Saturday, May 6, 2006

Goss Goes

CIA Director Porter Goss  was forced out reported the Washington Post. According to the spin from administration anonymous sources, Peter Goss was doomed from the start with his Congressional hours, his reserved demeanor, inability to master intelligence details, and poor leadership skills. Negroponte, his frat brother at Yale, apparently wanted him out as Goss tried to protect his turf within the newly formed Home Security department. There is a salacious undercurrent that appears to be gaining credence that Goss's credibility was compromised by one of his top underlings, executive director Kyle "Dusty" Foggo. The rumor mill alleges that Dusty Foggo attended poker/prostitute parties hosted by his personal friend Brent Wilkes, a contractor, who allegedly improperly influenced another purported attendee, Rep. Randy Cunningham (R.-CA), recently convicted on public corruption charges.

5 comments:

jharkansas said...

No doubt, the career CIA personnel are happy to see Goss leave.  Goss could have been frustrated with the inability to prosecute the leakers in the CIA.  Not that the media cares about that, so long as the news leaked damages, in some way, the Bush administration.  

asixpilot said...

So now where does the CIA go?  Does the generalissimo nominee have what it takes?  Or is he a Rumsfeld stooge/flunky.  No, I am not a a fan of SecDef, sorry.  He does not pass the sniff test and I can say that in that I am former military. Did anyone catch the Fox special last night on Rummy?  His way or the highway, leadership that Attila the Hun and Stalin would be proud of...and there was the distinct air of reluctance (embarrassment?) to discuss his faith. A man of conviction, his own.  But I digress..

DC beltway political knifefights and backstabbings aside, where are we now?  Does the latest resignation of Dusty help, hinder or harrass the CIA?  Do we care? We'd better.  The CIA was ignored and isolated and left to waste courtesy of Mr. William Jefferson Clinton and its failures rest squarely on his shoulders, something you won't read in the NY Times.  The CIA needs fixin' ala a Rudy Guiliani Times Square clean up.  Will it happen?  I doubt it.   The forces within Langley that allowed the very legal and very necessary wiretaps to be illegally leaked, will be there to protect the liberal left, and attempt to cripple W.  Which is self serving as W challenges the CIA to get with it.  But they can't.  

And, unfortunately, the General nominee is not the answer.  Why?  He has a major character flaw.  He is an Air Farce (misspelling on purpose) weenie.  And he has the stigma of flourishing under the  Rummy's regime.  He is after all, DoD...

My nominees to the post of Director of the CIA:  Teddy Roosevelt, Rudy G, John Adams...other names are escaping my sleep starved brain, but you get the idea, Bottom line a man or woman of honor that will go in and clean house to make our country safer.  Enough rantings...

jakeho said...

With the bipartisan concerns being expressed over Gen. Hayden's nomination to be the head of the CIA, it seems to me that Asix's conerns may be aired as to Hayden's being too chummy with Rummy. I agree that until a real housecleaning occurs at the CIA partisan concerns will conflict with intelligence needs. Even though Rudy would be an excellent choice, I think that he might have his eyes on a higer pay grade.

jharkansas said...

Asix,

I can tell that you have some pretty strong feelings about Rumsfeld.  What is it that you dislike about his performance as SecDef?  As a former Navy guy, I'm sure you are privy to a lot more of the inner machinations of his tenure.   Or do you have more general policy differences with him?  I've always sort of liked Rumsfeld and defended his steadfastness in Iraq, but that's about all I know of him in his SecDef role.

Thanks,
JH

asixpilot said...

SecDef just a little to arrogant for my tastes.  While there is no question about the absolute need of civilain oversight and control over the US Military, my feeling is Rumsfeld takes it too far.  

I will very honest in that I had concerns about going into Iraq.  Why did not take out Saddam after the first Gulf War?  The general concensus was that it would upset the balance of power in the region with Syria and Iran.  Leave Saddam in and there was sort of a system of checks and balances.  What changed in 15 years?  Is Syria still a power to be reckoned with in the region? You'd after be passed out after Marguirita Monday not to know that Iran still is.  But the point I am getting to (yes we will get there!)  is that Rumsfeld never addressed this.  Maybe not his baliwick, maybe it should have come from State, or over at 1600 P Ave.  But essentially it his war to run.  AND, we went to war understaffed on his say so.  Even Colin Powell has been quoted recently agreeing with that.  I'll take Gen Powell's word, a career military man over Rumsfelds any day of the week.  He ran the first Gulf War pretty well....

Plus the change in DoD succession away from the Generals that have opposed him has me a little suspicious.  When have you heard so many retired former officers criticize a sitting SecDef?  What do they have to gain?  I have no special insight, and have not asked contacts still there.  But I do know that it is all about money and not spending it now in the military, because the war is draining resources.