PDA

View Full Version : Tenets Replacement


BMT (RIP)
06-04-2004, 18:35
Tenet is just about history. Who do you think will get his job?

BMT
Jr. FOG

Roguish Lawyer
06-04-2004, 18:39
The question is who will, not who should, right?

I'd say Giuliani.

Airbornelawyer
06-04-2004, 20:58
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
The question is who will, not who should, right?

I'd say Giuliani. The Administration does not appear to have the stomach for a contentious confirmation battle before the election. Senate Democrats will also try to use the hearings to revisit the message they tried with the 9/11 Commission (which seems to be "damned if you do, damned if you don't" regarding everything from profiling to preemption). I expect a non-controversial low-key professional intelligence type promoted from within. Someone like John McLaughlin (the one that doesn't yell at Mort Kondracke and Freddie "the Beetle" Barnes). I also expect that "damned if you do, damned if you don't" will apply and no matter how "non-controversial", SenDems will try to turn it ugly. The alternative is to appoint an interim director and wait until after the election to send someone for confirmation.

Roguish Lawyer
06-04-2004, 21:01
Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
The Administration does not appear to have the stomach for a contentious confirmation battle before the election.

This is why I think Giuliani has to be the favorite if he'll take the job. He still is riding the wave of his 9-11 glory. He'd be tough to oppose.

Radar Rider
06-05-2004, 06:07
I should get the job. I'd do it correctly, without worrying about politics.

DanUCSB
06-05-2004, 14:34
Forgive me if I'm a bit uninformed on the subject, but what qualifications would Giuliani bring with him, other than public esteem for his 9/11 activities? IIRC, isn't his background as crusader-type public prosecutor (Eliot Spitzer-type) before he took elected office? Is there some intelligence-type work in there that I'm missing? Or are you mentioning him solely because of current public opinion/popularity?

(Unrelated: ha! 100 posts) :D

rubberneck
06-05-2004, 17:08
Forgive me if I'm a bit uninformed on the subject, but what qualifications would Giuliani bring with him, other than public esteem for his 9/11 activities? IIRC, isn't his background as crusader-type public prosecutor (Eliot Spitzer-type) before he took elected office?

The comparrison of Rudy to that attention whore Spitzer are grossly unfair. Spitzer has made his public name going after corporate fraud while Rudy on the other hand made his chops by kicking the legs out from under organized crime. Rudy had to deal with the very real threat of some wise guy putting a bullet behind his ear but it never seemed to slow him down.

I don't think the next DCI has to have ties to the Intelligence community, after all, the first President Bush was a former DCI with no intelligence background. Rudy has proven that he is able to turn around a bloody mess that was the NYC government after four years of David Dinkins.

The man has the brains and the star power to stand up to some of the more outspoken members of Congress. His demanding but fair management style will do wonders in Langley. Some of the career civil severants will hate his guts because he will force them to perform when no one else has but in the end ,much like NYC, the CIA will be much better off after his tenure than before.

Jimbo
06-05-2004, 22:02
The people who should be at the bottom of the list for DCI are anyone with a background in Law Enforcement or the District Attorney's office.

NousDefionsDoc
06-06-2004, 10:14
Porter Gross - after the election

NousDefionsDoc
06-06-2004, 10:20
Originally posted by Jimbo
The people who should be at the bottom of the list for DCI are anyone with a background in Law Enforcement or the District Attorney's office.

Cop hater!

Jimbo
06-06-2004, 12:20
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Cop hater!
Not true. I just spent the morning learning some neat tricks from the DC ERT team.

But Law Enforcement and lawyers have the wrong mindset for running intel collection and analysis.

Jimbo
06-06-2004, 12:23
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Porter Gross - after the election

Fuck yeah. A fellow Bearcat.

Airbornelawyer
06-06-2004, 18:28
Goss

A fellow Floridian (albeit not a native).

Goss might be a good choice, but he has little chance. George H.W. Bush is the only former Congressman to serve as DCI, and he only served two terms and had other jobs in between. As chairman of the Permanent Select Committee, Goss has been in a position to make a lot of enemies in the IC. He is also a conservative - his lifetime ACU and ADA ratings are 87 and 9, respectively. Abortion may have nothing to do with intelligence collection and analysis, but it is another reason for Democrats to try to use a confirmation battle as a way of rallying the base for the election.

McLaughlin will serve as interim director until after the election. The only significant change of course might be to form a blue ribbon panel on reforming the intelligence community. Building on the 9/11 Commission report (due in July I think) and other reports and reviews, this would present whomever is inaugurated next January with an opportunity to not just appoint a new director, but find a new direction.

In the long run, who is DCI might not matter as much if he is no longer dual-hatted as chairman of the IC and director of one of the agencies within that community.

