In the Bush White House, after someone is caught in a major failure/crime/disgrace, an announcement of complete support is followed by months of stonewalling, followed by a Fox network tribute, and ending by blaming everything on Bill Clinton or the use of prescription drugs. The disgraced individual is vigorously promoted, both in rank & by Public Relations Men, given the Medal of Freedom, a warm Presidential endorsement, as well as a major book deal.
Not Goss.
He got canned.
Why the exception?
Despairation?
The shuffling of the President’s Cabinet?
Did he get a Bush daughter in “the family way”?
His involvement in the Foggo scandal. If it had been simple bungling, well, that wouldn’t reflect badly on him in Bush’s eyes. Embarrassing la famiglia gets you the kiss of death, though.
We’ll never know until some Admin insider publishes a John Dean tell-all book, but in this thread – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=370359 – there was speculation that Goss got the boot because he refused to consider falsifying intelligence to justify a projected invasion of Iran. If that’s true, then maybe the Admin is not merely embarrassed by him but miffed at him.
When the short list for head of CIA was released a couple of years ago Porter goss 's name was on it. He said I am not qualified and cant do the job. Bush put him in anyway.Im sure they told him they would tell him what to dio step by step. He soon complained about how big and difficult the job was. He was kept on for another year and a half.His function was essrntially to dismantle the agency. reports are that the morale of the agencie is dropping like Bushes polls.
Because they second-guessed him on the Iraq intel and on Afghanistan and on 9/11.
(See the plethra of books written in the past 3 years by former CIA employees)
It’s not that he wants them dismantled. He just wants his people running it. Which isn’t neccesarily a bad thing.
It’s when the CIA is filled with partisan yes-men does it become a problem.
There’s currently a power struggle between military and civilian agencies over who gets to control US intelligence gathering and interpretation. The Pentagon has been exercising more and more authority in this area, to the great irritation of CIA, NSA, and so on. This is why there was a brief flurry of controversy about an active-duty Air Force officer being named to head the CIA; expect a few more questions about it during confirmation hearings.
It’s pretty clear where the administration has come down in this confrontation, if you also consider, in another ongoing debate, how they’ve drastically cut funding for traditional border patrol agencies while shifting a growing proportion of the enforcement burden to military personnel.
Generally, it would not necessarily be a bad thing, but WRT to this particular Admin, it is necessarily a bad thing – because the second paragraph of the above post follows inexorably from the first.
They are consolidating the agencies under military control.Goss demoralized the agency and many experienced veterans retired rather than fight these jerks every day. Any agency employees that argued about WMD and Sadaam were in trouble. They want taem players and yes men. But they were having weekly sex and drinking parties that were out of control and could no longer cover it up.
The CIA could be filled with people GW knows and trusts personally, but who aren’t automatically going to agree with anything he says. They are supposed to be reasonably independent at the CIA, right?
Or it could be filled with people who rubberstamp all his decisions and who aggresively go after dissenters in the Agency and push a certain agenda no matter what it is, as long as its based on the administration’s talking points.
Hm. I’ve been largely unaware of this particular dynamic, but it’s starting to make sense. There are currently certain propaganda advantages to the Federal Gov’t in shifting as much intelligence activity to military agencies. Of course, this not only jeopardizes people’s jobs, but runs directly counter to 120 years of US law.
