IMPORTANT! Cheney Cat's Paw, Porter Goss, as CIA Director?

He who has the gold rules.
BumbleBeeBoogie, a good part of what P.J. Crowley states is probably true. I believe that some people, maybe even myself, are tending to confuse the actual job that Porter Goss has been appointed to. Are we simply talking about a new Directorate for CIA or a Czar that will oversee the operations of all the numerous intelligence agencies that now overlap one and other including the FBI? What are we actually talking about here? What am I missing?

I for one do not like the idea of an Intelligence Czar. It is my understanding that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is the least known yet the largest and most expensive, the Big Daddy of all our intelligence operations. Most of us are at least familiar with the the names of CIA and FBI. Both are a fraction of the size of DIA's budget(s). And of course their functions all overlap as well.

My first real sense of meddling by??? began when the Air Force barracks were blown up in Saudi Arabia. This was the first time I read of FBI being given the lead to operate on such a large scale in a foreign country. This was especially resented by CIA and who can blame them for that?

Since that time it seems as though both agencies are being forced by ???? to co-operate and inter-react with each other without much real success other than lip service. Also recall that Saudi officials all but told the FBI to take a hike where their co-operation with the bombing investigation was concerned. They did.

I believe The President has far more insight and practical reasons as to ensuring that when this Czar is installed he will in no way have absolute say on budgetary powers of the various agencies. This in fact will ensure the individual agencies remain autonomous for the most part which is the way it should be minus a lot of fat trimming and a more specific definition of mission for each.

No, The Czar without controlling the gold is not going to have much power. That also is the way it should be. Most Americans don't care about this arrangement one way or the other and won't mind anyway. Homeland Security is a great example of waste and confusion in action. Yet many Americans now feel secure because "the government has done something."

Jack Webb
Jack, most of the so-called homeland security is an expensive illusion dominated and shaped by political expediency. He who sets and controls the budget controls the action. The disgusting turf battles between government agencies, between the three branches of government, and between the political parties demonstrates clearly the priority of self defense rather that public and homeland defense. I call them "the homeland defense wars." Apparently, our war "over there" isn't enough; we have to fight among ourselves at home, too.

BBB

Michael Moore has Goss on tape
Michael Moore has Goss on tape:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/

Some noise but no problem appointing Goss.
I watched a talk show this morning, the one where Andrea Mitchell was filling in for Tim Russert. Sen. Pat Robinson of Kansas and a woman Representative from California were guests.

As I mentioned in my previous post BumbleBeeBoogie, this aura of haze and confusion about CIA and inelligence Czar persists. The three began talking about Goss then they began drifting over to the topic of the Czar without mentioning it. They were discussing them interchangeably without identifying which job they were talking about! I guess eventually a gong went off in Pat Robertson's head and he identified the billet of 'Intelligence Chief" as he calls it. Then, I believe it was Andrea Mitchell stated that Goss might possibly be named as Intelligence Czar! (the word was going around Washington as she put it.)

So what is the result of Pat Robinson's special committee on Intelligence that went on for seventeen months and this hum-drum 9/11 special committee headed by the ex Jersey 'Governor? Nothing earthshaking or "historical" that some are claiming that I can see.

Goss is simply replacing a man that resigned much like Mueller did with FBI. Yet they are making so much of this. I would just replace him and then move on to the question of who the Czar is going to be because it is an entirely different matter altogether. This surely will be historical because we never had an Intelligence Czar before.

No idea what it is but it appears that Congress has its own hidden agendas for this obfuscation. Maybe they are just afraid to face the issue. I don't know. They certainly do not come across as the heroes, the discoverers of scandalous behavior as some of them are portraying each other as.

Michael Moor has Goss on tape?
I am certain The President has Colin Powell on tape too during his weaker moments when he still did not fully grasp the reality of what his functions were as Secretary of State. One of them being to keep his ideas about some things to himself. I am sure he would like to take back some of the things he said about the administration. No worry.

They need a degree of independence in order to do a good job. Reality prevails, they understand who they are and more importantly who the Boss is. They strap on the helmet, buckle up and drive straight ahead toward the goal line to please the boss. Regardless.

New ballgame; all team players in spite of what was previously spoken during a few fleeting moments of self assertion. :wink:

Bush's hidden trap in CIA nomination
Former Bush administration insiders said all policy is formed by politics. This explains the Goss nomination. ---BBB

THOMAS OLIPHANT
Bush's hidden trap in CIA nomination
By Thomas Oliphant, Boston Globe Columnist
August 15, 2004
WASHINGTON

RESURRECTING the nomination of Porter Goss to run the CIA for what might turn out to be the shortest tenure on record only makes sense if there is a bruising fight over his confirmation that draws in Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.

