PDA

View Full Version : Goss says he's unqualified for CIA job



DolFan31
08-13-2004, 09:48 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/221336p-190150c.html

P4E
08-14-2004, 01:41 AM
Once again, you have bought a piece of selectively-edited crap from Michael Moore and ran with the biased, wilfully-distorted and deceitful spin of a liberal media outlet. Are you capable of thinking for yourself and seeing how you're being spun, or do you just enjoy passing along bull****?

Goss is EMINENTLY qualified to serve as DCI. The skills he was talking about in the interview are essentially irrelevant to the DIRECTOR of Central Intelligence AND HE WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SKILLS PACKAGE NECESSARY TO THE DCI. Most heads of organizations of that size, scope and importance do not have and do not need more than basic computer skills. Nor do they specifically need to be fluent in Arabic.:rolleyes:

Goss was a CIA case officer for twenty years before retiring from the company. He was hired as a newbie about 40 years ago, when computer skills were only a part of the portfolio of a select few specialists. Would he be required to have finely-honed computing skills if he was entering the company NOW as a rookie intelligence officer who is singularly responsibile for his own computer operations in the field? Yes. Do you need your DIRECTOR of Central Intelligence to be ****ing around with his own PC? **** no!

The CIA has a hiring priority right now focused on new agents with expertise in Arabic. They can only make so many new hires, and given the limitations placed on them in the past by the likes of John Kerry, they do not have enough agents in general and have a special need for Arabic-speaking agents. Forty years ago when Goss first went to the CIA he was not fluent in Arabic and it was not seen to matter. What he was saying in the interview is that if he wanted to come in as a case officer today, he would need to have Arabic language skills because given the priorities and resources now, those are basically the only types they are hiring.

What Michael Moore and the NY Daily News have done is carefully select elements of an interview, taking them out of their original context and placing them in a new context to PURPOSEFULLY DISTORT THEIR MEANING AND HOW THEY ARE PERCEIVED. Michael Moore is actively, premeditatedly and intentionally DECEIVING YOU, and you evidently aren't bright enough to see this.

PhinPhan1227
08-14-2004, 01:54 AM
Michael Moore...unqualified to remain a member of the human race. IS qualified to be a "Richard Gere Gerbil".

P4E
08-14-2004, 02:17 AM
Just for the record, I am very familiar with Porter Goss. One of the most intelligent people I have ever had the pleasure of knowing served as his Chief of Staff on the Hill and went on to be his personal aide on the House Intelligence Committee after working for me as a press secretary on a congressional campaign. She had already graduated from Princeton with honors and earned a graduate degree at Northwestern.

I would MUCH prefer Porter Goss as President of the U.S. over George Bush, and John Kerry couldn't hold a frickin candle to the man in terms of intelligence, judgment, integrity or character.

P4E
08-14-2004, 02:42 PM
Alternative view

I pointed out this article and my comments about it to a friend who visits FinHeaven. Here's his view as e-mailed to me privately:


Moore had unreleased footage of an interview of Goss talking about the CIA.

He released it. Big deal.

What's your problem? I'd draw the same conclusions you do - he shouldn't need Arabic language or computer skills to be CIA director. So what? People might draw different conclusions? The Daily News didn't say anything about him being unqualified to be director; it just ran quotes. Yawn.

Who says it was "selectively edited?" You? Are you talking about editing by Moore, or the Daily News? Have you seen the entire interview, or read the transcript? Is that the basis of your charge of distortion and deception? Has it been released? Do you know? Have you looked? Do you care?

The CIA is limited by the likes of John Kerry? Did you know that AFTER 9/11 the Army discharged a number of Arabic translators because they allegedly were gay? Whose responsibility is that? Are we more or less secure because of it?

You're [...] wild-eyed and off-base on this...

P4E
08-14-2004, 04:39 PM
Moore had unreleased footage of an interview of Goss talking about the CIA.

He released it.

No, he did not. He released a selected excerpt of it, an excerpt of his choosing. See the Reuters story on this topic. We both know that Moore's purpose in taking this out of its original context, isolating it and presenting it in a different context was a disingenuous attempt to make it appear that Goss was saying that he would not be qualified to serve as DCI. Such is the nature of propaganda, distortion and Moore's endless lack of integrity.



