Democrats & Liberals Archives

Goss Out - Hayden In?

The surprise resignation of Porter Goss of the CIA is being pinned on one of Gloss’ top appointments (Kyle Foggo) being involved in the Cunningham sex scandal (Nation 5/05/06). While this may be a stimulus (or excuse) for moving on, Goss and Negroponte have not played well together, and there has been conflict over the division of power between Homeland Security (Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence) and Goss (as head of the CIA). Don’t you hate it when the in crowd doesn’t play well together?

Both Negroponte and Goss are long time insiders who have done the dirty deeds and kept quiet about it. Both have fulfilled their roles of loading up their respective areas with cronies and focusing on supporting the Bush administration and its policies. This focus was clear in Goss' memo to CIA employees:

"Porter J. Goss, the newly appointed Director of Central Intelligence, wrote an internal memorandum to all employees of his agency telling them, "[Our job is to] support the administration and its policies in our work. As agency employees, we do not identify with, support, or champion opposition to the administration or its policies."" Johnson, Mother Jones, 11/24/04

Now we have General Michael V. Hayden to be the likely next CIA head. Hayden has credentials for the job - particularly from a Bush Administration perspective. It was Hayden who oversaw (oversees?) the NSA illegal surveillance activities. Just as Gonzales continues to make the case for warrantless surveillance and torture as head of DoJ, Hayden has supported the right to spy on whoever the President orders.

Hayden is a General in the U.S. Airforce - a promotion he received on April 22, 2005 the day after he was confirmed as Deputy Director of National Intelligence (Wikipedia). In fact, he has been in the military serving in a variety of interesting posts having also served as the head of the NSA and the Air Intelligence Agency, and filled a post at the Nation Security Council.

One has to wonder if the hand of Rumsfeld is assisting Hayden's high placement at the NSA and the Office of the Director of National Security as part of the compromise between Negroponte (civilian) and Rumsfeld (defense) for control of national security. It has been clear that there is an ongoing power struggle by Rumsfeld to expand the reach of the military into domestic affairs - and he has particular interest in control of "intelligence" at all levels. While the placement of Hayden at NSA and ODNI should raise some questions, placing an active Airforce General in charge of the Central Intelligence Agency should ring alarm bells. Afterall, the CIA is a civilian agency is it not? (Though there were those reports of CIA in charge of torture at a variety of military prisons including Abu Ghraib). Should General Hayden be required to resign his commission to be head of CIA, and would it make any difference? (And who has been paying him? The Airforce or the various government agencies, or both?)

Perhaps, what we are seeing is the real cost of Negroponte at Homeland Security and ODNI - the military (aka Rumsfeld) really is in charge. No wonder he won't step down - or be kicked out. To whom would Bush give such power? Perhaps General Boykin? You remember General Boykin, he is the evangelical General who campaigned for Bush saying that Bush had been elected by God. He was also "pivotal" in reforming Abu Ghraib. Certainly, he is a believer - in Bush, and God's blessing of Bush and all he does. Perhaps he will just replace Hayden at ODNI and the NSA and the NSC. There are still two and a half years (at least) to "transform" to world to meet the Bush "vision."

Posted by Rowan Wolf at May 6, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #145899

When George W. Bush said “your either with us or your against us”, was he talking to me, was he talking to me, and you, to America or was he talking to illegal immigrants, or perhaps he was talking to God; and God said.. …… ….. ….

Posted by: Nedrea Richards at May 6, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #145903

If Democrats retake the House, they can slow the White House down, and ameliorate some of the potential harm by DoD, Intelligence communities and Homeland Defense with investigations and oversight that cause them to second guess and rein in their legally more risky policies and tactics.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 6, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #145911

THere’s an old saying: If the CIA does something right you’ll never hear a word about it, but if it does something wrong it’ll be in all the papers.

Bush has been destroying the very policies and soft power that this country has culminated for the last 30 or so years that makes us the good guys, blowing it all on a whim with his Don Quixote-esque windmill chase for WMD and ruining relations with our international allies. This is the first president I’ve ever seen that is hated and despied the entire world over. Perhaps the most hated American president in all of American history.

The CIA essentially embarrassed Bush on numerous occasions during and after the Iraq build-up and Bush sent in Goss to get them damn analysts, questioners and naysayers from embarrassing his pampered oilrich butt ever again. That’s what I see in all of this—a vendetta appointment so Bush doesn’t look monomaniacally blind to the facts about war and what planning actually entails such as an endgame

I hope there’s a nice scandal to go with all this foreplay, something with gay hookers and bribery and governement contracts frought with crap we don’t need.