NousDefionsDoc
06-06-2004, 18:50
You think he's too old or too political?

NousDefionsDoc
06-06-2004, 18:55
Originally posted by Jimbo
But Law Enforcement and lawyers have the wrong mindset for running intel collection and analysis.

Mmmm

"was a member of the New York City "Establishment," a powerful Wall Street lawyer and a Columbia Law classmate (1907) of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, although they were not close at the time."


"After the war, he was the US Attorney for the Western District of New York, famous for his energetic enforcement of Prohibition, and he ran unsuccessfully for public office. President Calvin Coolidge named him to the Justice Department's Antitrust Division."

Airbornelawyer
06-06-2004, 19:08
Too political.

Whoever felt their office in whichever agency of the IC's alphabet soup didn't get the funding or ego-stroking he deserved by the committee will play the "anonymous source in the intelligence community" game.

Democrats would politicize the process no matter what (which is one of the reasons I don't believe anyone will be nominated before the election), but Rep. Goss' pro-life, pro-gun and related conservative stances will be fodder for them to rally liberal interest groups to the cause.

Going back to "damned if you do, damned if you don't", of course, going with an interim director and failing to nominate someone will also be used to attack Bush, but will be less focused.

NousDefionsDoc
06-06-2004, 19:12
Interesting points. The whole confirmation process is really screwed up isn't it?

Airbornelawyer
06-06-2004, 19:23
Originally posted by Jimbo
But Law Enforcement and lawyers have the wrong mindset for running intel collection and analysis.

Donovan, Dulles, Colby, Casey, Webster and Woolsey were all lawyers. There does not appear to be a correlation between effectiveness in the job and being a lawyer, but the weight of evidence seems to favor the lawyers. ;)

After Donovan, though, among DCIs only Judge Webster really had more of a law enforcement than an intelligence background.

NousDefionsDoc
06-06-2004, 19:24
"Jimbo, Jimbo - Doc - Radio check over."

"Identify Baker Team - Donovan, Dulles, Colby, Casey - over"

"Talk to me Johnny."

Jimbo
06-06-2004, 19:49
I'm sorry. I showed very little conceptual complexity with my last statement about lawyers and DAs. My amended statement reads as follows:

The vast, overwhelming majority of lawyers and DAs should never, ever, ever get near an intel operation. I read in Ronald Kessler's new book that the real work tends to offend their sensibilities. Airbornelawyer, is, of course, excepted to just about everything a I say from last week in perpetuity.

NousDefionsDoc
06-06-2004, 19:52
Craptastic Crawfishin'. LOL

Jimbo
06-06-2004, 19:52
Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
Donovan, Dulles, Colby, Casey, Webster and Woolsey were all lawyers. There does not appear to be a correlation between effectiveness in the job and being a lawyer, but the weight of evidence seems to favor the lawyers. ;)

After Donovan, though, among DCIs only Judge Webster really had more of a law enforcement than an intelligence background.

Holy crap! All those guys were lawyers? I had no idea it was so easy to get a law degree.

Sunday is spurious logic day in my house.

Jimbo
06-06-2004, 19:59
Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
Whoever felt their office in whichever agency of the IC's alphabet soup didn't get the funding or ego-stroking he deserved by the committee will play the "anonymous source in the intelligence community" game.

Why is this statement in the future tense? This already happens. Everyday.

Roguish Lawyer
06-06-2004, 21:23
Jimbo:

If it were your call, who would get the job?

Jimbo
06-07-2004, 04:53
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/15367.htm

"After 9/11, the gloves come off."

-COFER BLACK, former director, CIA Counterterrorism Center

And he's not a lawyer.

Roguish Lawyer
06-07-2004, 10:17
Originally posted by Jimbo
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/15367.htm

"After 9/11, the gloves come off."

-COFER BLACK, former director, CIA Counterterrorism Center

And he's not a lawyer.

Looks like a serious dude.

And he's a Trojan!

Airbornelawyer
06-07-2004, 11:48
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
And he's a Trojan! Well, then I guess the glove stays on.

Roguish Lawyer
06-07-2004, 13:05
Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
Well, then I guess the glove stays on.

[/rimshot]

Maya
06-07-2004, 22:51
The ghost of OSS/CIA Past?

Maya

ghuinness
06-20-2004, 08:39
Mansoor Ijaz - Apparently he is being considered.

NousDefionsDoc
06-20-2004, 10:07
Originally posted by ghuinness
Mansoor Ijaz - Apparently he is being considered.

I would not support this.

Tuukka
06-20-2004, 11:49
Jack Ryan

Roguish Lawyer
08-02-2004, 21:36
Originally posted by Jimbo
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/15367.htm

"After 9/11, the gloves come off."

