The Democrats are going along with the repugs with Porter Goss!?!?!?

Where is the outrage!?!?! Why do our Democratic leaders lay down to the Republicans? I'm so sick of this shit! Will anyone is stand up to these killing thugs!!!!!!!!

Let the asshole have the job, for what will be less than four months.

would cost lots of political capital at a time Kerry would be trying to seat a cabinet.

n/t

but far less after his cabinet is set. The truth is that once he is elected, Kerry is going to have to take bold actions.

Fools are always outraged.

his nonimation and 99% Repubs approved it would he still be nominated?

Just curious.

I sure wish we had the votes to stop it.

TAKE A STAND! The democratic leaders are so afraid to look weak on defense, but they are making themselves kiss ass, lap dogs to these repugs!

every post you have posted has been nasty. Couldn't you at least PRETEND to be a Democrat if you're going to post? OK....now, off to the alert. bye! :hi:

Bush wants a big response from democrats, to hold up the nomination. Then he can turn the "national debate" into a finger-pointing with a "democrats politicize national security" mantra. This theory says if we elect Kerry, Goss's shelf-life as head of the CI is very short.

The more paranoid among us believe that Bush et al are planning a national crisis, if Gross's nomination is being disputed, to be able to show the nation how dangerous the democrats really are. This is obviously an extreme version of the first theory.

Perhaps the democrats should call his bluff. If putting Gross in charge of CI is not politicizing national security, nothing on earth is. Perhaps we should focus the debate on national security. Why would democrats in congress conceed this issue to someone as vulnerable as Bush?

as a supreme court judge then the Dem's should roll over to. If the Dem's have no nuts then they need to get out of politics and let a new third party with some balls get started.

what I wrote: the first paragraph is the logic of the democratic leadership in the senate, not mine. My logic is the third paragraph: I think it is foolish to give Bush a free pass on this.

I think we share the opinion that Gross is the last person who should be the head of CI.

To define your opponent first. So if in unison all the big name democrats went on all the morning shows, hardball, ect calling this a partisan act putting at risk our national security, talk about him being a divider and not a uniter, and so on and so forth and it would hurt * fairly badly.

very well said! thanks!

The Democrats again show their courage in the face of a fight - but we can count on them to whine after the fact.

OK, I only was kidding. Who gives a fuck who the Rethugs nominate. Kerry will fire his ass in January. Got bigger fish to fry right now. This is unimportant minutia. Keep your eye on the prize and ignore the bullshit.

Don

Porter Goss wants to allow the CIA to spy on US citizens! We will have a USA KGB!

and in the end you have a "prize" that isn't the same as it was advertised. Once we get "Those Bush Bastards Out" (quoting The Magistrate) will we have the same crowd in place with just a new figurehead? Where is the guarantee that Kerry/Edwards will throw out the people who are behind and running the Bush Bastards?

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

Mmmmmm... yummy kool-aid...

If he is hired, he stays.

Kerry will have a hard enough time seating a cabinet.

Like Chimpy and Kerry.

Boners Uber Alles, and all that shit.

Gack.

that is why this IS a 'big deal'.

doesn't seem to be much "light" between our Dems and the Repugs on this.
It's sort of disheartening. Really disheartening.

presumably if you're so outraged you contacted them, right?

:-(

Thank you. I hope goss's nomination comes back to bite bush in his arrogant, I'm oh so clever, political ass.

The article claims Kerry and Daschle are playing smart politics, but gives no indication of what they're going to do about it when Goss takes over the CIA and "reforms" it into an even more thuglike bunch of misfits than it already is.

The article to show how the Democrats will ask Goss embarassing questions but leaves out the part where Bush will be able to reply that "But, YOU voted for him." Much like he's doing with Kerry's pathetic prowar vote and is wishy washy "me too" on the occupation.

here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x67603

TOUGH! And, yes, Harmon is saying the Dems agree with most everything the Repugs want, including Porter Goss who will be confirmed she says.