I'd draw the same conclusions you do - he shouldn't need Arabic language or computer skills to be CIA director.

Thank you.




The Daily News didn't say anything about him being unqualified to be director; it just ran quotes.]

Selected quotes... taken out of their original context... and reapplied against a distinctly different question. Note the selectively revised context the Daily News established thru their lead paragraph. Note how the title of this thread is offered to us in the real-world context of Goss' nomination as DCI and how its selective ambiguity misleads the reader as to what is at play here. You don't need to be Noam Chomsky to see how this is being gamed and distorted. But that's apparently fine as long as anti-Bush forces are doing it.



Who says it was "selectively edited?" You?

No, Reuters.




Are you talking about editing by Moore, or the Daily News? Have you seen the entire interview, or read the transcript?

Gosh, no. Maybe that's because that paragon of forthrightness and truth, Michael Moore, CHOSE TO RELEASE A SELECTED EXCERPT OUT OF ITS CONTEXT.:rolleyes:




Is that the basis of your charge of distortion and deception? Has it been released? Do you know? Have you looked? Do you care?

Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Damned straight, even if it's inconvenient for Moore supporters to care, as long as it's antiBush.



The CIA is limited by the likes of John Kerry?

Yes.




Did you know that AFTER 9/11 the Army discharged a number of Arabic translators because they allegedly were gay?

Yes.




Whose responsibility is that? Are we more or less secure because of it?

George W. Bush, and I believe the policy is ridiculous and should be reversed. And I believe it makes us LESS secure. I believe this and state it now as I have before. Now, why can a person as bright as yourself not acknowledge that Moore is disingenuous and intentionally misleading? Why are you always playing the apologist DESPITE your intelligence and your credentials as a journalist?



You're [...] wild-eyed and off-base on this...

That's the cool thing about freedom of speech; you're entitled to say that, even if you're as misguided and mistaken as Michael Moore.

Hope you enjoyed the bait.:D

PhinPhan1227
08-14-2004, 08:51 PM
George W. Bush, and I believe the policy is ridiculous and should be reversed. And I believe it makes us LESS secure. I believe this and state it now as I have before. Now, why can a person as bright as yourself not acknowledge that Moore is disingenuous and intentionally misleading? Why are you always playing the apologist DESPITE your intelligence and your credentials as a journalist?

I'd love to see Bush change that law, but even arch Democrat Bill Clinton couldn't/didn't do so. I'd blame the American people who have supported the anti-gay stance of the US military.

DolFan31
08-14-2004, 09:27 PM
This goes for the current discussion on this thread and for the NJ Governor thing.


Its a fact that the conservative-anti-gay stance is what is destroying marriages(partly). If gays werent put to shame in society they wouldnt have married women then having adulterous relationships and wind up divorcing their wives later when they could no longer keep themselves in the closet. Legalize gay marriage and divorce rates will go down. Its been done before. http://slate.msn.com/id/2100884/

It also wouldnt cost jobs,some of them critical, as in what was mentioned earlier "Did you know that AFTER 9/11 the Army discharged a number of Arabic translators because they allegedly were gay?"

PhinPhan1227
08-14-2004, 10:36 PM
I fully agree. Further, what really boggles my mind is that Conservative groups complain that homosexuals are promiscuous, and yet they refuse to permit marriage and monogamy.

MikeO
08-15-2004, 01:46 AM
Isn't Goss a guy who pretty much is in the back pocket of Cheney? he is Cheney's "boy" if you will. If so, do we really want him in that kind of position of power? I mean, checks and balances people!

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2004, 01:59 AM
Isn't Goss a guy who pretty much is in the back pocket of Cheney? he is Cheney's "boy" if you will. If so, do we really want him in that kind of position of power? I mean, checks and balances people!

Um..Sparky..."checks and balances" refers to the three branches of government...legistlative, executive, and judicial. The CIA falls within the purvuue of the Exceutive branch. Of COURSE whoever Bush appoints is going to be in HIS back pocket. He will afterall be that persons BOSS. READ people!!!

