Posted on 11/15/2004 8:39:13 AM PST by RepCath
Or, actor John Roberts.
I have never trusted McCain. If that RINO is backing this, I smell a Rat!
Leaks can be made to compromise people 'in the know' and eliminate them even if they were not the source. Not tough at all for the bosses to frame the underlings, or for other underlings to frame each other. There is a power struggle going on here, the question is who has America's best interest at heart?
I would not go so far as to say the CIA 'crats are disloyal to the US, but they certainly ACTIVELY disloyal to the Bush administration. The CIA is part of the Executive and Bush is the Executive. It is Bush's job to set policy and the CIA's job to implement it. The same was true when Clinton was president.
Besides, the CIA got Iraqi WMDs wrong, they got 911 wrong and their track-record is abysmal of the late 10-20 years. A shake-up is just what the CIA needs.
I thought he was the one behind that but I wasn't sure -- thanks for the info.
When the media is squealing like this, Goss is doing the right thing!
I will. If they are democrats then they are disloyal to the constitution of these United States.
"And so we have, three months into Porter Goss's tenure at the agency, a full-blown war between the Bush administration and the CIA."
The war started well before Goss came along, it's just making headlines now.
I saw the WP article in The Seattle Times, and had exactly the same reaction as Hayes. The WP did not ask the OBVIOUS question: Are these CIA officials angry at Goss because he's trying to clear out dead wood and reform a sick agency, an agency widely recognized as having utterly failed to prevent 9-11 or provide good intelligence in Iraq? The WP seems so intent on casting doubts on Bush's appointee that it simply accepts uncritically any criticism of Goss and takes the side of the CIA veterans.
It's interesting that suddenly the MSM are becoming cheerleaders for the entrenched bureaucracy at the CIA, a bureaucracy that has been guilty of massive intelligence failures from North Korea, to Iraq, to 9-11. And the MSM are becoming cheerleaders because these CIA folks are criticizing Bush and his aggressive war on terrorism. Insane as it sounds, there is a big faction in the CIA who believe that we should do NOTHING to counteract Al Quaeda, that Al Quaeda has no interest in the West and just wants us to leave the Muslim world alone (and abandon Israel in the process).
"It's interesting that suddenly the MSM are becoming cheerleaders for the entrenched bureaucracy at the CIA"
That is interesting!--and after 30 years of attacking the CIA. . .The timing is suspicious. . .
That is what smells funny. The dog that didn't bark.
Roughly mid-Clinton, it would have been exceptionally tough to develop HUMINT assets in either fairly closed society. Clinton was too busy selling high tech to the Chinese.
Also, keep in mind that the Agency, like other Federal agencies, is somewhat at the mercy of the Administration.
I'm sure that between the Gorelick Memo stovepiping data and the Clintons wanting to cover their shady dealings, a lot went relatively unprobed.
I make no claim to any knowledge of agency workings, but if it is like elsewhere, failure to comply with administration policies at the time, no matter how altruistic or patriotic your intent, could lead to a new appointee filling your slot.
I'm not sure I trust McCain to determine who is a 'keeper' and who isn't. In fact, if he isn't complaining, that tends to raise a flag with me.
Hayes is asking the questions that the WaPo and NYT won't ask.
They missed Bin Laden, over and over again.
They blew 9-11.
They didn't know about Khan's bazaar.
We have no coup options in North Korea.
We have no coup options in Iran.
We have no readiness for popular revolt in Iran.
Venezuela wasn't on their radar screen.
Brazil isn't on their radar screen.
It is a very expensive radar screen, but the light bulb is burnt out, and nobody seems to be willing to replace it.
Russia is giving Iran nuclear technology.
China is flaking for North Korea, which is building nukes.
We have no concrete data on the actual nuclear capabilities of either one, only speculation.
Their speculation on Iraq was spectacularly wrong.
They opposed the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that we'd all get gassed if we went in.
Then they put the heat on their boss instead of taking any of it themselves.
They haven't produced a single high level infiltrator in the history of radical Islam. But a California drop out can get inside in less than two years.
Their brilliant insider reports on high value targets during the initial phase in Iraq were entirely wrong.
In the meantime, disk drives and laptops disappear from Los Alamos like clockwork, and China has our entire set of nuclear warhead designs.
They have conspired with French intelligence to plant false stories to cover French tracks on support for Iraqi nukes.
Then they have the nerve to pretend they are such professionals and experts we can't live without them. With intelligence work like this, why do foreign powers need their own intelligence organizations? Aren't they just using ours? The collective wattage on individual internet bulletin board threads exceeds that demonstrated over the last decade, by legions of supposedly picked and trained analytical brains of the world's only superpower, by orders of magnitude.
We weren't supposed to say this before the election because the Dems would just blame it on us. But that reason is gone, and the truth can now be told in all its stark clarity - these bozos are either traitors or so incompetent firing them is a mercy to them, let alone to the rest of the country. As an intelligence agency, they are a bad farce.
I love it when government empolyees who are traitors loose their job security.
Lets wait for the howls over at the state department.
The Mediots will throw a hissy fit as their leak sources dry up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.