Can someone tell me what we would gain by stopping the Goss nomination?

[sangh0]

I keep hearing that we need to "stand up" and "fight back", but why can't someone tell me what we will gain if we succeed in denying Goss the job?

If Goss doesn't get it, won't some other BFEE-er get the job? Does anyone think Bush* is going to nominate Nadir or Dean to do this job?

Tell me WHAT I'm fighting for, and I might join the fight. Tell me I'm a chicken because I disagree isn't going to win me over.

[Junkdrawer]

1. Assuming Kerry wins, how hard will it be to fire the guy?

Didn't Hoover tie up the FBI for a looong time?

[chiburb]

3. Yeah, but Hoover had pictures and tapes of everyone...

If they had anything on Kerry we'd have heard it by now...

[Junkdrawer]

9. My point is that a non-cabinet post doesn't USUALLY turn over...

with a new administration.

[sangh0]

8. So your answer is that you can't tell me what we would gain?

.

[Junkdrawer]

12. What? You think Porter Goss would be good for the CIA?

So the Chimp's last move is to tie up the CIA. Wonderful.

[sangh0]

16. Please don't put words in my mouth

I asked a question. I don't know how or why you thought that was an expression of an opinion. It was a question.

The question mark at the end should have clued you in to that.

[Junkdrawer]

23. My response should have been that we would gain the opportunity...

to name the CIA director.

I hadn't figured that you were that slow on the uptake. My mistake.

[sangh0]

28. But you're wrong

There's only one way to gain the opportunity to NAME the next CIA director, and that's to have Kerry re-defeat Bush* in 2004.

If we defeat Goss, Bush* is still in the WH, and *HE* will nominate someone, and it won't be any of us.

I wasn't smart enough to realize you don't know who is sitting in the WH right now. I thought everybody knew that.

[mac56]

33. Bush* is still in the WH, and *HE* will nominate someone,..

and if it's someone else like Goss, we'll do it again.

Add on edit: And having done it once, it may be easier the next time.

I think many of us have given you reasons to oppose this appointment. I'm not sure where the threshold is that makes you feel comfortable.

[sangh0]

36. Under that scenario

we don't get the investigation we want. Defeating nominations won't get us the investigation we want.

I think many of us have given you reasons to oppose this appointment. I'm not sure where the threshold is that makes you feel comfortable

I thought I was clear on this, but I guess I was wrong. So let me try again.

What would make me comfortable about opposing Goss' appointment would be for sometime to explain to me what we gain by opposing it.

[mac56]

40. Quite a long list of gains here.

Clearly we've failed to help you feel comfortable. More's the pity.

[sangh0]

43. Repeating that won't make it true

and in re-reading your posts in this thread, I see you don't name one gain. You do tell me why I SHOULD oppose Goss, but you don't mention what we would gain from doing so.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

38. It's is not very hard

CIA director has been a revolving door for many years, and while there may be some problems getting one of ours confirmed, it will be easy for Kerry to fire Goss. All has to do is utter two words, "You're fired"

[Junkdrawer]

53. IF Kerry wins, he will have to get a new Cabinet confirmed by..

a REPUBLICAN Senate. And you're saying that, in the middle of a war on terror, his first move will be to fire Goss?

Betcha he doesn't.

[sangh0]

55. "Betch he doesn't" is not very convincing

and the Senate may not be repuke in 2005/

[Junkdrawer]

56. Yesterday, NPR went down the list of safe vs, "up for grabs" Senate...

seats. 2005 will see a Republican Senate. Obama is one of the only rays of hope in a pretty grim picture.

Again: Democrats seat Republican cabinets. Republicans fight Democratic cabinets tooth-and-nail.

And the CIA director is not a Cabinet post, so, in your scenario, Kerry would be starting the fight by firing a Republican from a non-cabinet post.

[sangh0]

57. If NPR thinks Obama is the "only ray of hope"

then they are way off base IMO.

And according to your logic, since the repukes always fight tooth and nail, then Kerry would have nothing to lose by firing Goss.

[Junkdrawer]

60. Well, I've given you my arguments. Let's see how long Porter Goss...

holds down the job. Now, if you'll excuse me, my wife has a wall she wants me to paint.

[sangh0]

61. True, none of us can be certain

the best we can do is examine the facts, and come to our own conclusions.

[Uzybone]

65. and in the middle of a war on terror

fighting the nominee to lead the CIA is a smart thing?