MikeO
08-15-2004, 02:06 AM
Um..Sparky..."checks and balances" refers to the three branches of government...legistlative, executive, and judicial. The CIA falls within the purvuue of the Exceutive branch. Of COURSE whoever Bush appoints is going to be in HIS back pocket. He will afterall be that persons BOSS. READ people!!!
I know that. Im just saying it isn't good for this country if Cheney puts one of his boys in a high profile position. Especially right now. That isn't what we need.

We need the right person in the job. Not someone who is on the right to get the job. The leader of the CIA shouldn't get the job because of the political party he is in. Naive of me to think that I know, but I would hope something as important as this would be determined by merit.

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2004, 02:09 AM
I know that. Im just saying it isn't good for this country if Cheney puts one of his boys in a high profile position. Especially right now. That isn't what we need.

We need the right person in the job. Not someone who is on the right to get the job. The leader of the CIA shouldn't get the job because of the political party he is in. Naive of me to think that I know, but I would hope something as important as this would be determined by merit.


He is being determined by merit. Every report I've heard that doesn't come from Michael Moore says this guy is VERY qualified. Just becausee he's possibly loyal to Cheney doesn't mean he isn't the most qualified man for the job. Remember, Cheney has been involved in government and intelligence for quite a long time. It's more than likely that one of the best men available would also be someone he is close to.

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 01:29 PM
I think there were better candidates for this job however...

Thomas Kean
Joe Biden
Lee Hamilton
Bob Grahmn
Richard Lugar

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2004, 02:27 PM
I think there were better candidates for this job however...

Thomas Kean
Joe Biden
Lee Hamilton
Bob Grahmn
Richard Lugar

Joe Biden? Um...no.

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 02:48 PM
Joe Biden? Um...no.

Why not? He's been on the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Relations Committe for years.

P4E
08-15-2004, 04:38 PM
I think there were better candidates for this job however...

Thomas Kean
Joe Biden
Lee Hamilton
Bob Grahmn
Richard Lugar
So you endorse the intelligence credentials and good judgment of the people on this list?

That's good, -- because the majority of them have already endorsed PORTER GOSS as the right man to head the CIA.

Democrats Bob Graham and Lee Hamilton and Republican Tom Kean are in support of Goss' nomination. (Lugar almost certainly supports him as well and Biden probably doesn't, but I haven't happened upon their comments on this as yet.)

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 04:48 PM
So you endorse the intelligence credentials and good judgment of the people on this list?

That's good, -- because the majority of them have already endorsed PORTER GOSS as the right man to head the CIA.

Democrats Bob Graham and Lee Hamilton and Republican Tom Kean are in support of Goss' nomination. (Lugar almost certainly supports him as well and Biden probably doesn't, but I haven't happened upon their comments on this as yet.)

Im not saying hes not right for the job, but I think there are better people for it. Like with Kerry and Bush. There are much much better people capable of being President than those 2.

ohall
08-15-2004, 04:59 PM
Im not saying hes not right for the job, but I think there are better people for it. Like with Kerry and Bush. There are much much better people capable of being President than those 2.

The leader of your own political party said he was well qualified for the job before she said later he wasn't. My God your whole DEM party is catching flip flop disease from Kerry.

Oliver...

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 05:20 PM
The leader of your own political party said he was well qualified for the job before she said later he wasn't. My God your whole DEM party is catching flip flop disease from Kerry.

Oliver...

1. Want me to list Bush's flip-flops again?
2. Let's a see a link.

P4E
08-15-2004, 05:24 PM
Isn't Goss a guy who pretty much is in the back pocket of Cheney? he is Cheney's "boy" if you will. If so, do we really want him in that kind of position of power? I mean, checks and balances people!
Mike,

Porter Goss is one of those Northeastern Republicans with little in common with Dick Cheney. Goss' roots are in Connecticut and he attended Yale. His closest personal friend in politics is the very, very moderate Tom Kean, the popular former Governor of NJ and Chairman of the 9/11 Commission. (There is a link in the lives of Kean and Goss that lets them and their wives get together regularly, but I won't go into its particulars because I don't think it's a good idea to disseminate info about the social comings and goings of a DCI-designate.)

