What are the reasons to fight Porter Goss's nomination?

[BurtWorm]

Besides the fact that he's a partisan Republican? My gut tells me that he's someone who should be fought, but is it only because he's a Republican asshole? What do the professionals think of him? Who is he really?

[Kahuna]

1. He's a partisan hack. After the "Tenet" fiasco, we need to assure

that our next CID is fully independent.

[rowire]

2. Goss Is Part of the Problem Not Solution

Our intelligence agencies are, by all accounts, a mess. Goss, a former CIA spy, is an insider and one of the people responsible for the current mess. These agencies, if they are ever to change, need an outsider who is not ensconsed in their way of working and thinking.

[KamaAina]

3. You really need a reason besides that he's a partisan repuke?

who would do Bush*'s bidding at every turn, for instance, cover up for him if (when) need be?

It may not be worth fighting only because hed'd be out of there on 1/21/05 anyway.

[BurtWorm]

4. That's my reason for fighting it.

But if I'm going to write to Clinton and Schumer and beg them to fight Goss's nomination, I want and unfortunately need more to convince them. Surely there's something specific, like his position on x, y, or z.

[tom_paine]

5. Goss is a corrupt Bushevik, he cannot be allowed even a momentary

control of CIA apparatus or the damage wreaked will be untold.

He believes there's nothing wrong with the Plame outing, and that the investigation of the leaks is policial nonsense.

He believes 9/11 was NOT an intelligence failure.

On this, he might be speaking as a Bushevik Capo, because they DID KNOW it was coming. They just sort of Let It Happen On Purpose...
In either case, he is beholden not to the Nation, but to his Imperial Masters.

But either way, those two comments alone should disqualify him as overtly partisan and NOT acting with the best interests of the nation at heart.

Of course, just as in Imperial Rome, these monsters rationalize that the Imperial family IS America.

The CIA apparatus CANNOT be allowed to fall into the hands of a monster like Goss for a MINUTE!

[Tellurian]

25. Bravo! Tom...

Your remarks are right on target. I also believe the nefarious Goss is going to destroy the CiA by making it his business to know every covert operative in the dept, and further be giving lie detector tests to all in a strategic effort to route anyone disloyal to Bush...

There is much more than partisanship involved here. Our very Liberties are at stake, as well as giving the Rethugs another pass for further erosion of the Constitution taking us infinitely closer to a dictatorship!

Anyone know where Kerry and Edwards stand on this?

[Zorra]

6. Here is a political argument maybe Dems could use, and a previous thread

with some good info on Goss.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=739904

Nothing should distract the CIA from doing their jobs right now. Senate confirmation hearings, and the transition to a new CIA director, could lead to disruption and chaos at the CIA during this critical period.

The Bu$h administration, through Tom Ridge, has warned the public repeatedly that terrorists are planning an attack in order to disrupt the November election. Here is a CNN article outlining these warnings:

Officials: Bin Laden guiding plots against U.S.
Ridge: Terrorists' aim is to influence presidential vote
Thursday, July 8, 2004

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A plot to carry out a large-scale terror attack against the United States in the near future is being directed by Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda members, senior intelligence officials said Thursday.
snip------
Arrests of terror suspects in Europe and the Middle East resulted in the new warning, said Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.
snip----
A senior U.S. intelligence official said the warning was based on "a very strong body of intelligence."

The planned attack is "an effort to disrupt the democratic process" before November's elections, Ridge said.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/08/ridge.alqaeda /

Clearly, it is critical that the CIA maintains the status quo and remains undistrtacted until after the November elections. Mr. Goss, by his own admission, is not qualified to step in and take over the CIA at this very critical time. Any administrative change would almost definitely lead to disaster, when viewed in light of the evidence and warnings that Mr. Ridge has publically announced.

Senate confirmation hearings at this time would naturally distract CIA officials and agents from doing their jobs properly, because they would all be interested in these proceedings that will directly affect their respective and collective futures. Distractions to the CIA before November could result in a deadly tragedy.

Therefore, Senate Confirmation Hearings on Mr. Goss can logically and prudently be put on the back burner until after the election in November.

