Posted on 12/29/2004 7:06:07 PM PST by wagglebee
WASHINGTON — The head of the CIA's analysis unit is resigning next year, the latest top official to step down since Porter Goss became the agency's director.
Jami Miscik, deputy director for intelligence, told her staff Tuesday she will be resigning, a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official didn't comment whether she resigned voluntarily or was asked to step down.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
He needs to get rid of all of these Clintonista holdovers, they are incompetent and seriously undermine national security
Cleaning House!
As infested as the agency is, I wonder if it wouldn't have been best just to do away with it all together and start a new one.
Already posted. BTW, she's been in the State Department 21 years. Not appointed by clinton.
She wasn't appointed by Klintoon, but he was responsible for her promotions.
She was appointed to her current position in 2002.
Damn, I'm just screwing up everything tonight! :)
She was a desk jockey who got her job because of affirmative action promotions. She screwed up on pre-war intel, so it's a good decision that Porter Goss is replacing her, IMO.
According to the article she joined in 1983 and was appointed to her current position in May of 2002. How do you know she is a Clintonista?
Okay! At least I got that part right.
Read my other comments, I made a mistake.
Now if only Bush could find someone to do the same thing at the State Department.
Whoops - sorry.
and definitely undermine the President. Their man lost and they need to get over it.
This is good news.
Time to get those liberals out of the CIA leadership.
> According to the article she joined in 1983 and was
> appointed to her current position in May of 2002.
If Goss is firing people based on results (incompetence),
then appointees and promotees of all persuasions are at
risk, not just those advanced by Democrat admins. Dems
may have expertise at mismanagement, but they don't have
a monopoly on it.
And the agency needs to know that, so they are clear that
this is about results, and not politics (well, it might be
about getting politics out of the process).
This recent retirement might have been due to performance,
being caught briefing the NYT, or something entirely different.
I expect we'll find out eventually.
Clintonoid isn't a bad name for them, although even Billy Jeff didn't appoint ALL the bad apples in the bureaucracy. He did, however, spend an inordinate amount of time promoting his sort of people all through the bureaucracy, and he had eight years to do it.
There were cadres of people in the FBI and the CIA that he rapidly promoted because they were willing to do his dirty work, and there were others that he promoted because he liked their politics.
Other agencies suffered the same problems. General Wesley Clark is a good example. He made it to commander of Fort Hood under other presidents, but when he helped clinton by providing the armor used to demolish the community at Waco, he got onto the fast track and was soon promoted beyond his competence.
Maybe you were technically in error, but I wouldn't worry too much about it. Nine times out of ten you would have been right, and close investigation of this case might also show that this lady did very well from 1992 to 2000.
"Now if only Bush could find someone to do the same thing at the State Department."
Perhaps, like for example, a super-smart black woman? I think he found that person already.
The State Dep't has been THE home port of treason within the US gov't since the days of Harry Dexter White and Alger Hiss.
Don't need to know any more than that. Good riddance to bad garbage.
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.