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

Neither would Baker. He would be managing the team that is fielded because that's what he does. Just like Goss. Both are qualified to be in the position they are.

as for never being a player, Goss was a former officer with U.S. Army Intelligence and the CIA, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He also serves on the House Rules Committee, which is responsible for how legislation is presented on the Floor, and the new Select Committee for Homeland Security.

Although i don't think it unlikely that Goss is qualified, i don't accept it as axomatic, or on your statement from authority. My point is that Goss himself says that he would not qualify as an agent. Using Baker as an example is apples to oranges, because of Baker's long career both as a player and as a manager.

Although i suspect that Goss has relatively good credentials, i also suspect that he is chosen because he is a Republican, because he is from Florida, and because he would be a pliable cat's paw for the Shrub and Co. That he may actually be a good man for the position would be coincidental to the political positioning being practiced here.

Goss said "It is true I was a case officer, clandestine services officer, and yes, I do understand the core mission of the business. But I couldn't get a job with the CIA today. I am not qualified." It should be pointed out that Goss was talking about his experience in the field in mentioning that he couldn't get a job as a field operative with the CIA today, and he didn't say he wasn't qualified to be the director.

I chose Baker for the simple fact that he is the Cubs manager. Normally I would have chosen Joe Torre, but that's beside the point. I am sure that if you asked either Baker or Torre if they would be able to make a major league team today, both would say that they would not be qualified as they are too old to round the bases fast enough and their reflexes have slowed down. However, their knowledge of the game and background in baseball makes them more than qualified to manage the players that CAN play. Just like Goss. He isn't qualified to be a CIA agent, as he has stated, however that hardly makes him unqualified to manage the people that can.

That was my point, hardly apples to oranges.

Joe
Joe, you are so smart!

BBB

Given that Goss has never managed Central Intelligence, i would say it is very much apples to oranges.

In any event, i revert to my position that although Goss may well be qualified, he is being chosen because of his political affiliation, the state which he represents, and the opportunity his appointment offers the administration to get someone in the job before the election, and to have someone groomed for a cabinet level office, if the Congress should so ordain.

I'm not sure if you singled out Baker because you were attempting to address your remarks to me, but if you were you need to look at my initial post in this thread.


It would be rude to disagree with a lady.

Sort of, the Cubs catcher made me pick Baker. It was an analogy I heard someone make on the radio the other day that I thought was fitting.

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.

Re: Bush's hidden trap in CIA nomination
Oliphant's piece above is hardly that of an objective observer. Both he and the paper that published the piece are even farther into the Liberal/Democrat/Kerry camp than Fox news is for Bush on its most partisan day.

The piece is based entirely on the unsupported assumption that the motivation for Bush's nomination is entirely political, and that the opposition, or hands off position, of the Democrats is based entirely on an objective view of what is good for the country. This is an interesting view, but hardly a dispassionate one. No evidence or argument whatever is presented to support this implausible theory.

A good indicator is the part quoted below from Oliphant's piece.



The "cleverly inserted poision pill" to which he refers was the Administration's consistent proposal that the Homeland Security Department have the same status with respect to Federal Employee's Unions as the FBI and the CIA - namely that open shop rules apply. The argument for the new department is identical to the one that has long applied to the others.

It is noteworthy that the largest single contributor to the Democrat Party has long been the very same Federal Employees Union. That the national interest would be well served by the open shop provision is beyond doubt. For Democrat supporters to claim the provision was a "poision pill" and then go on to accuse the Administration of playing politics is hypocricy in its worst form.