From His Own Words...Goss NOT Fit For CIA Job?

Forums: Politics, Cia
Email this Topic • Print this Page

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Congressman Porter Goss, President Bush (news - web sites)'s nominee for CIA (news - web sites) director, could be his own worst enemy when it comes to making the case that he deserves to lead the U.S. intelligence agency.

"I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified," the Florida Republican told documentary-maker Michael Moore's production company during the filming of the anti-Bush movie "Fahrenheit 9/11."

A day after Bush picked Goss for the top U.S. spy job, Moore Wednesday released an excerpt from a March 3 interview in which the 65-year-old former House of Representatives intelligence chief recounts his lack of qualifications for employment as a modern CIA staffer.

"I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably," Goss is quoted in an interview transcript.

"And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day: 'Dad you got to get better on your computer.' Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040812/pl_nm/bush_cia_moore_dc_2

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 2,286 • Replies: 29

No top replies

Things that make you go, hmmmmmmm...

0 Replies

It's true, if Goss tried to gain an entry level position in the CIA, he would probably be turned down. Fortuneatly for him though, director is not an entry level position and requires him to have a different skill set than what an entry level position would require.

0 Replies

I don't understand why bush gets to pick (or any other president) the cia director in the first place. Is that the way it is always done?

0 Replies

He gets to nominate, but the Senate has to confirm from what I understand. Current reports I've seen are indicating he will pass confirmition.

0 Replies

There is a good deal of speculation that the Democrats in the Senate will block any attempt to appoint Goss before the election. Some see this as an attempt to appeal to Florida voters, others simply that Bush is grooming Goss for a cabinet level post as the head of an intelligence department, and is taking advantage of the opportunity to also get some point with Florida voters. The constitution requires the president to secure the advice and consent of two thirds of the Senate. Anyone who has paid attention to American politics as they have played out since the second world war knows that no president seeks the advice of the Senate in such matters. However, no appointment can take effect without Senate approval, and the Republicans don't have a two thirds majority--they barely have a majority.

As for a cabinet level post to act as an intelligence clearing house and coordination center, it is not correct to look to the administration for this, or to criticize, except in so far as the administration can be said to control the Republican majority in the House. The constitution gives the Congress the power to create cabinet departments. The resposibility for responding to the recommendations of the Nine Eleven commission, if anyone actually feels such a responsibility, lies with the Congress.

0 Replies

I don't know anything about Goss, but I do agree with McG on this that he was talking about not being qualified to be an agent. In fact, I kind of think his ability to recognize that he is not qualified to be an agent and why (ie. that things have changed) might recommend him for the job.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It's true, if Goss tried to gain an entry level position in the CIA, he would probably be turned down. Fortuneatly for him though, director is not an entry level position and requires him to have a different skill set than what an entry level position would require.

the best managers are the ones that can do every job from the ground up in an organization...this is a principle that's applied to restaurant mangement for God's sake.....but can't be applied to the department that keeps us safe from terrorists and gathers intelligence from around the world? Jesus Christ people, get a grip....

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

He gets to nominate, but the Senate has to confirm from what I understand. Current reports I've seen are indicating he will pass confirmition.

It seems to me that should be one of the things that those in those kinds of positions aught to fix. People that are looking for terrorist threats should not be beholden to whoever happens to be in the administration.

0 Replies

It is difficult to think of a single Defense Secretary who could have been accepted into any branch of the military: most would have simply been too old to serve. Likewise, despite their responsibility for overseeing air travel, I don't recall a single Transportation Secretary who was a qualified airline pilot. And though the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has jurisdiction over federally funded public housing, I've never known a HUD Secretary to have resided in a Washington D.C. public housing project.

The director of the CIA is a bureaucrat in charge of a large bureaucracy. As such, it is more important that the director knows how to run bureaucracies than that he knows how to conduct covert operations. Of course, it's a bonus if the director has some hands-on experience, but it is simply ludicrous to suggest that Goss isn't qualified to be CIA director because he's not qualified to be a CIA operative.

Micheal Moore asks a lot of tough, insightful questions, but he also has a tendency to ask some really stupid questions -- to which he often gets stupid responses. This is one of those examples of a stupid question. There are good reasons why Goss shouldn't be confirmed: his inability today to qualify as a CIA operative isn't one of them.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The constitution requires the president to secure the advice and consent of two thirds of the Senate. Anyone who has paid attention to American politics as they have played out since the second world war knows that no president seeks the advice of the Senate in such matters. However, no appointment can take effect without Senate approval, and the Republicans don't have a two thirds majority--they barely have a majority.

There are only three instances where a two-thirds majority vote is constitutionally required for Senate action: impeachments, ratification of treaties, and passage of amendments to the constitution. Confirmation of officers, such as CIA directors, is done by majority vote (although, in practice, very little gets done in the Senate with less than 60 votes, due to the cloture rule).

0 Replies

What are the "good reasons why Goss shouldn't be confirmed" ??

It appears to me that the Democrats would simply prefer to see the position unfilled until after the election. In what way does that enhance our security, or facilitate the incorporation of elements of the recommendations of the 9/11/Commission?

The answer of course is that the delay helps no one in any constructive way. This is pure politics on the part of Democrats.

0 Replies

"...In fact, no Democratic senator declared an intention to oppose the nomination outright. Many said they were unhappy with what they perceived as Mr. Goss's excessive partisanship, but they said they would withhold judgment until the hearings.

At the same time, Senator John Kerry, the party's presidential nominee, signaled that he would not make this nomination a major campaign issue. On Tuesday, Mr. Kerry released a low-key, noncommittal statement calling for "fair, bipartisan and expeditious confirmation hearings," and on Wednesday he said nothing on the campaign trail about the nomination.

