SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (19803)5/6/2006 9:15:53 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Goss Toss

John Podhoretz
The Corner

I doubt there's a big scandal here, if only because the president chose to appear with Goss to announce the resignation. If Goss were somehow implicated in matters relating to Duke Cunningham, say, there's no way on earth Bush would have made such a friendly show of his departure. Seems more likely to me that there was some kind of showdown between Goss and Negroponte and Negroponte said, "Either he goes or I go," and there Goss went.

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (19803)5/6/2006 10:14:21 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Hayden May Have Helped Goss Out The Door

By Captain Ed on National Politics
Captain's Quarters

According to news reports over the past day, it appears that Porter Goss got helped out the door rather than leaving on his own accord. According to CNN, General Michael Hayden will get the nod to replace Goss, but an article in the Los Angeles Times this morning says that Hayden and his boss, John Negroponte, had a critical role in creating the opening in the first place. Doyle McManus and Peter Spiegel report that Goss fell victim to efforts by Negroponte and Hayden to win a turf battle over the component intelligence agencies of the National Intelligence directorate:

<<< After a little more than a year in his newly created job, John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, has won an initial battle to establish authority over the vast U.S. intelligence community — Porter J. Goss, who resisted Negroponte's moves to limit the autonomy of the CIA, is gone. ...

When Negroponte took office in April 2005, the veteran diplomat moved quickly to exert his authority over the CIA. He took over the job of giving President Bush his daily intelligence briefing, a task that once allowed CIA directors to bond with the presidents they served. He took a central role in briefing Congress on intelligence issues. He transferred some CIA officers to new joint intelligence centers. And when it appeared that Goss was not fully on board, officials said, Negroponte and his deputy, Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, quietly complained to the White House — apparently contributing to Goss' decision to resign Friday. >>>

Hayden and Negroponte apparently did not want an independent agency reporting their own analysis and using their own people. Instead, Negroponte has stripped the agency of its best staff to join his ever-increasing bureaucracy at the directorate while marginalizing Goss by denying him access to the president. In some ways, this may not be a bad development; after all, one of the main problems in the intel community pre-9/11 was all the bureaucratic barriers between agencies, even those strictly in the civilian sector. If Negroponte wants to create a single agency with one management structure and realign the operational and intelligence units into one organization, that will solve those problems if properly done.

The problem thus far is the growth of the bureaucracy under Negroponte. These may consist of analysts, but creating these positions eats up resources that may be best used in the field. We warned about this aspect of the 9/11 Commission's demand to create the DNI and his directorate, and Congress has watched Negroponte's empire-building with alarm. And according to the LA Times, Negroponte hasn't even begun empire building, as his ambitions have led him into a power struggle with Donald Rumsfeld:

<<< But Negroponte faces a larger and much more difficult challenge: a struggle with Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's Department of Defense, which runs more than 80% of the nation's intelligence budget and is busy expanding its role even further. ...

Already, the Pentagon's intelligence budget dwarfs that of the CIA. Although the budgets remain classified, the CIA is believed to get about $5 billion annually, less than the National Security Agency, which gets $6 billion to $8 billion a year. The Defense Department's National Reconnaissance Office, the operator of military satellites, also gets $6 billion to $8 billion a year.

Other Pentagon agencies have sizable budgets — the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the department's mapping office, has a budget of about $3 billion, and the Defense Intelligence Agency gets $1 billion to $3 billion annually. The individual military services, which all have their own intelligence-gathering operations, also have large budgets.

Negroponte declined to speak about these issues in the wake of Goss' resignation Friday. But in a speech last month, he said — in an implicit criticism of at least some of the intelligence agencies he supervises — that his basic goal is to "optimize the [intelligence] community's total performance as opposed to optimizing its members' individual operations."

"We are in the process of remaking a loose confederation into a unified enterprise," Negroponte added.

His key weapon, he said, would be control over the intelligence budget, which he called "a powerful integrating force." By controlling which agencies and which programs are funded, he said, he can nudge the separate agencies toward greater collaboration. >>>

Negroponte understands the Golden Rule: whoever controls the gold makes the rules. If he succeeds in gaining control over the entire budget, he will effectively control all intelligence for the United States, military and civilian. Again, such an approach has its advantages in efficiency, responsiveness, and coordination. However, it has disadvantages as well, not the least of which is the necessity for an overwhelming management structure and the probability that intelligence biases could threaten all of our operations. Competition does allow for alternate analyses and keeps the intel community from developing tunnel vision.