The fact that there won't be a fight and that Kerry has shrewdly stayed away from President Bush's latest confusion of national security and presidential politics only underscores how cynical the nomination was.

The Democrats have correctly smelled a rat. Instead of taking Bush's bait, they wisely plan to put the rat on display. Two years ago, Bush covered up one of the grandest flip-flops of his presidency -- his embrace of a new Department of Homeland Security after nearly a year of opposition to this enlargement of government -- with the clever insertion of a "poison pill." The White House framed the work rules of the new department with just enough restrictions to draw the opposition of labor-supporting Democrats and turned those work rules into a matter affecting the very security of the nation.

Presto, change-o -- as fast as you could say Karl Rove -- the Democrats were portrayed as opposing their own idea, President Bush became its courageous champion, and Democrats were condemned for more weakness on national security. To this day, there are few people who can summarize the actual difference over the department's work rules.

The initial reaction to the announcement of Goss's nomination bordered on contempt, but from the office of Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle to Kerry's campaign cooler heads prevailed. Advisers correctly saw two paths -- either a fight over Goss's inconsequential record for seven years as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and his partisan behavior this year; or a disciplined focus on the reform recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The former, of course, is a typical Washington fight; the latter is something that has the public's attention.

Moreover, it would have been only a matter of moments between the start of a confirmation fight and the launching of a White House campaign to portray the Democrats as more interested in crippling the vital CIA and leaving it leaderless than in helping crush terrorism. Without the fight, Democrats can publicize Goss's shortcomings without blocking an early vote or even opposing him.

One month ago, the Goss-as-director trial balloon had been deflated. The White House had lost interest as the election approached, and George Tenet's acting replacement, deputy director John McLaughlin, stepped in credibly. According to the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts of Kansas, there was no point in proceeding, especially given the objections of his ranking Democrat, West Virginia's Jay Rockefeller to naming a politician to a post where recent experience had above all demonstrated the centrality of independence.

What changed was that Kerry's status as a potential commander in chief improved after the Democratic Convention. The White House started looking for actions Bush could take to shore up his own position, and naming a new CIA boss made it to the short list, especially if it could provoke Democratic opposition. By restricting themselves to asking embarrassing questions, the trap has been avoided.

This way, Goss can be asked about his disinterest in consolidating authority over foreign and domestic intelligence work in one, responsible official. He can be asked about his one proposal in this area that would only and marginally expand the budgetary authority of the CIA director.

He can be asked about his steadfast refusal on Bush's behalf to have his committee investigate the colossal intelligence failure where Saddam Hussein's alleged cache of unconventional weapons was concerned before last year's invasion.

He can also be asked to explain his position as an integral part of the pre-9/11 establishment that failed to anticipate or even recognize the rise of Al Qaeda. He can also be asked to explain his abrupt transformation from protector of the agency where he worked as a young man (he's 65 now and already one of this year's announced congressional retirees) to sharp critic just when it served Bush's interests to shift blame to Tenet's tenure and off himself.

For icing, he can be asked to explain a string of statements and writings questioning Kerry's national security credentials -- one in pseudo-dramatic form on the House floor two months ago -- that he has issued as one of the Bush-Cheney campaign's designated hitters.

The ranking Democrat on Goss's committee, Jane Harman of California, has consistently had the perfect nominee in mind since Tenet resigned: nobody. Anything else would inevitably introduce politics and complicate the vital task of reform.

She was correct. For a change, it's encouraging to see the Democrats pass up a fight not worth the effort or the pitfalls.

Thomas Oliphant's take on Porter Goss.
Thomas Oliphant is always interesting to listen to. About the only time I see him these days is when he occasionally appears with James Brooks on the Friday edition of the Jim Lehrer News Hour.

As is the case with most good journalists he addresses his comments to peers and the piece you enclosed in your post BumbleBeeBoogie, is no exception. His perception about who will or will not do what, should or should not do what, need to do or need not to do what probably will score points at a roundtable but does little where reality is concerned.

The reality that counts, the viewpoints of the masses, are already expecting Democrats and a few Republicans as well to say "nay" where Porter Goss is concerned. The finer points discussed by Oliphant mean nothing and probably will not even be heard or read by most voters don't you think? How often does common sense go very far in politics anyway?

But for the Malarkey that goes on between now and the Goss confirmation that may be entertaining to some of us, it is nothing more than a drill. A dull one at that.