[Junkdrawer]

26. PS: It seems to me that YOU'RE putting words into everyone's mouth with..

your smart ass "So your answer is that you can't tell me what we would gain?" responses everywhere.

[genius]

2. Your life and the life of your family depend on it. We need an

independent CIA. If Goss gets in, there will be a national emergency that will cost Kerry the election- guaranteed.

[sangh0]

10. So you think we would gain releif from a manufactured nat'l emergency?

And do you really think Goss is the only one who could pull that off, and if we defeat Goss, no one else will be able to do it?

[genius]

20. The CIA is against Bush. WE need to keep them on our side.

[sangh0]

29. .

.

[wurzel]

4. We gain nothing from opposing Goss.

But the hearings might expose Cheney's relationship with CIA.

[sangh0]

11. Can you be more specific?

I suspect most people realize that the Vice President has a relationship with the CIA.

[wurzel]

30. I suspect they don't.

Remember, the "unanimous 911 report" said there was "no pressure" on CIA before the invasion of Iraq. Do you believe that?.

[sangh0]

34. So is this what you're getting at?

Are you saying that defeating Goss might help us shine a light on the way Cheney interefered with the intelligence on Iraq WMDs?

If so, then I disagree. Defeating Goss means that some other repuke will get the job, and there's no way they're going to investigate that. That's going to have to wait until President Kerry takes office.

[wurzel]

63. I think defeating Goss is totally irrelevant.

I think only the hearings matter regardless of who the nominee is.

[WI_DEM]

5. because if you don't think he is qualified for the job

you should oppose him even if you think he may just have five months in the job. It isn't like no one is running the CIA--they have the Deputy running it. If the next guy Bush nominates is also a political hack then he/she should be opposed as well.

[sangh0]

13. So you can't tell me what we'd gain, can you?

You can tell me what "I should do" until the cows come home, but if you don't give me a reason, you will not convince me.

[WI_DEM]

21. I guess I'm just politically naive

but if I think someone is not quaified for the job, I think it is a good idea to vote against him. But this is a decision Kerry and Edwards will have to make. Let's see what they decide.

[sangh0]

32. Maybe, maybe not

but I didn't start the thread in order to measure your political savvy. I was just wondering what we might gain by opposing Goss. Maybe I'm the naive one, but I just don't see why I should do ANYTHING unless someone benefits from it.

[rooboy]

6. Goss believes that the Plame leak isn't worth investigating. n/t

[sangh0]

14. So you can't tell me what we'd gain, either

.

[mac56]

19. I think he's saying ...

we'd gain a better chance of the Plame incident being investigated. That makes it worthwhile as far as I'm concerned.

[sangh0]

35. If tha't;s what's being said, then I disagree

I don't think anybody is going to investigate it until President Kerry steps into the White House.

[rooboy]

67. Are you NUTS?

it was THE CIA who demanded that the Justice Dept investigate the Plame leak in the first place. Bush's appointment of Porter Goss is the equivalent of his attempt to appoint Henry Kissinger to the 9/11 commission.

If Goss is appointed, treason gets committed and people DIE. It's that simple.

[genius]

22. A November 2nd victory. Please learn.

[sangh0]

39. You think opposing Goss will help us win in November?

How?

[tandot]

7. I am with you, sangh0

I still think they should rub it in that Bush is the divider, that he is politicizing 9/11 and the war on terrorism, and that Bush puts party politics ahead of the safety of the country.

But in the end, I'd not oppose him. Kerry can fire him whenever he takes over the White House in January.

[sangh0]

15. I'm not saying we should not oppose him

I'm asking what we would gain if we do oppose him. People say we should oppose him, but they can't explain how that would benefit anyone.

[tandot]

18. This might take of itself...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2203846

I guess there is a video clip where Goss himself admits that he is not qualified to run the CIA.

[tom_paine]

17. What we would gain...

First off, we would give support to the handful of independent Republican Senators (who naturally were out in the forefront of opposition, NOT the Democrats) who are not Imperial Clonesor who lick teh Imperial Boot.

Grassley of Iowa is one who spoke against Goss, there are a few others.

Every time they speak out like this, the Democrats leave them twisting in the wind the same way we ALWAYS leave our own doing so (lately) from FEAR of the Bushevik Party-Loyal Sub-Media and the Rove Mchine's retribution.

Thus, the message to the few non-Imperial Republicans is Join the Imperials or you'll get NO support.