Negroponte and Hayden have worked for the past year on this consolidation project. It appears that Porter Goss either did not share their vision or their strategy and got pushed out. That won't send the CIA into mourning, but it might signal Rumsfeld that Negroponte wants to step up the struggle another notch. Selecting Hayden gives an indication that Bush may decide to embrace Negroponte's vision for a unified intelligence service and a bureaucracy that supercedes that of the Pentagon on intelligence matters.

That sets Hayden up as a very big target for any confirmation hearings. He already carries the baggage of the NSA surveillance program, which some members in Congress want to use to impeach Bush. Now they can also grill Hayden on Negroponte's collection of power and influence, and those who support the Pentagon will openly challenge the notion of taking oversight of military intelligence away from military command. None of this bodes well for Hayden's confirmation, although none of it has to do with Hayden's excellent qualifications for the position.

We'll see on Monday, of course, who the President has selected. If he has chosen Hayden, then he will have made a brave and bold move. Hayden's appointment would send a message that Bush is more concerned with hiring the most qualified person for the job rather than covering his own butt in the confirmation hearings. Whether that is the right move, considering all of the power-struggle issues with Negroponte, remains to be seen.

captainsquartersblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (19803)5/6/2006 2:57:21 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The Briar Patch, Please!

Power Line

The White House says that General Michael Hayden is the leading choice to replace Porter Goss at the CIA. That's great; Hayden comes out of the NSA and is an eloquent and effective advocate of the NSA's terrorist surveillance program. The New York Times warns President Bush that Hayden's nomination would cause controversy:

<<< Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who senior administration officials said Friday was the likely choice of President Bush to head the Central Intelligence Agency, has a stellar résumé for a spy and has long been admired at the White House and on Capitol Hill.

But General Hayden, the principal deputy director of national intelligence, would also face serious questions about the controversy over the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program, which he oversaw and has vigorously defended.

His Senate nomination hearing, if he is chosen to succeed Director Porter J. Goss, is likely to reignite debate over what civil libertarians say is the program's violation of Americans' privacy. >>>

The Times gives us a preview of the debate by quoting a critic of the NSA program:

<<< Marc D. Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, said the nomination would be strongly opposed by civil libertarians.

"We have to confront the chilling prospect that the incoming head of the C.I.A. believes it's permissible to conduct warrantless surveillance on the American public," Mr. Rotenberg said Friday night. >>>


What's really chilling is that the federal courts believe the same thing, having approved at least two dozen categories of warrantless surveillance of the American public, including warrantless spying used to gain foreign intelligence.

To all of this I say: great! Hardly anything would give the Republican faithful a bigger boost than the spectacle of Senate Democrats attacking an Air Force general for trying to protect America against terrorism. Please, Democrats, please don't deny us this opportunity. And could we possibly schedule the hearing closer to November?

powerlineblog.com

nytimes.com



To: Sully- who wrote (19803)5/8/2006 12:04:55 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
No Generals Need Apply?

Posted by John
Power Line

I admit that I've been surprised by the opposition to Gen. Michael Hayden as a possible successor to Porter Goss as CIA Director. Some of Hayden's opponents are people I respect, like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra. As described by the Associated Press, the opposition by these Republicans (as opposed to some Democrats) is nothing personal. While thinking highly of Gen. Hayden, they say that a military man shouldn't head the CIA:

<<< I do believe he's the wrong person, the wrong place, at the wrong time," said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich. "We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time."

Hoekstra said on "Fox News Sunday" that having a general in charge of the CIA could create the impression among agents around the world that the agency is under Pentagon control.

Hoekstra said "there's ongoing tensions between this premiere civilian intelligence agency and the Department of Defense as we speak."

The sentiment was echoed by Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, who said Hayden's military background would be a "major problem," and several Democrats who made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said Hayden could leave agents with the impression that the CIA has been "just gobbled up by the Defense Department." >>>


This seems a little odd to me. When Gen. Colin Powell was named Secretary of State, did anyone say that the State Department was being put "under Pentagon control," or had been "gobbled up" by the Defense Department? Not that I recall.