I'd be very interested in seeing what source led you to perceive Cheney and Goss as closely linked. The Democratic party wants to do any damage they can to Goss image, and Cheney is unpopular among Dem and swing voters. Associating him with Cheney would be a good political move for them, -- not that they'd put politics above a matter of national security, of course.
So... would you mind showing us a link where you got this Cheney/Goss coupling?

ohall
08-15-2004, 05:25 PM
1. Want me to list Bush's flip-flops again?
2. Let's a see a link.

You can list them as much as you want to, but the damage is already done to Kerry. He is known as the flip flopper. There's nothing you can do to change that reality.

Plus about 90% of those flip flops you listed were BS, but that's besides the point. :D

Why don't you give me your opinion about Nancy Pelosi's flip about Goss?

Oliver...

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 05:35 PM
You can list them as much as you want to, but the damage is already done to Kerry. He is known as the flip flopper. There's nothing you can do to change that reality.

Plus about 90% of those flip flops you listed were BS, but that's besides the point. :D

Why don't you give me your opinion about Nancy Pelosi's flip about Goss?

Oliver...

Once again, personally, I dont have a problem with Goss as CIA Director, although there are better people for the job. But, we need a CIA Director, and we dont have a choice really on who it is. Usually when a President appoints someone to high position such as that, the majority of Congress usually goes along with it, no matter what party has either branch. Its probably wrong to attack Goss for being a CIA Director, but really, what changes does he plan on making to the flawed agency? Id like to know more about that, rather than "hes buddies with Cheney" or whatever the DEMs may throw at him.

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 05:37 PM
Mike,

Porter Goss is one of those Northeastern Republicans with little in common with Dick Cheney. Goss' roots are in Connecticut and he attended Yale. His closest personal friend in politics is the very, very moderate Tom Kean, the popular former Governor of NJ and Chairman of the 9/11 Commission. (There is a link in the lives of Kean and Goss that lets them and their wives get together regularly, but I won't go into its particulars because I don't think it's a good idea to disseminate info about the social comings and goings of a DCI-designate.)

I'd be very interested in seeing what source led you to perceive Cheney and Goss as closely linked. The Democratic party wants to do any damage they can to Goss image, and Cheney is unpopular among Dem and swing voters. Associating him with Cheney would be a good political move for them, -- not that they'd put politics above a matter of national security, of course.
So... would you mind showing us a link where you got this Cheney/Goss coupling?

Id like to see too, I havent heard this accusation yet from any media outlet. :confused:

ohall
08-15-2004, 05:59 PM
Once again, personally, I dont have a problem with Goss as CIA Director, although there are better people for the job. But, we need a CIA Director, and we dont have a choice really on who it is. Usually when a President appoints someone to high position such as that, the majority of Congress usually goes along with it, no matter what party has either branch. Its probably wrong to attack Goss for being a CIA Director, but really, what changes does he plan on making to the flawed agency? Id like to know more about that, rather than "hes buddies with Cheney" or whatever the DEMs may throw at him.

The DEM's of today are not nomal. They do everything they can do put road blocks in the way of what the President wants to do. Short of the person being a DEM they are going to huff and puff.

Oliver...

MikeO
08-15-2004, 05:59 PM
Mike,

Porter Goss is one of those Northeastern Republicans with little in common with Dick Cheney. Goss' roots are in Connecticut and he attended Yale. His closest personal friend in politics is the very, very moderate Tom Kean, the popular former Governor of NJ and Chairman of the 9/11 Commission. (There is a link in the lives of Kean and Goss that lets them and their wives get together regularly, but I won't go into its particulars because I don't think it's a good idea to disseminate info about the social comings and goings of a DCI-designate.)

I'd be very interested in seeing what source led you to perceive Cheney and Goss as closely linked. The Democratic party wants to do any damage they can to Goss image, and Cheney is unpopular among Dem and swing voters. Associating him with Cheney would be a good political move for them, -- not that they'd put politics above a matter of national security, of course.
So... would you mind showing us a link where you got this Cheney/Goss coupling?
Maureen Dowd was talking about it on one of these news network shows.

P4E
08-15-2004, 06:12 PM
Maureen Dowd was talking about it on one of these news network shows.
Nuff said.:rolleyes:

Thanks for the spec, Mike.

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 06:41 PM
The DEM's of today are not nomal. They do everything they can do put road blocks in the way of what the President wants to do. Short of the person being a DEM they are going to huff and puff.