It would be counterproductive and senseless to hold any Senate Confirmation Hearings during this critical period between now and the election. The CIA clearly needs to remain focused and vigilant. Any transition or distraction at this time would disrupt the focus of the CIA, and would undoubtedly cause an administrative chaos that would lead to a critical breakdown of the ability of the CIA to recognize and prevent a terrorist attack.

Any attempt by republicans to rush confirmation hearings prior to the November election can only be interpreted as partisan political maneuvering that would unquestionably, based on Mr. Ridge's warnings, put our country in severe danger. If republicans are truly interested in protecting our nation against terrorist attack, they would be wise to understand this fact, and agree to hold off on the hearings.

Otherwise, the Bu$h administration and republican legislators may be held fully responsible, because of their partisan political goals, for the deaths of many Americans.

Not only Senate Democrats, but all of our federal legislators, need to exercise common sense, recognize this probability, and take the necessary steps to protect our country by insuring that the CIA remains stable and completely undistracted until this imminent pre-election terrorist threat outlined by Tom Ridge is over.

[BurtWorm]

7. Thank you!

Now we're talking! :toast:

[Lefty48197]

8. We need an intelligence expert, not a political hack

What a terrible nomination. I think Bush has pissed off the mainstream intelligence community, so it's only the bitter partisans that he would dare nominate.

[ck4829]

9. Porter Goss has a political double standard

He said the Plame case is unimportant.

Yet, he endorsed the Clinton investigation of his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

[G_j]

10. Some good reasons here

http://www.balkanalysis.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=397

<snip>

Despite demurring in March over the prospect of a CIA job, it seems that Goss changed his mind as the months wore on. That he did “not want” the CIA post, however, seems to have little to do with his own concerns over his qualifications; in actual fact, he seems to have his sights set on a much bigger goal – the proposed new office of “intelligence czar:”

“…In June, Goss proposed making the CIA director the intelligence czar, with control over the CIA, responsibility for advising the president and budget authority over all 15 U.S. intelligence agencies. Critics dubbed his legislation the ‘CIA takeover bill.’ The 9/11 Commission said the three jobs are too much for one official.

Given his relationship with Bush and his views about empowering the CIA chief, it is unlikely that Goss would have said yes to the job only to have a more powerful intelligence official between himself and Bush. White House spokesman Scott McClellan did not rule out the possibility that Goss would eventually become the intelligence czar.”

Oh, now that’s a great idea – give a 65 year-old man with language and computer skills appropriate for the World War II era an intelligence post of unprecedented power in 2004 America. It becomes especially scary when considering that one of the first worries over such a post is a potential lack of accountability on the part of the czar who, after all, would have to answer only to the president. If that president is good buddy Bush, we can say goodbye to any thought of accountability.

...lots more..
http://www.balkanalysis.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=397

[BurtWorm]

12. I'll bet the fact that Jeb Bush will name his replacement

in the Senate was a plus too.

[whosinpower]

11. Mostly because Goss himself admitted

That he was unqualified to do the JOB!!!!!

Micheal Moore has the tape and interview to prove it.

[genius]

13. He wants to use the CIA within the United States to watch dissidents

Basically, if he gets in, we will wish for the days when we only had to worry about Ashcroft.

[ibegurpard]

26. I had heard that he had sponsored legislation along these lines.

VERY bad news to have a guy with this kind of philosophy at the head of the CIA.

[JetCityLiberal]

14. Local Paper Op/Ed today on Goss nomination

Everett Herald, Everett Washington

Link: http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/04/08/16/edi_editorial004.cfm


"Goss has a track record of resisting inquiries and changes to the intelligence bureaucracy that might have damaged President Bush. He opposed the creation of the 9/11 commission, opposed inquiries into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and Ahmed Chalabi, and when asked about a possible investigation into the White House's alleged outing of a CIA agent for political purposes, he responded, "Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation."

Goss does not appear to be an independent-minded leader who will work to reform the CIA in an evenhanded fashion.

Goss also is no friend of his potential new boss, presidential candidate John Kerry. Goss frequently used his speaking time in the House of Representatives to criticize Kerry's record on intelligence funding. If Kerry wins the presidency in November, Goss will most likely serve a very short term as CIA director.