Let’s face it that’s what Bush brought in Porter Goss for—to “de-liberalize” the CIA, which by no means is a liberal institution in the least. What does someone call a politician who does that?—starts with an “A” and ends with a “hole”. I hope we get all these self-centered Bushite d*cks in our system hiding behind all of their political schemes to win press favor so no one can question this naked emporer of theirs.

Let’s get all those “leaks” that make Bush look like the myopic dumb-*ss he really is. Granted the European Torture thing didn’t pan out so does that really count as a leak anyway?

See here’s the thing the Republicans play politics and not real national security. It’s all about straightening up deckchairs on sinking oceanliners to make themselves look good and heroic when it’s really all about the icebergs and what’s up ahead. the republicans don’t care about what is up ahead and that is what these various posts are all about. Republican answers are all Bullshit—republicans intend to do nothing that furthers us as a nation, they never have so they bullshit us all front and center.

Bush clearly has no idea what he is doing and appointing Florida congressman Goss in the first place is testament to that fact. Bush is a dolt and the NSI screws everything up immensely. I can just imagine Bush explaining it—“It’s like a parent company for the CIA.” Again, what a dolt. I suspect any form of “intelligence” just is not the man’s bailiwick.

So Porter got out all them darned liberals who looked over the piles of analysis and data and detracted from heir Bush’s misguided windmill hunt with his government contractor cronies. Why doesn’t the press call this spade a spade?—Goss was sent in on a retribution agenda to get all the intelligent intelligence people out and only the Bush supporting lackies and lemmings are valued. An agency full of nodding heads behind GW nutbag to go along with his every daft whim with a “yessum’ Bawss”.

So I hope for a big-ass scandal to follow, even if CNN (heir gov. spoonfed news service—AKA autopilot binge-fo-tainment) smooths it over. Something with gay hustlers, corrupt officials, government contract bribery, problems with umbrella agencies and sharkbait budget sharing, top it off with the works guys.

Posted by: Novenge at May 6, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #145927

If the NSA “activities” are illegal, then President Bush will get to share a cell with your friend, and China’s favorite President, Bill Clinton, since he did the same thing. Think “Carnivore”. Didn’t hear a peep from the left then. Back then atacking other 3rd world countries was ok, high gas prices were just the price of living in the modern world, and a slowing economy was considered “great”. Those were the days!

Posted by: David C. at May 6, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #145928

I know you think it’s the CIA’s job to embarrass the President, but only if he’s a Republican. In reality however, their job is to carry out the policies of the President and Congress, regardless of their personal feelings. If the military had taken that selfish and illegal attitude, Bill Clinton would have had to bomb Kosovo himself, with Al Gore ans his navigator. Alas, they were too honorable for that, and simply did their Constitutional duty.

Posted by: David C. at May 6, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #145933

Clintons not president.
Kosovo was a success.
Get a new angle to defend your criminal adminstration.
This ones pathetic.

Posted by: Norby at May 6, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #145935

Bush was talking to me? Are you talking to me? I’m the only one here.

Posted by: Travis Bickle at May 6, 2006 7:04 PM
Comment #145942

David C.:

Actually, the Left went *Berserk* about Carnivore - and, as a card-carrying member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU, as well as being a proud Liberal Progressive - I can vouch for this and the following - as well as:

- “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell”

- the Welfare “Reform” Act

- the failure to sign Kyoto

and a number of other Unhappy Things that happened on Clinton’s watch - most of which were the result of Hillary having taught Bill how to Ignobly Compromise For Political Gain after his one-and-only Campaign Loss as Governor of Arkansas.

Get your Facts straight: even though WJC the best this country has had since JFK - (remember Peace and Prosperity? I do…) - he was still no FDR!

Novenge: Right On!

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 6, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #145956

Good reply. Really very interesting. It is a great example of the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Most Democrats would agree that Clinton was a very good, and maybe even great president. Yet the same Democrats would freely criticize faults and errors. For Democrats, recognizing mistakes does not take away from the Clintonian legacy. As time goes by, hindsight becomes better and better, and mistakes become more obvious, but in the balanced assessment of a Democrat, Clinton looks very good.

Personally, I think the idea of General Hayden in charge of the CIA is a very disturbing development. Personally, I think government programs which eavesdrop on Americans without probable cause is odious. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of a secret FISA court in the first place.