-COFER BLACK, former director, CIA Counterterrorism Center

And he's not a lawyer.

Billy Waugh's new book discusses his involvement in handing Carlos the Jackal over to the phrench when he was Station Chief in Khartoum. He's got my vote.

Jimbo
08-02-2004, 21:44
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Billy Waugh's new book discusses his involvement in handing Carlos the Jackal over to the phrench when he was Station Chief in Khartoum. He's got my vote.

The description of him in the book Ghost Wars is pretty favourable as well.

Jimbo
08-10-2004, 07:35
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Porter Gross - after the election

So should we start calling you 'Sage' now?

The Reaper
08-10-2004, 08:18
Originally posted by Jimbo
So should we start calling you 'Sage' now?

Not yet.

He said "after the election", the POTUS has picked him before the election.

We will see if he can survive confirmation.

This seems to be a strange move to me. He loses a strong Repub Rep in a safe seat to put him in a nomination process he may not survive, and even if he does, can be replaced if Kerry wins. I must be missing something here.

TR

Jimbo
08-10-2004, 08:30
I don't see too many problems with his confirmation. There will be some complaining about him being 'old-school' in a time of reform, but it he is of the majority party ( a big plus).

Also, this could be a signal that Bush expects to get reelected; a signal some undecideds might follow.

ghuinness
08-10-2004, 08:59
Originally posted by The Reaper

This seems to be a strange move to me. He loses a strong Repub Rep in a safe seat to put him in a nomination process he may not survive, and even if he does, can be replaced if Kerry wins. I must be missing something here.

TR

I heard he planned to retire at the end of his term and was not going to seek re-election.

rubberneck
08-10-2004, 10:58
This seems to be a strange move to me. He loses a strong Repub Rep in a safe seat to put him in a nomination process he may not survive, and even if he does, can be replaced if Kerry wins. I must be missing something here.

Whatever Republican that runs in Goss's district is likely to win so that I don't think it is that much of an issue.

Also, I don't see his confirmation being that much of an issue. The very last thing the Dems can do this close to election is to appear to play politics with a position vital to national security. Unless ther is some nasty skeleton in his closet his confirmation should sail through. If not Bush will make hay at Kerry's expense and it sure as heck would kill Kerry's chances in November.

Besides the Director of the CIA serves at the pleasure of the President. If Bush loses Kerry can always can him.

Maya
08-10-2004, 11:50
The only ripple I heard on the major medias this morning was that Cong. Goss had been critical of kerry in the recent past. I hope that this doesn't pitch a spanner into the works for him...his bio has him as a newspaper publisher and NOT an lawyer, not many of his kind in WashDC.

I hope you're right about the POTUS' move now instead of after the election. What we don't need is a poster boy scapegoat, like Borke was to the Lib's., right before November's election.

Maya

Blackjack78
08-10-2004, 12:20
looks like it's Goss.

NousDefionsDoc
08-11-2004, 07:36
Originally posted by The Reaper
Not yet.

He said "after the election", the POTUS has picked him before the election.

We will see if he can survive confirmation.

This seems to be a strange move to me. He loses a strong Repub Rep in a safe seat to put him in a nomination process he may not survive, and even if he does, can be replaced if Kerry wins. I must be missing something here.

TR

From what I can see, POTUS is conceding to calls from the left to name one now. As long as there's not one under consideration, its to their political advantage. Now that he has put forward a candidate, if they hold it up in committee, its to POTUS' advantage. It should also give them something to do instead of calling for blanket implementation of the 9-11 Commission's recommendations. I had also read somewhere that Goss wasn't going to run again.

NousDefionsDoc
08-11-2004, 07:40
PROMISE MADE ...

In June, Pelosi Pledged Her Support For Goss If He Was Nominated Because Of His Independence. "If Goss is nominated for the post, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that she would support him. Pelosi worked closely with Goss during the congressional investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. Whoever replaces Tenet needs to be independent of political pressure, Pelosi said. Goss, who worked for the CIA before becoming a congressman in 1988, has shown that ability as chairman of the House Intelligence panel, she added." ("CIA To See Change In Leadership Style," Chattanooga Times Free Press, 6/5/04)

... PROMISE NOT KEPT

Pelosi Says She Does Not Support Porter Goss' Nomination Because He's Too Partisan. CNN's ED HENRY: "Nancy Pelosi though, did point out ... that maybe Porter Goss is too political of a pick, at a time in the post-9/11 world where there should be more bipartisanship on national security. Here's what Pelosi had to say." PELOSI: "But I will say what I said before is that there shouldn't - a person should not be the director of central intelligence who's acted in a very political way when we're dealing with the safety of the American people. Intelligence has to be the gathering and analysis and dissemination of information, of intelligence, without any political, any politics involved at all." (CNN's "Inside Politics," 8/10/04)

Jimbo
08-11-2004, 07:54
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
From what I can see, POTUS is conceding to calls from the left to name one now.

