Ridder Newspapers

On June 23, Rep. Porter Goss set aside his nonpartisan reputation of many years to haul a poster board onto the floor of the House of Representatives with a 7- year-old quote from Sen. John Kerry that Goss charged had undercut the nation's intelligence efforts.

"Now that that struggle (the Cold War) is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow?" Kerry had asked in 1997.

Goss, R-Fla., went on the attack: "I will hold this up because this is why the problem exists. ... The Democratic Party did not support the intelligence community."

In March, the day after the Florida primary, Goss co-authored an opinion column in the Tampa Tribune blasting Kerry for "leading the way to make deep and devastating cuts" in the intelligence budget. ..

What Democrats are saying is that as intelligence failures mounted in Iraq, Goss did too little to investigate them. Instead, they said, Goss became a Bush-Cheney spokesman who tried to tear down Kerry's national security credentials because he avidly sought the CIA post.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, warned that Goss "might be too entrenched in the status quo and be seen as too partisan to lead at this critical time."

Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., said Goss had "failed in his obligation" to investigate intelligence failures in Iraq while "playing a high-level role in the Bush-Cheney campaign." ..

Ride Don’t Drive * * It’s Global Cool

again.

This is perfect. So damn funny. Poetic justice you might say.

Chosen another winner. Wow, oh, wow! Another incompetent. We don't expect himself to choose someone intelligent, do we? He wouldn't know how to relate to an intelligent intelligence chief.

We all know how bad the relationship between Bill Clinton and FBI director Louis Freeh was. They didn't have a working relationship, and when Clinton wanted to get rid of Freeh, the Republicans worked to make it politically impossible. Clinton was forced to work with an FBI director who was not a "team player" at the same time al Qaeda was planning their attack.
Likewise, we can't have John Kerry taking over the Presidency with a CIA director who is an avowed political OPPONENT of the President. Been there, done that. Thanks, but no thanks DeLay, Hastert, and Frist. You have an important job to do, and it's about time you stopped playing politics, especially with such an important national security issue.

say it like Simple Scotty would

The Republicans have opened the door for the Dems. Whom is sitting in that chair as nominee is irrelevant. Make the whole hearing about Cheney's interference with the CIA.

his 12 lame duck weeks on the job.

Sept. 11, 2001 - Gen. Mahmud of the ISI, friend of Mohammed Atta, is visiting Washington on behalf of the Taliban. He is meeting with the Chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., and Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla.,



http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html

The key questions are Why Goss, and Why NOW? Why Goss is pretty easy---he's old-line, Poppy era CIA, who has also been in shady business deals with many of the BFEE, and can be trusted to look out after their interests. Bush could've earned brownie points with the public and puditocracy by naming a seasoned pro, and not risking the congressional seat, but he didn't--he chose a member of the extended "family".
Bush didn't have to name a CIA director NOW; he could theoretically wait until the Senate and House pass "reform" legislation aping the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission. Also, if Bush really wanted Goss for the job, he could have waited until after the elections. This would let Goss get through the election, and Jebby name his replacement in Congress.
But, no, Bush jumped this one quickly. The CIA can make or break the BFEE, and right now they are the most dangerous possible opponent of the Bushies. My conclusion is that Bush needed someone at CIA to try to put the lid on leaks, as well as stem cooperation with the Plame investigation, and they needed him FAST.