Now, a Bush Supporter like David C might say something along the lines of this: I dislike FISA, I condemn Clinton for Carnivore, and I am opposed to the NSA program. Bush is wrong.

However, the typical Bush supporter believes in a Doctrine of Political Infallibility. With Bush, it is always about politics, never about governance. So in the example of David C (and David, if I misrepresent you point of view, please feel free to correct me), condemning Bush and Hayden is impossible. Instead, the line of logic reverts to Clinton did it too, and you only object because you hate Bush.

Over time, the situation for the Bush administration and Bush Supporters becomes impossible, because Mistakes are never corrected. And, once a mistake is made, opposition must be smeared, crushed, or silenced. By definition, opposition to the Bush can be nothinhg less than disloyalty and treason.
Criticism from a loyal oppostion is intolerable.

David C provides a great example of this, and another one comes to my mind. Take the example of post-war planning for Iraq. Contingency plans which anticipate negative outcomes are not seen as practical matters of governance; they are viewed as political oppostion & disloyalty. Military planners not onboard with the vision of a jubilant, grateful liberated Iraq are dismissed.

I notice commenters are unwilling to touch the subject of Republican polticians and gay hookers, so I will it be. As long as the corrupt politicans are punished, regardless of party affiliation, then I will be happy.

Posted by: phx8 at May 6, 2006 10:24 PM
Comment #145958

Novenge said:
- “… Bush has been destroying the very policies and soft power that this country has culminated for the last 30 or so years that makes us the good guys …”

The vaunted policies you refer to must include the acceptance of limited success and the acceptance of anti-American stance on all issues political and social. I hope to god you are right that Bush is, at least, making a dent in the low self esteem American foreign policy that we have carried like a stone since Vietnam.

In terms of the “soft power” that Bush supposedly squandered, it think that expired no more than a decade after WWII ended. Our anemic state department could not make friends in an orphanage with a bag of candy. Long ago, state department officials conceded that they agreed with their global counterparts that the US was hopelessly backward, greedy, and probably at fault. Condi reflects a different viewpoint.

The combination of a state department which supports American objectives and increased power to the intelligence community is a good start. Once we again apply harsh penaties for revealing classified information then we can empower our intelligence services.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 6, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #145960

Let’s do that.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 6, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #145968


Most Democrats would agree that Clinton was a very good, and maybe even great president. Yet the same Democrats would freely criticize faults and errors. For Democrats, recognizing mistakes does not take away from the Clintonian legacy.

To begin with, let me say that, for some little while now, I have been attempting to couch things in terms of “Liberal” vs. “Conservative” as opposed to “Democrat” vs. “Republican.” This is for several reasons: first, it obviates and removes from confusifying all of us the Weird Switch that was done between Dixiecrats and the “Party Of Lincoln.” Lincoln was a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal, as anyone who has read his letters will know. And the racist scum of the Dixiecrats taints the Democratic Party - which was Heavily Conservative in the South, just because of hatred of Lincoln. Essentially, the Republicans these days attract the Crypto-Fascists, whilst the Democrats attract the Social Progressives.

Second, let me applaud you for hitting the nail on the head: Progressive Liberals recognise and admit mistakes, and try to learn from them. Whereas Conservatives will defend a Mistake with a fury not seen in most of their rhetoric before one is made. This relects two things which are the hallmark of Conservatism worldwide: the Lies of Evil (to defend Policy), and the Shame of Ignorance (to avoid facing the humiliating Truth).

In a movement which is driven by shamelessly Evil men, who know their Policies do great Harm, and which is embraced by largely ill-educated and illiterate jingoistic xenophobes - who have been intentionally Scared-Witless by their Evil Leaders - this makes perfect sense.

I heard an old joke on the telly the other night, retold by an investigative reporter, which still makes me chuckle. “Do the Democrats believe in anything?” the Setup goes; “Yes, they believe in anything…” is the Punchline.

What it gets at is the fact that, unlike the goose-stepping rigourous Order of the Crypto-Fascist Right, the Left revels in Dissent, Debate, Contention, and Individualism. Which is, after all, what the largely Liberal founders of America intended. Liberal Politics is its own Check-and-Balance! I will take a Healthy Chaos over a Stultifying Order any day. Conservatism is the heat-death of the Political Universe; it is Entropy itself - i.e.: Regression.

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 6, 2006 11:46 PM
Comment #145970

Indeed. Let us bring back the Death Squads of South America and the Installation of the Shah in Iran. This is what goodkingned wants. As if the world did not hate us enough.