Goss says CIA leak not worthy of committee action
This man is too partisan to head the CIA. ---BBB

Goss says CIA leak not worthy of committee action
BY CORY REISS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Note the date: October 03. 2003 12:00AM

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.

He was referring to the infamous blue dress in the Monica Lewinsky scandal that led to impeachment proceedings against former President Clinton.

Democrats this week repeatedly called for an independent counsel to take over the investigation from Attorney General John Ashcroft. The Justice Department has begun an investigation at the CIA's request.

Goss said he has no evidence that the controversy is more than a product of "wild and unsubstantiated allegations, which are being obviously piled on by partisan politics during an election year."

In taking this position, Goss is on the administration's side in fending off an independent counsel investigation. Goss, however, said his evaluation isn't a partisan one.

Goss said the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes disclosure of covert agents' identities a federal crime, is difficult to apply. It requires proof that the disclosure was intentional. He said that to his knowledge, the government has never successfully prosecuted anyone under that law.

One outstanding question is whether White House aides also gave the information to other journalists, as has been reported. Goss said any truth to that allegation would be grave.


"My view is this was in no way willful," he said.

Often seen as a defender of the intelligence community, Goss joined Rep. Jane Harman of California, the committee's ranking Democrat, in sending a recent letter to CIA Director George Tenet that was critical of the intelligence behind administration assertions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Qaida.

Democrats want an independent counsel to investigate whether White House aides told Novak that the wife of a former diplomat, Joseph Wilson, was a covert CIA agent. Wilson has accused the White House of leaking his wife's name to discredit him after he refuted administration claims that Iraq sought uranium from the African nation of Niger, where Wilson was sent to investigate that possibility.

"I am not going to suggest there be any kind of independent counsel until it even rises to the level of coming to our committee's attention, which it hasn't risen to yet," Goss said.

Goss said no one from the intelligence community had contacted him formally or informally. To date, he said, his knowledge of the situation has come from the news media, where leaks of classified information are so routine that his committee would not act on them unless the intelligence services take them seriously.

"You know how much time we would spend doing leaks if we did nothing but leaks?" he said. "That's all we'd do. There's a leak every day in the paper -- every single day -- of some type or another. About once a week the community refers them to the Justice Department."

Re: Goss says CIA leak not worthy of committee action


But he get's more power as CIA director.

Bush expected to give CIA chief more power, oversight



Link

Did you know that Goss lead the fight to cut CIA funding, especially in the areas of human intelligence(which is now considered a priority)?

Cycloptichorn

The old boy rails!
I suppose it is because I am a great fan of John LeCarre, the Cold War, Russians, Germans, Czechs, Americans in general that I enjoy spy stuff. Therefore when things "come up" in areas related I pay attention to them as illustrated by the following example.

In our Senate and our House of Representatives which I collectively refer to as "Congress" there are a few people that have served on a variety of intelligence committees, "Special committees", investigative committees over the years. Long before 9/11, during 9/11 and today as well. These sages like to really lay it on thick where criticism of CIA is concerned. Give these boys a microphone, a TV camera; a spot on a Sunday morning talk show and they will tell you exactly how things should NOW be done.

My question to them is: Why did you not apply all your worldly wisdom and advice all those years you were getting paid to do just that? Why should I pay any attention to you now? Why should anyone?

Men like: Bob Graham, Richard Shelby and Pat Roberts all seem to be good guys. Good guys but not the stuff from which CIA or even FBI are made. I would like anyone to provide me with a single reason why any attention whatsoever should be paid to Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas on his ideas about how CIA should function and how it should be organized. I say: Go home old man! You had your chance to do this without fanfare when you sat on those intelligence committees. You were not responsible to perform your duties that you were being paid for then and you sound like a buffoon today. Go home!

Changes.
No problem with that, Enthusiast. Trouble often follows speculation. To hear the Generals, Air Force in particular, Hi-tech "Smart Bombs" were the answer to everything. Most people that know better (me for example) know there is nothing "surgical" about a bomb, an area fire weapon. Oh all the Malarkey about "wire guided" etc. the file films baloney.

Nobody has to be convinced today that this was simply a sales pitch on behalf of the defense industry as so many other claims are about other hardware, mostly electronic, that falls far short of promises, expectations.

I don't know but my guess is that Porter Goss too was or is caught up in "Hi-Tech." The reality of it is: Just as sure as we need infantry on the ground to take charge of the real estate we need spys on the ground to run "Joes" in order to accomplish anything worthwhile in the spy endeavors. I believe Porter Goss understands this today.