Oliver...

Didnt the REPs do this when Clinton was in office?

Section126
08-15-2004, 07:56 PM
I think there were better candidates for this job however...

Thomas Kean - Based on what?
Joe Biden - :roflmao:
Lee Hamilton - Now your'e talking......
Bob Grahmn - This guy is nuts, and is no "real" expert.
Richard Lugar - I know he is a Pub and all...but....... :lol:

There ya go...that is my critique of your list.

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 08:00 PM
There ya go...that is my critique of your list.

Rarely do we see eye-to-eye anyway :rolleyes:

ohall
08-15-2004, 09:04 PM
Didnt the REPs do this when Clinton was in office?

I believe the REP's went along with Clinton's appointment for CIA, in fact he just quit recently.

Oliver...

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 09:14 PM
I believe the REP's went along with Clinton's appointment for CIA, in fact he just quit recently.

Oliver...

I didnt mean specifically that, I mean the REP's did the same the Dems are doing in Congress(attacking Bush/Clinton with everything they do).

ohall
08-15-2004, 09:27 PM
I didnt mean specifically that, I mean the REP's did the same the Dems are doing in Congress(attacking Bush/Clinton with everything they do).

On everything? No way. The REP's went along with Clinton's un-UN war in Kosovo and most of his nominees when they were the minority in the house and the senate. What you have going on right now IMO is the DEM's are acting like the are the majority in the house and senate. They are not and they are playing politics in areas where poilitics should not be played by the minority party. This tact lost them ground in 2002 and I have no doubt the same will happen again in 2004. Americans do not like the things the DEM's are doing when it comes to complaining and poo poo everything that is going on in America these days.

Oliver...

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 09:41 PM
On everything? No way. The REP's went along with Clinton's un-UN war in Kosovo and most of his nominees when they were the minority in the house and the senate. What you have going on right now IMO is the DEM's are acting like the are the majority in the house and senate. They are not and they are playing politics in areas where poilitics should not be played by the minority party. This tact lost them ground in 2002 and I have no doubt the same will happen again in 2004. Americans do not like the things the DEM's are doing when it comes to complaining and poo poo everything that is going on in America these days.

Oliver...

You cant speak for a majority of Americans considering the country is split in half right now. Id say Americans do not like the things Bush and the REPS are doing when it comes to policies and such. See? I cant speak for a majority of Americans either. No poll says a majority of Americans think either way. Its split.

ohall
08-15-2004, 10:13 PM
You cant speak for a majority of Americans considering the country is split in half right now. Id say Americans do not like the things Bush and the REPS are doing when it comes to policies and such. See? I cant speak for a majority of Americans either. No poll says a majority of Americans think either way. Its split.

Wrong I can. That is why DEM's lost major ground the last national elections took place in 2002.

The DEM's need to start acting like the minority force in government not the majority. That's if they are smart that is.

Aren't you the guy who always says polls don't mean a thing?

Oliver...

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 10:25 PM
Wrong I can. That is why DEM's lost major ground the last national elections took place in 2002.

The DEM's need to start acting like the minority force in government not the majority. That's if they are smart that is.

Aren't you the guy who always says polls don't mean a thing?

Oliver...

The DEMs lost major ground in 2002 because most Americans felt that REPs would protect them better against terrorism and because Bush had such high approval ratings that most wanted to help him out anyway they can. Its a different country now than it was 2 years ago. :eek:

ohall
08-15-2004, 11:35 PM
The DEMs lost major ground in 2002 because most Americans felt that REPs would protect them better against terrorism and because Bush had such high approval ratings that most wanted to help him out anyway they can. Its a different country now than it was 2 years ago. :eek:

I guess you do believe in polls then and I guess we'll see just how the country is the same or different in November.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
08-16-2004, 12:09 AM
Why not? He's been on the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Relations Committe for years.


Because Biden is SO partisan that I could see him withholding information from Bush just to damage him...and too bad if people die in the process. It's like suggesting that the best person to head security at Microsoft is the Security chief from Apple. He might very well have the best resume, but it would still be a REALLY bad idea. I'd say the same thing if you suggested that Dick Cheney would head the CIA for John KErry. His skills aren't the issue when his loyalties would be conflicted.