And they are right, given the weakness of the Democrats for the past 2 decades.

Second, denying Goss is NOT just denying another cardboard cutout Bushevik, it is denying the Bushevik Point Man for CIA, who is already writing the final bills that will cement the legalization of Gestapo-like Immunity for the forces he leads.

Don't believe me?

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr2417.html

Pay special attention to tort immunity (and thus discovery, unless you believe Ashcroft would investigate Bushevik malfeasance in which case I have a bridge to sell you) for CIA DIA, NSA, Mercs, Hessians, Torturers and "cooperative (like Osama in 1985?) aliens" carrying explosives wherever in this country they damned well please.

What I am saying is that ALL Bushevik Stooges are bad, but some are worse than others.

Goss has said 9/11 wasn't an intelligence failure and that there was nothing wrong with the Plame outing.

Goss is essentially a member of the Bushevik ex-spook Private Army made up of the hundreds of agents booted out by the Church Committee for brutality and barbarism.

Goss was so dirty he got out BEFORE that went down.

No, Goss knows EXACTLY how to kill the last honest secotr of the CIA. He knows what documents to shred and what powers to abuse.

Stopping Goss has other benefits, especially when you consider the lawless nature of Imperial Ameika.

It shows the Imperials they can be stopped, which is important when dealing with a Hitler/Stalin/Bush type who only recognize being stopped and if they aren't, it becomes "law".

[sangh0]

27. The "gains" you mention are matters of opinion and point of view

I appreciate the effort, as well as the usual eloquence, but the idea that not opposing Goss "gives support to the Repukes" is a perception, and a perception that varies based on one's own individual point of view. You hear that some Dem won't oppose Goss and you perceive it as supporting the pukes, but that's not true of others.

You say that not supporting those Dems who do speak out against Goss, leaves them high and dry, but I would say that those who do speak out are leaving the majority who have decided not to speak out, high and dry. It works both ways, and the one you (or I, or anyone else) pick depends on your point of view. IOW, this is a matter of opinion. Saying that "Not opposing Goss is a concession to the Repukes" assumes that an opinion (ie "Goss should be opposed") is actually a fact, when it's not.

And as far as being the point man, and the bad things Goss has said and worked on - those can be done by someone else just as evil. They've got a full bench of evildoers.

It shows the Imperials they can be stopped

No, if we oppose Goss, Bush* will still be in the WH. Stopping Goss only shows that we can stop Goss.

What an act "shows" is dependent on how it is perceived, and that's subject to opinion, and not just fact. When it comes to this issue, I am undecided, so opposing him "shows" nothing to me at this point.

If you want to have any hopes of persuading me, tell me what it gains for us, and not what it "shows" to us. I already know that they can be beat. I don't have to defeat some minion in order to know that Lucifer himself can be struck down. I'm tired of symbols.

Tell me what I'm fighting for.

[tom_paine]

46. You want tangible, quantified gains. Lost me there.

We are talking POLITICS here. I'd love to be able to demonstrate a proof like mathematics or show you a nice conclusive Titartion Curve that would bring absolute scientific proof to the discussion, but again, this is POLITICS (or Totalitarian Kremlinology, if you will).

So you are literally asking for the impossible. It is literally impossible to quantify political gains in the way that you ask.

By definition it is opinion and point of view (as is Politics and Totalitarian Kremlinology in the end).

When I say it will hearten the small Moderate Wing remaining of the Republican Party, you ask for proff and I say I can give you none.

You asked for what we would gain, and again I say I would give you a Mathematical Proof exactly quantifying those gains, and such is impossible, like scientifically "proving" what Todays Financial Pundits said was the reason the market when down.

Was it REALLY or just speculation and opinion?

We both know the answer to that, and it is the answer to your first point regarding point of view and opinion.

You are asking for something that is simply impossible to give in a 100% absolutely provable way.

I gave you a gain which was bolstering the tiny group of Independant Republicans and encouraging others to stand against the Imperials.

You say that's specualtion.

I agree. So what, it's a non sequitur and an impossibility for me to give you the level of "proof" that you want.

Shall I rephrase it to make it more palatable to the quantification of what we gain?

If we support the Moderate Independant Repubs,we potentially encourage and SUCCEED, we encourage others not to toe the Party Line, and that it IS possible to stand against them,. This encouragement, not to mention the fact that it would build bridges to the Right-Center Moderates, is worth a lot in the long run

Sorry I can't mathematically prove this to 8 decimal places.