Posted by: Aldous at May 6, 2006 11:54 PM
Comment #145983

Good point about lib v con.

So… I guess Howard Dean was really, really right when he called them the party of white, Christian males.

Can a NAMBLA/NASCAR alliance be far behind?

And what does this mean for the poker fad? Will it fade away, or become even more popular?

In past sexual scandals, we suffered through seemingly endless 15 second episodes of fame for the likes of Elizabeth Ray, Donna Rice, the Argentine Firecracker, and Monica. Will any gay hookers step forward to cash in on their 15 seconds?

Will Porter Goss write a tell-all book?

Today, he left us hanging. He said it will have to be “just one of those mysteries.”

Posted by: phx8 at May 7, 2006 1:22 AM
Comment #146001

“Can a NAMBLA/NASCAR alliance be far behind?”

Yes - this month only! Racing Hats and little boy’s pants half off!

Posted by: tony at May 7, 2006 8:32 AM
Comment #146003


The negotiative highroad has been squandered under the policies of this admin. for the most part with things such as Abu Graib torture, Guantanamo’s lack of transparency, civillian bombings and the Bush Doctrine in general with such determinist stances as if you aren’t with us you are against us. That is primarily what I am getting at.

As for intel, the Goss appointment carried with it a rigid stance that is really antithetical to the nature of data gathering and analysis or even strategizing, which is a “the president is always right” modus operandi. If an intelligence agency can only analize things that support the presidents own view, platform or determined bodies of actionablility then it is lacking a certain balance needed in making good quality decisions, obviously.

The point is Bush was embarrassed by the CIA during the build up to the Iraq War (Part three) especially with analysts going on national television saying there is no evidence of Saddam possessing WMD (not to mention the yellowcake incident). The CIA was on top of it at the time as was Military intel.

Bush put P. Goss in after Tennet to get all them danged lib’ruls out in what is very much a non-liberal agency. So if they essentially were not in exact lockstep with Bush in all of his assumptions and assertions they were no longer a viable analyst or strategist. So thinking or coming up with a differing answer that was not in support of Bush’s rudementary concepts was a red flag.

Follow the leader gets the whole conga line killed if not just something completely unconstructive. Bush was embarrassed by people who actually knew something more and Bush’s myopia wouldn’t give him gravity enough to listen to reason—so after the fact Goss was the vendetta man brought in to get them loudmouth lib’ruls who went against the John Wayne/Sylvester Stallone movie living in his head. That is it in a nutshell.

Posted by: Novenge at May 7, 2006 8:45 AM
Comment #146017


“Our anemic state department could not make friends in an orphanage with a bag of candy.”

Yet our CIA was able to make enemies all over the world without even breaking a sweat.

However, the thought of a military presence as the head of the CIA should scare the bejeezus out of all of us.

Posted by: Rocky at May 7, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #146030

Who did the background checks on Goss & Foggo? How badly compromised is our government?

You are right, putting a general in charge of the CIA is a terrible idea. Who is responsible for this? Worse yet, this is the general who swears an oath to uphold the constitution, testifies before a committee that he knows the constitution, runs the NSA, and insists that the 4th amendment only requires reasonable search. He does not know about the probable cause phrase.

Who are these clowns?

Posted by: phx8 at May 7, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #146038

Apparently an Intelligence Advisory Board is behind the abrupt dismissal. This article has the ring of truth:

“Bush had already gotten an earful from Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte on the shortcomings of Goss, but the final push came from the “very alarmed” President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, intelligence and Congressional sources said.

Alarms were set off at the advisory board by a widening FBI sex and cronyism investigation that’s targeted Kyle (Dusty) Foggo, the No.3 official at the CIA, and also touched on Goss himself.

The 16-member bipartisan board, now headed by former Goldman Sachs executive Stephen Friedman, has the mandate to conduct periodic assessmements…”

Which still begs the question: Who wanted Goss and his staffers in position? Who cleared them and gave the thumbs up?

Posted by: phx8 at May 7, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #146065


Posted by: Marysdude at May 7, 2006 9:13 PM
Comment #146086

What this president, as have others before him, has forgotten is the function of intelligence gathering. The intelligence services are a part of an effective foreign policy. Properly used, intelligence gives an assessment of what is going on inside a hostile, or potentially hostile, country. The gathering and use of intelligence should be value neutral as far as ideology is concerned.