I'm glad to hear that there is tension between the Defense Department and the CIA. Given the performance of the CIA in recent years, there should be. The agency badly needs to be cleaned up, and I can't see any reason why a general isn't as good a person as any for the job.

powerlineblog.com

news.yahoo.com



To: Sully- who wrote (19803)5/8/2006 3:37:11 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Ya gotta love the MSM. They never let the facts get in the way when they have an audience to deceive
(Hat tip to Jerry @ Common Sense and Wonder)

This used to be called “meaningful context” and it was
included in stories to give everyday citizens the facts
needed to help them make a decision for themselves on an
important issue.

Have the media heard of Stansfield Turner?

Jimmy Carter's pick for CIA director was a serving U.S. Navy admiral

By Jon Ham
May 08, 2006

RALEIGH — There's a fuss brewing in Washington over President Bush picking a military man to head the CIA. The mainstream media and some members of Congress consider it a dire threat to the freedom of the country for a person with a military background to head this civilian spy agency. One question: Has anyone ever heard of Stansfield Turner?

Turner, a U.S. Navy admiral and former classmate of President Jimmy Carter at the U.S. Naval Academy, was Carter's pick to head the CIA in 1977. And what was his job before taking over the CIA? He was commander in chief of U.S. Forces in Southern Europe.

As Democrats and some Republicans express concern over the appointment, the media go along with the template, either blissfully ignorant of recent history or selectively airbrushing it for political reasons. I’m not sure which would be worse.

No story that had moved by Monday morning, at least that I could find, mentions Stansfield Turner’s tenure as head of the CIA and how that appointment might be a precedent, or at least a cause to lower the level of hysteria. This used to be called “meaningful context” and it was included in stories to give everyday citizens the facts needed to help them make a decision for themselves on an important issue.

But the mainstream media’s approach to “context” has changed in recent years. Rather than add all relevant facts to a story, certain things are left out that might

a) undermine the slant being given a story or,

b) support the positions of, well, non-Democrats in Congress or conservatives in general.

The effect of airbrushing Turner out of the story is to give credence to the argument that appointing a man with a military background as CIA director is the first step on the slippery slope to tyranny, that there’s a James Mattoon Scott in the Pentagon just waiting to take over the government.

There is one glaring difference between the Turner appointment and the Hayden choice, however. Hayden actually knows something about intelligence.

As Edward Jay Espstein wrote in a commentary in 1985:


<<< Although Turner had had little previous experience in intelligence, he viewed it simply as a problem of assessing data, or, as he described it to his son, nothing more than "bean' counting." >>>


By all accounts, Hayden is an acknowledged expert on intelligence.


As The Associated Press wrote on Sunday:

<<< “Hayden is widely respected in both parties for his long experience with intelligence, and many lawmakers said he could be a good candidate for some other job.” >>>

Some of Hayden’s supporters have suggested that Hayden resign his commission before taking the CIA job, but that is seen by critics as simply a cosmetic change.

The usually reasonable U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday:

<<< "Just resigning [his] commission and moving on, putting on a striped suit, a pinstriped suit versus an Air Force uniform, I don't think makes much difference." >>>

Perhaps the Turner case can be instructive here.

Carter appointed Turner to the CIA post on Feb. 8, 1977. He was confirmed 16 days later on Feb. 24, and was sworn in on March 9. The speed of the process indicates there does not seem to have been much concern about his military background.

But perhaps he had been retired from the military for some time and, therefore, was sufficiently “civilianized” for the concerned members of Congress. Apparently not, as Epstein points out in his 1985 commentary:

<<< When he was abruptly summoned back to Washington in February 1977 by his former classmate at Annapolis, President Jimmy Carter, he expected to be appointed to a high naval position or to the joint Chiefs of Staff. Instead, the new President asked him to be Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). >>>

Does Chambliss know this? Does the other Republican working against this appointment so visibly, U.S. Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), know this? Do the Democrats know this?

More importantly, do the American people know this? Not from any of the mainstream media stories that have run thus far, they don’t. How then can they, much less their elected leaders in Congress, make an intelligent decision on this matter?

Jon Ham is vice president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of its newspaper Carolina Journal.

carolinajournal.com