You are playing with semantics in that the Busheviks have gotten through virtually everything they have wanted, every one they have wanted, from the very beginning. The handful of things stopped, well, we know they are going on elsewhere under other names but that is another topic.

You don't see the value in showing the Imperials that at least SOMETHING they do can't be stopped butt cold? That it might make them think twice before trying something so outrageous?

Can you really think that the fact that we have almost (note I said ALMOST) universally FAILED in stopiing them from doing ANYTHING hasn't contributed to their insane boldness?

Again, my apologies for being unable to present you with a mathematical proof showing that if x is the number of times a tyrant is stopped and y is the number of times they get away with it (it being tax cuts or wars cased on lies, appointees who are corrupt and biased, etc etc), that the ratio of y/x as it approaches 0 indicates a healthy a flourishing democracy?

I'd like to show you the proof, but as you said, it is all speculation and point of view, like 99.5% of ALL political philosophizing.

I don't want to presuade you, sangh0. You cannot be persuaded, and your request for the Impossible Proofs indicates that's so.

We will have to agree to disagree.

[sangh0]

49. I can give you specific gains we'd receive

if we defeat Bush* on Election Day. I'm not asking for you to quantify the gains. Just point out what they are. I'll judge for myself how important and valuable they are.

And I didn't ask for proof. I merely pointed out how speculative those gains, and even more importantly, how the act of opposing Goss leads to the exact opposite effect you describe.

BTW, we've stopped a number of right-wing extremists from being named as life-long members of the Federal Judiciary. Bush* and the Republicans screamed holy murder over it, and held a week of hearings and demonstrations, covered by the media (of course) and repeatedly reported in MANY of the RNC's fundraising letters. I know this because I receive their emails.

We've stopped them before, so if they don't know it now, I don't see why this will wake those Independents up. We've also stopped Federally-funded school vouchers, permanent tax cuts, Gay Marriage Amendment, and dozens of other right-wing initiatives. The Repukes call us "obstructionists" every chance they get. The fact that we can defeat them is no secret.

Just to be clear, I don't need proof; Just a reasonable chance of success.

[gratuitous]

24. We should oppose the Goss nomination for several reasons

1. Simply because it's a Bush appointment, and the default position based on Bush's previous appointments is "oppose." (Cf John Ashcroft, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld)

2. We gain credibility with voters who don't know what the Democrats stand for: We stand for responsible government, free of cronyism and back-scratching.

3. Goss himself has said that he would be unqualified to work for the CIA nowadays; Democrats would then stand for the proposition that qualified individuals make better decisions for the agencies they oversee.

4. The directorship of CIA is too important to trust to an unqualified crony of the corrupt Bush administration. Democrats would stand for competent leadership.

[sangh0]

41. The only gain you mention

is that we gain credibility by opposing Goss, but you do nothing to show that that is true. You are making a prediction, and I don't trust your predictions of the past, nevermind your predictions of the future.

[gratuitous]

47. Having fun?

"Conjecture! {Squawk} Prediction! {Squawk} Opinion! {Squawk}"

Never mind, Sangh0. Just let it go. No sense opposing anything, because there's nothing to recommend one thing over another.

If I need more nonsense like that, I'll just click on another of your posts. Or go to a certain website. Thanks for playing.

ON EDIT: I can't guarantee that Kerry will win if you vote for him, but I advise doing it anyway.

If you need an iron-clad guarantee before you do something, I suggest buying the extended service contract on your next major purchase. Sheesh, sorry I care.

[sangh0]

50. I supported opposing the nominations of right wing judges

I supported opposing making Bush*'s tax cuts permanent
I supported opposing Federal funds for school vouchers
I supported opposing Bush* initiative to strip workers in the Homeland Security Agency of civil service protection
I supported opposing the Gay Marriage Amendment
I supported opposing Cheney's energy plan
I supported opposing tort reform

All but one the Dems fought and won, and I can identify benefits from each of those fights.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. Let's Try This

Dems opposing Goss can then elucidate their positions in three ways:

1) Despite the attribution of repubs that Dems are soft on national security, they could reverse the spin by saying they oppose Goss because they believe that a political insider could not make the sweeping changes needed to make america safer. The gain is to look like they are taking charge in the care and safety of America, albeit at the risk of looking obstructionist.

2) They could use this as a lever to demonstrate that they are now realizing that Bush is failing to make the institutional changes necessary to improve the intelligence system and they will no longer "go along" when they KNOW Bush is doing it the wrong way.