What the CIA needs is someone who doesn't listen to Republicans or Democrats, one who will guide the agency away from the politicization and tainted credibility of the past few years and back toward independence and reliability. Given his partisan record, we wonder whether Goss has what it will take to complete such a task."


Sounds like a typical right-wing hack asshole, the kind b*sh loves and surrounds himself with.

Posts #6 and #10 were very helpful, informative. Thanks!

JetCityLiberal

[BurtWorm]

23. This was a very helpful post as well.

Thank you! :toast:

[G_j]

15. some quotes

October 9, 2002:

"Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and their radical ilk are at the epicenter of terrorist activity in the Middle East. Nobody doubts that. It is not debatable. President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and others have made convincing cases about the threats the despotic Iraqi regime poses to world peace and stability today—today as well as tomorrow."
And he added:

"Iraq has expanded its weapons of mass destruction capabilities against its pledge not to. It still has deadly chemical weapons hidden throughout the country, and it has tried to develop nuclear devices as well. It is certain that Iraq has ties to many Islamic terror groups in the region, including Al Qaeda. Evidence supports Iraq's involvement in the first and probably the second World Trade Center bombing."
---
"No smoking gun," he said in 2002, when the Goss-Graham report was released.

[Zorra]

17. Those quotes prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Goss is in no

way whatsoever fit to be the Director of our CIA.

A classic: "It is not debatable. President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and others have made convincing cases about the threats the despotic Iraqi regime poses to world peace and stability today"

That is all the ammo Democrats need in order to justify not confirming Porter Goss. If Goss is confirmed, we can just put a "Sold Out" sign on the Statue of Liberty, because it means our Dems sold us all right down the river.

Porter Goss is the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Yet he did not know that there is no evidence that Iraq had any involvement in the 2nd WTC bombing? Or that Iraq had no WMD? Puh-leeeeze....

How in the heck could anyone consider him for CIA Director?

HE WAS DUPED LIKE A RUBE! It is a very, very bad sign when a potential CIA Director, the Head of Central INTELLIGENCEis so easily and completely fooled. What's really scary is that even I knew Iraq didn't have any WMD.

Al Qaeda will run circles around Porter Goss. I have absolutely nothing personal against the man, but we might as well just kiss our asses goodbye if he gets confirmed.

Case closed. Next.

Heck, Dennis Kucinich plainly and publically stated that Iraq had no WMD in 2002, yet Goss couldn't figure this out? How come Kooch wasn't duped? Kooch would obviously be a far better choice than Goss to head the CIA, he's shrewd and doesn't let *things slip by* him.;-)

[Pow_Wow]

19. duped or lying through his teeth

either way any Dem who approves him is selling out the American people.

[Zorra]

21. Those do seem to be the only two explanations.

[spanone]

16. According to him, he's not qualified.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/goss.php

[AlCzervik]

18. He's a Cheney guy

all the way, thats reason enough right there.

[scarletwoman]

20. Billmon at the Whiskey Bar has a good piece on Goss:

http://billmon.org/archives/001630.html

The Night Porter

<snip>

Goss - last seen in Farenheit 9/11 giving out the number to an entirely ficticious civil liberties complaint hotline - is a former CIA operative turned Florida hack congressman who has made himself useful to the administration in ways both large and small, not least by savaging the reputation of the agency he once worked for and now hopes to lead.

In other words, picking Porter Goss to be CIA director is roughly the same as nominating Dick Cheney's little finger - or so says former CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

(much more -- worth a read, imho)

sw

[BurtWorm]

22. If McGovern doesn't like him, that's enough for me,

I think we should put the pressure on Dem moderates to resist giving this gift to Bush. No quick fixes!

[scarletwoman]

27. Apparently we have Rusmfeld on our side...

Saying today that the U.S. ought to go slow on making big changes in intelligence.

I'm all for a big bushco inner circle fight over control of intelligence -- let there be major disarray! If Dems are truly on the side of the People (*snerk* -- yeah, right...), they'll just keep their mouths shut and let the enemy self-destruct.

sw

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. A thug to head the thugs.

Goss said that he favors a "robust" CIA overseas. I translate that to mean that we can look forward assasinations, undermining of governments, and all the other lovely things that the thugs do.

Fortunately, they are a clumsy and usually inept bunch.