Privately, some Democrats said the nomination put them in a difficult political position. The C.I.A. has already gone two months without a replacement for George J. Tenet as director. The Democrats said that if they opposed the Goss nomination they expected that the White House would cast them as obstructionists who were delaying prosecution of the war on terror."

It is kind of a lose/lose situation for the democrats. Either they confirm a guy they don't want or they are obstuctionists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/12/politics/12goss.html

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

What are the "good reasons why Goss shouldn't be confirmed" ??

I presume you're talking to me?

I think recent history has amply demonstrated that the White House needs someone at the CIA who is willing to give independent analysis of intelligence reports, not someone who will give the president only what he wants to see. I have seen nothing that would indicate that Goss has that kind of independence. His cavalier indifference to the Valerie Plame case and his unhealthy, ditto-headed obsession with all things Clinton ("Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation") is reason enough to question his capacity to manage a massive federal agency. In short, I view Goss as little more than a partisan political hack, unqualified for Congress let alone the directorship of the CIA. For more insights into Goss, see here and here.

georgeob1 wrote:

It appears to me that the Democrats would simply prefer to see the position unfilled until after the election. In what way does that enhance our security, or facilitate the incorporation of elements of the recommendations of the 9/11/Commission?

Well, considering that Bush waited more than two months before even naming a replacement for George Tenet and has refused to call for a special session of Congress in order to deal with the 9-11 Commission's recommendations, I fail to see how the Democrats can be blamed for failing to "enhance our security" if they likewise take their time with the confirmation process.

georgeob1 wrote:

The answer of course is that the delay helps no one in any constructive way. This is pure politics on the part of Democrats.

No, it's pure politics all the way around. That's what you should expect from politicians -- Republicans and Democrats alike.

0 Replies

Joe,

Your sources for the Goss "reasons" were themselves the work of political hacks, and hardly constitute an objective view.

In my view the structural defects of our Intelligence system have much more to do with deficiencies in our clandestine operations capability and available linguists, than they do with how the bureaucracy is directed by politicaL appointees. These capabilities were gutted 25 years ago by Jimmy Carter, using Stanisfield Turner as a stalking horese and by the Senate Committee investigation headed by Sen. Frank Church.

Prompt action to restore the leadership of the CIA will yield quicker dividends than the Congressional ruminations over the 9/11 report. The various Congressinal Committees are currently holding extensive hearings on the proposals of the 9/11 report, and there is no basis on which to assert that calling the Congress into special session would accelerate the process. Indeed it would pose a great risk of intemperate action by a Congress in the grip of election fever.

The Palme affair was as grossly exaggerated in the liberal press as was the quality of the "investigation" her husband conducted from his Hotel suite in NIger. A red herring if there ever was one.

0 Replies

I don't care how it makes us look, I hope they delay anyway until after the election and if by some foul stroke of bad luck bush is actually elected this time, go ahead and vote no and deal with the consequences later.

The way I see it, the head of the CIA is merely a figure head anyway and I don't think it makes any difference in our secuirty situation. But I am not suprised that the republicans are using that stance as they do in everything else.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Joe,

Your sources for the Goss "reasons" were themselves the work of political hacks, and hardly constitute an objective view.

Well, one of those sources was an interview with Goss. Are you suggesting, then, that Goss is an unobjective political hack?

georgeob1 wrote:

In my view the structural defects of our Intelligence system have much more to do with deficiencies in our clandestine operations capability and available linguists, than they do with how the bureaucracy is directed by politicaL appointees. These capabilities were gutted 25 years ago by Jimmy Carter, using Stanisfield Turner as a stalking horese and by the Senate Committee investigation headed by Sen. Frank Church.

And you think Goss is the person who will fix those problems?

georgeob1 wrote:

Prompt action to restore the leadership of the CIA will yield quicker dividends than the Congressional ruminations over the 9/11 report. The various Congressinal Committees are currently holding extensive hearings on the proposals of the 9/11 report, and there is no basis on which to assert that calling the Congress into special session would accelerate the process. Indeed it would pose a great risk of intemperate action by a Congress in the grip of election fever.

So let me get this straight:

Republicans delay on national security = good.

Democrats delay on national security = BAD!

I see. I think I'm beginning to understand your position a little better now.

georgeob1 wrote:

The Palme affair was as grossly exaggerated in the liberal press as was the quality of the "investigation" her husband conducted from his Hotel suite in NIger. A red herring if there ever was one.

Was the special prosecutor an exaggeration of the liberal media? Is the federal grand jury investigating the affair an exaggeration of the liberal media? Are the subpoenas being issued to reporters who broke the Plame story an exaggeration of the liberal media?

0 Replies

If Dusty Baker tried out for the team, think he would make it? Probably not, but he is more than qualified to manage the team.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

If Dusty Baker tried out for the team, think he would make it? Probably not, but he is more than qualified to manage the team.

Depends on which team you're talking about.

0 Replies

Dusty Baker is a poor example. He has twice won manager of the year awards (i was going to say three times, but was uncertain, and haven't the time to check it out right now). As a player, he has a career batting average over .275, has well over 200 home runs, and more than 1000 rbi's--hardly to be compared to Goss' admission that he would not qualify as an agent with Central Intelligence.

Baker was a good player, and has been a good manager. Goss has no record as player or manager at Central Intelligence, and by his own admission wouldn't be "in the line-up" if a team were fielded.

0 Replies

From His Own Words...Goss NOT Fit For CIA Job?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know