3) They could turn this into their version of "moral clarity". They oppose Goss on the grounds that allowing just another political insider to be rewarded by giving him a critically important gov't role is unacceptable nepotism and they must resist this. It's based upon doing what's right, not what's popular, therefore reversing the "we don't govern based upon polls" nonsense.

The gains are not, admittedly, monumental, but the risks are low too. I think this is worthy fight to pick.

The Professor

[sangh0]

42. Thank you, Professor

Those are some potentially powerful gains. However, as your own words indicate, they are far from garaunteed. For one thing, it depends on having the media accurately repeat our message.

But I'm willing to take a risk, if I have some idea of the odds, and the odds seems worth it. SO what do you think the odds are that the media would accurately portray our side of the battle?

[ProfessorGAC]

45. Sheesh! I Really Don't Know

At this point, however, i think we might be hitting close to the coin flip.

I think the media is somewhat deserting the sinking ship. They gave this guy the grandest pass in the history of american politics and he frittered it away, and i think that even some of the media powers-that-be are pissed!

So, at this point, i think the bad news about Li'l Georgie is accepted as something they can, and should, report.

We still have Faux, and the morons running CNN trying to be Faux while the audience for that tack is already gone. But, i think there is at least an even chance that it will come out right.

Remember, despite their best efforts, and that of the Washington Times and WSJ, Gingrich and his gang got blamed for the shutdown in their showdown with Clinton.

The Professor

[sangh0]

51. I tend to agree with you about the media

It may be possible to turn the media, but first we have to "flip" the public. If we did have the media on our side on this, I wouldn't hesitate to agree with you, and that might still be in the cards.

But thanks for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Perhaps, doing the right thing has merit.

Could be. Someone should try it.

[sangh0]

44. If no one benefits

what is so "right" about it?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. That's a pretty big assumption.

How do you know that "no one will benefit"? If his nomination is quashed by the senate, the country, not to mention the world, would certainly benefit.

Do you equate "winning" with doing the right thing?

[sangh0]

52. I don't know that "no one will benefit". That's why I'm asking

and so far, there have been only two people who have responded to my question, and while they have made a point or two, I'm still undecided.

Do you equate "winning" with doing the right thing?

No, I equate "the right thing" with "helping people". If you can't show me how something helps people, then I do not think it is "the right thing"

[kz1500]

54. I see us

Doing 5 months minimum without a CIA director, and that's before all the getting thru hearings.

Goss is a good pick, and could keep things going until Kerry picks and gets someone on the job, or he could keep him.



kz1500

[depakid]

58. It shows Bush is politicizing the CIA and rewarding incompetence

The guy has already said himself that he wasn't qualified for a job at the CIA!

Moreover, we're talking about the guy who was in charge of House oversight of the CIA before 9-11 and during the so called "intelligence failures" that led up to the Iraq war!

A high profile confirmation fight brings those issues into light and gives then Dems better media exposure than they could buy.

Also, Goss is blatantly partisan. Less than 2 months ago, this guy hauled a poster board onto the floor of the House of Representatives with a seven-year-old quote from Sen. John Kerry that Goss said had undercut the nation's intelligence efforts!

And Democrats don't see any gains from challenging him? Unbelievable. No wonder this party keeps losing.

[Joanne98]

59. The shredding of documents

The Valerie Plame case is on the line and the FAKED war intell. If Goss gets there first it's shred, shred, shred.......

[sangh0]

62. It's shred. shred, shred, either way

As long as Bush* is in the WH, the man running the CIA takes his orders from Bush*.

[jmowreader]

64. My reasoning won't fit in the Subject line--please read

Porter Goss was a company-grade Army MI officer and a CIA field agent. We're talking low-level involvement in hands-on intelligence work and no experience at high-level intelligence direction.

Goss was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. That is an oversight position, not a post from which high-level intelligence direction can be accomplished.

By "intelligence direction," I mean the capability to plan and conduct large-scale intelligence operations. Goss doesn't have it.

Now let's talk a man who does: Lieutenant General (Ret.) Paul Menoher.

http://www.topiaventures.com/topiaboard.asp

Paul Menoher is President of his own firm, Paul Menoher & Associates, Inc. which he founded on 1 November 2001. Prior to that he served over four years with industry as a Vice President for Business Development. He also serves on several senior advisory councils, including the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association (AFCEA) Intelligence Committee; Battelle's National Security Advisory Group; and the Association of Old Crows Senior Advisory Board; he is also an Associate Director of AFCEA.