For example, let’s set up a scenario regarding Iran. Assume our intelligence services determine that Iran is six months away from developing a tactical nuclear weapon. We already know they have a viable delivery system. Our foreign policy towards Iran should be much different than if such development was five years out. In the second case, diplomatic efforts would be tailored to seeking a peaceful resolution with a win-win outcome.

In the first case, we should adopt a much tougher stance towards Iran, given the statements the head of government has made regarding Israel. A president who disregarded such a threat to one of our allies would be betraying both the ally and the country.

Intelligence should never be used as an extension of the president’s agenda or power. The first allegiance of the intelligence community should be to the country, not to a person. If the memo quoted above is real, Goss should have been removed from office immediately. That he was not woould indicate that this administration values loyalty to a person than the country.

Posted by: John Back at May 7, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #146087

phx8 asked:

Will Porter Goss write a tell-all book?

Today, he left us hanging. He said it will have to be “just one of those mysteries.”

Well, they’re all very Religious (notice, I did not say “Spiritual”) in this administration - and, having been raised as one, that quote sounds very Catholic to me!

Rocky cautioned:

However, the thought of a military presence as the head of the CIA should scare the bejeezus out of all of us.

Well, the CIA was formed from the OSS, which was purely a Military organisation. Further, many of the CIA’s officers are either drawn from the military, or actually breveted an officer rank whilst in the Field.

It is the use of the NSA (and now the CIA?) within the United States> - forbidden by Law, remember - which concerns me. And this horse’s arse is the Traitor who went along with the Warrantless Wiretaps by King George…

Here are some Tips:

- Never use any telephone but a Pay Phone - and always use a different.

- Never use Credit/Debit Cards: use Cash only.

- When you go Outside, wear nondescript Brown of Grey clothing and spend as much time as possibly *Under* something: use Public Underground Transportation as much as possible; try to move about only on Overcast Days.

- Don’t use the Internet: they can trace y-

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 7, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #146145

”- Don’t use the Internet: they can trace y-“
Posted by: Betty Burke

What does that matter anymore? Use a different payphone every time? It really doesn’t matter at this point, unless you’ve bought a certain amount of fertilizer recently. They cannot trace everyone all the time.

Yup, the government IS watching us, but what can we do? The only true power we have, aside from being the largest armed camp of humans on the face of the earth, is that we can believe that we can VOTE our way out of an impending dictatorship. If you’re willing to take the steps to avoid being detected on land-lines, then surely you’re prepared to abandon the more populated cities and fend for yourself in/on the wild heartland of America in order to resist the inevitable closing-in of authority figures?

I’m with you, but you should perhaps think a little bit more precariously about the unfolding situation.

BTW, I refuse to wear any form of inconspicuous cothing during my own efforts to liberate myself. 1984 can kiss my arse.

Posted by: Bill Courtney at May 8, 2006 8:37 AM
Comment #146176

Maybe we should bring back paisley shirts so we all look alike.


I don’t have much of a life, but I do enjoy what little I have.

When/if the time comes, those that need to be ready, already are.
Stirring up the primatives isn’t going to help right now.

Posted by: Rocky at May 8, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #146433

Hey Guys! Checkit out:

May 8, 2006 - The President Nominates Michael Hayden for Director, Central Intelligence:

Mike knows our intelligence community from the ground up. … He’s the right man to lead the CIA at this critical moment in our nation’s history.”

Wayback Machine time…

August 10, 2004 - The President Nominates Porter Goss for Director, Central Intelligence:

Porter Goss … knows the CIA inside and out. He’s the right man to lead this important agency at this critical moment in our nation’s history.”

So, my questions are: Is “inside and out” better than “from the ground up”? What about From The Sky Down? Isn’t that where the planes came from? Who’s really “The Right Man?” If it was Goss nineteen months ago, can it really be Hayden now? If it’s really Hayden (now), why was it Goss then? Is it possible that Hayden is Now as Goss was Then? And, if so, who will it be Next? Stay tuned, for another edition of Flip-Flopper In Chief!

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 9, 2006 5:39 AM
Comment #146740

Rowan, thank you for choosing to write for WatchBlog. If this article is an indication of future ones, your contributions of factual information and news which might otherwise have escaped my attention are going to be very much appreciated by this WB participant. New blood, perspectives, and information sources help keep the rest of us on top of our game. Thank you.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 10, 2006 12:46 AM
Comment #146776

You are welcome, and thank you for the opportunity.

Posted by: Rowan Wolf at May 10, 2006 9:08 AM
Post a comment