I don't know if that's the case. The argument put forward by the Washingotn Post's ediorial (The Left) this morning is that now is not the time to name a nominess, since no one is sure a) if the DCI position will still exist in the future b) what role it will play if it does continue to exist.

NousDefionsDoc
08-11-2004, 07:57
When I say "the left" I mean the Kerry camp and the DNP leadership.

The Reaper
08-11-2004, 08:29
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
When I say "the left" I mean the Kerry camp and the DNP leadership.

I knew that.

TR

Razor
08-11-2004, 10:05
I see constantly changing a stance on issues and promises isn't Kerry's sole domain within the dem party.

Jimbo
09-23-2004, 10:24
Washington Post
September 23, 2004
Pg. 2

Senate Confirms Rep. Goss As Intelligence Director

Some Democrats With Qualms Vote for Nominee; Committee Moves Reorganization Measure

By Helen Dewar and Charles Babington, Washington Post Staff Writers

The Senate voted overwhelmingly yesterday to confirm Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) as the new head of the CIA, brushing aside complaints from some Democrats that he is too partisan and insufficiently interested in reform to head the embattled agency.

The vote was 77 to 17, with 28 Democrats joining all Republicans who were on hand in supporting Goss to succeed George J. Tenet, who resigned this summer amid mounting criticism of the CIA. Some Democrats who voted for Goss expressed reservations about his suitability.

The vote came as Congress continued moving toward enactment of legislation to reorganize the nation's intelligence apparatus in the wake of failures preceding the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and miscalculations about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The House and Senate advanced separate bills that would embrace some of the Sept. 11 commission's recommendations. Some lawmakers want Congress to wait until after the Nov. 2 elections to undertake the mission, but GOP leaders say they are determined to address at least some of the issues before adjourning next month.

The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee voted unanimously to approve a bill sponsored by its chairman, Susan Collins (R-Maine), and ranking Democrat, Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.). The bill would create a national intelligence director with significant budgetary, planning and supervisory powers over the government's scattered intelligence-gathering agencies.

In the House, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) began circulating a bill he plans to introduce today. Some Democrats and the American Civil Liberties Union complained that it seems to go beyond the commission's recommendations by adding anti-crime proposals that would expand the USA Patriot Act. For example, it would allow federal agents to obtain secret warrants for "lone wolf" suspects not connected to a terrorist group or nation, as well as identification requirements aimed at illegal immigrants, the critics said.

The Senate's nearly six hours of debate over Goss's nomination focused largely on whether the former CIA officer and eight-term member of the House is the right man to be director of central intelligence when there are widespread demands for major changes in the way the CIA and the other agencies operate.

The intensity of the debate was also fueled by suggestions from some key Republicans that Goss may be considered for the job of new national intelligence director with broader powers than those held by the CIA chief, a post that Congress is likely to create in response to recommendations from the Sept. 11 commission.

Rejecting suggestions that Goss was too partisan, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, said Goss understands the need for reform and a nonpartisan approach in making what he called a "fresh start for our nation's intelligence community."

During hearings before the intelligence panel, which voted 12 to 4 to approve his nomination Tuesday, Goss "demonstrated the qualities that are needed in the job -- coolness under pressure, a willingness to look at alternative views and, very important, a willingness to take a few licks for past judgments," Roberts said.

"Most important of all," Roberts added, "he demonstrated his ability to put the lawmaker's so-called partisan hat aside and take up the strictly nonpartisan duties of this critical executive branch office."

Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), ranking Democrat on the intelligence panel, disagreed. While Goss is an "extremely knowledgeable person" and qualified in many respects for the job, Rockefeller said, "there is serious doubt in my mind that Porter Goss can be the type of nonpartisan, independent and objective intelligence adviser that our country needs."

He said Goss has mischaracterized the intelligence record of John F. Kerry and other Democrats, while avoiding any criticism of Republicans.

Although Goss's time as a CIA case officer has given confidence to some intelligence officers, others say he will have to prove he is willing to work hard enough to master and direct the challenges of a post-Sept. 11 world. Goss was about to retire when he was tapped by the White House.

Skeptics inside the agency also say Goss never challenged the administration over the quality of intelligence available on Iraq before the war, although the caveats were available to him. Then, as chairman of the House intelligence committee, he refused to allow the panel to complete a timely study of the prewar intelligence process that led the inaccuracies.

All Washington area senators voted for Goss except Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.).

Staff writers Dan Eggen and Dana Priest contributed to this report.