Where is his magnanimous defense citing Goss as unfit for the job, thereby blocking his nomination?

Appointing Goss helps Bush politically. If the Dems support Goss and he's nominated Bush will get to say he's done something re: intelligence and have a partisan Republican as CIA director. If the Dems reject Goss Bush will use this as "proof" the Democrats don't care about intelligence.


If Goss is appointed Bush will ask Kerry during debate if Kerry will fire Goss if elected President. If Kerry says he would fire Goss Bush will use this as "proof" Kerry doesn't care about intelligence. If Kerry says he won't fire Goss and then does it anyway he'd look indecisive and dishonest.

Goss will suit them fine. Ignore the government failures and collusions...blame it on somebody else. Apply band-aid.

You know things are getting pathetic when you would be MORE suprised if the Democrats stood against right wing partisan hacks running the CIA. Who here really expected the Democrats to fight this?

There aren't enough Dems to block the nomination I don't believe.

who would vote along with the dems if they put up a fight. So in fact there might be enough votes. Of course that assumes they would put up a fight.

a new CIA Director at this time.

The Bu$h administration, through Tom Ridge, has warned the public repeatedly that terrorists are planning an attack in order to disrupt the November election. Here is a CNN article outlining these warnings:

Officials: Bin Laden guiding plots against U.S.
Ridge: Terrorists' aim is to influence presidential vote
Thursday, July 8, 2004

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A plot to carry out a large-scale terror attack against the United States in the near future is being directed by Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda members, senior intelligence officials said Thursday.
snip------
Arrests of terror suspects in Europe and the Middle East resulted in the new warning, said Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.
snip----
A senior U.S. intelligence official said the warning was based on "a very strong body of intelligence."

The planned attack is "an effort to disrupt the democratic process" before November's elections, Ridge said.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/08/ridge.alqaeda/

Clearly, it is critical that the CIA maintains the status quo and remains undistrtacted until after the November elections. Mr. Goss, by his own admission, is not qualified to step in and take over the CIA at this very critical time. Any administrative change would almost definitely lead to disaster, when viewed in light of the evidence and warnings that Mr. Ridge has publically announced.

Senate confirmation hearings at this time would naturally distract CIA officials and agents from doing their jobs properly, because they would all be interested in these proceedings that will directly affect their respective and collective futures. Distractions to the CIA before November could result in a deadly tragedy.

Therefore, Senate Confirmation Hearings on Mr. Goss can logically and prudently be put on the back burner until after the election in November.

It would be counterproductive and senseless to hold any Senate Confirmation Hearings during this critical period between now and the election. The CIA clearly needs to remain focused and vigilant. Any transition or distraction at this time would disrupt the focus of the CIA, and would undoubtedly cause an administrative chaos that would lead to a critical breakdown of the ability of the CIA to recognize and prevent a terrorist attack.

Any attempt by republicans to rush confirmation hearings prior to the November election can only be interpreted as partisan political maneuvering that would unquestionably, based on Mr. Ridge's warnings, put our country in severe danger. If republicans are truly interested in protecting our nation against terrorist attack, they would be wise to understand this fact, and agree to hold off on the hearings.

Otherwise, the Bu$h administration and republican legislators may be held fully responsible, because of their partisan political goals, for the deaths of many Americans.

Not only Senate Democrats, but all of our federal legislators, need to exercise common sense, recognize this probability, and take the necessary steps to protect our country by insuring that the CIA remains stable and completely undistracted until this imminent pre-election terrorist threat outlined by Tom Ridge is over.

...er...uhhhh.....

Well, I'm sure the DLC apologists will come up with the excuse eventually. After all, they have a lot of people on this board already convinced that the invasion of Iraq was every bit as justified as World War II :eyes:

the Senate. This guy should NOT be the CIA director and our Democratic politicians need to grow some balls. :grr:

to stall the vote on Goss until after the election-that is all it will take. Too late for Bushwa after that.