Prior to joining industry, LTG (Ret) Menoher served over 35 years on active duty in the US Army, retiring on 28 February 1997, as the Army's Senior Intelligence Officer, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (DCSINT). He assumed the position of DCSINT on 10 February 1995. Prior to that he served as the Commanding General (CG) of the US Army Intelligence and Security Command; CG of the US Army Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca, AZ; CG of the US Army Intelligence Agency; and Director of the Army Intelligence Master Plan.

Before becoming a General Officer, he commanded the 501st Military Intelligence Brigade in Korea; served as the G2 of VII Corps in Germany; Chief of Collection in ODCSINT, US Army Europe; and Chief of the Combat Intelligence Division, US Army Forces Command. He also commanded two battalions and served in Vietnam and Cambodia.

LTG (Ret) Menoher was commissioned through ROTC at the University of California, Berkeley where he received a BA Degree in International Relations. He has a Masters Degree in the same field from George Washington University. His military education includes the Infantry Officer Basic Course, Defense Intelligence College, the Naval Command and Staff College, and the US Army War College. He also has an honorary Doctorate from the Joint Military Intelligence College.

His awards include the Distinguished Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Legion of Merit with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Meritorious Service Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the Joint Service and Army Commendations Medals, and the Expert Infantryman's Badge. He also has received the Military Intelligence Corps' Knowlton Award and has been inducted into the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.

He is married to the former Bebe Etzler of Dallas, Texas. His son, Scott, is a civilian employee of the National Ground Intelligence Center but has been called to active duty as a US Army Reserve officer and assigned to the Joint Special Operations Command, Ft. Bragg, NC.

I know General Menoher (through having worked for him--I was in the 501st MI Brigade at the same time he was, when it was the 501st MI Group, and he was Group commander) to be hard-working, incorruptible and exceptionally intelligent. He's worked with presidents from both parties and done well with both sides of the aisle.

General Menoher is one of the five best senior spooks America's ever produced and my first choice. If he won't do it, I have two more men on my short list. Both are SIGINTers (General Menoher is an all-source guy, someone who can integrate information from many types of collectors into a good product, which is more in line with what the CIA needs) and both were Directors of the National Security Agency. The first is Lt. General (Retired) William Odom. Bush will never appoint him, because

http://econ4dean.typepad.com/lerxst/2004/04/ret_gen_odom_pu.html

apparently, he thinks the war in Iraq was a mistake. OTOH, Kerry needs to put General Odom on his shortlist.

The other is Vice Admiral (Retired) Mike McConnell.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1996_cr/s960229a.htm

McConnell was the Central Command J-2 during Operation Desert Storm, so you probably saw him on television. This also makes him an all-source guy, but he was trained as a signals-intelligence officer. He was a rear admiral during Desert Storm, and we all noticed he was really young and really sharp--he presents himself very well, he's attractive, and his knowledge of intelligence is top-notch. Don't discount attractiveness; as much as I like General Menoher, he is one ugly individual.

(This is General Menoher:



As you can see, he's no beauty.)

McConnell, on the other hand, looks good on television and he has great presence before a camera--and whoever the next DCI is, he will need this skill because there are going to be lots of hearings while we throw Bush in jail, and they'll all be televised. He's working at Booz Allen Hamilton right now, but I think we can let him slide on that.

(This is Admiral McConnell:



Much better.)

Having said all that, here's the fuckin' guy you want as DCI if you really want to put the boot to Bush's ass:



Command Sergeant Major (Retired) Raymond J. McKnight, who all the intel community knows as The Little Mean Guy, has the intel chops to be DCI--he was sergeant major of the Intelligence and Security Command, CSM of three or four units, and was a collector in Thailand during Vietnam. He's also a total asshole who cares deeply for soldiers and would have no qualms about ripping Bush to shreds over invading Iraq for no fucking reason, ignoring the warning signs of 9/11, being AWOL...

Okay, let's sum it up: Menoher for breadth and depth of experience, McConnell for presentation skills, Odom for his opinions on the war, and McKnight for entertainment value. Any of the four trumps Porter Goss.

[KoKo]

66. No SanghO we should just lie down and let them roll it all over us....we

must be quiet and realize that speaking up will only cause them to attack us more. The best policy is a quiet policy...I won't complain over this..you have it correct on this. :-)'s