Porter Goss turning the CIA into a GOP outcrop...UPDATE: Now with FULL TEXT of Memo

[GrGr]

"Full Spectrum Dominance" indeed.

 

[conjur]

bump for full text of memo.

 

[jlmadyson]

"We provide the intelligence as we see it - and let the facts alone speak to the policymaker."

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

"We provide the intelligence as we see it - and let the facts alone speak to the policymaker."

And just how do they "see it", eh? We'll know soon enough if the OSP/DIA is weakened because the CIA begins giving Bush what he wants to see.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: BBond

There is a huge difference between agency ideologues interpreting intel and an administration that purges all but one ideology from an agency.

Is there an echo in here...in here...in here...?

This is a formula for producing useless garbage packaged as intel.

Moving right along, a certain presidential candidate's first choice (no, not second or third) for Vice President has conflicting thoughts on the matter:

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Well, I'm sorry that it's happening the way that it's happening. But, Lou, I've seen the House Intelligence Committee report about the CIA. I've seen the 9/11 Commission comments about the CIA, the Senate Intelligence Committee report. I serve on the Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction, and there is no doubt that the CIA is dysfunctional and there needs to be significant and fundamental changes made.

That's upsetting some traditions, some old boy networks over there. And there are good people over there. But they have to change, and Porter Goss, I think, is the person to do it.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Originally posted by: conjur
I am calling for 4-6% popular vote win and a good 40 EV win. (in favor of Kerry)

Love this. hehe

Lovely red herring there, jlmadyson.

Anything to distract from the truth I guess.

I'm beginning to suspect that some people would eat s**t if Bush told them it would keep them safe. :roll:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Wow! So usually, and as a rule, the CIA works against the admin and doesn't support its policies? Is that what you're saying? Or are you saying the CIA should actively work against and/or undermine the admin's policies? Is 'supporting the admin's policies' the same as 'toeing the party line?'

Maybe I'm just not following your implication here.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Wow! So usually, and as a rule, the CIA works against the admin and doesn't support its policies? Is that what you're saying? Or are you saying the CIA should actively work against and/or undermine the admin's policies? Is 'supporting the admin's policies' the same as 'toeing the party line?'

Maybe I'm just not following your implication here.

I think you are missing the point, as you suggested. The CIAs job is to supply intelligence (otherwise known as facts) for the administratino to base decisions on. What is the point of having a CIA if their only job is to find information to support decisions that have already been made?

I'm not sure that's what's going on here, but I can see why this concerns some people.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Wow! So usually, and as a rule, the CIA works against the admin and doesn't support its policies? Is that what you're saying? Or are you saying the CIA should actively work against and/or undermine the admin's policies? Is 'supporting the admin's policies' the same as 'toeing the party line?'

Maybe I'm just not following your implication here.

I think you are missing the point, as you suggested. The CIAs job is to supply intelligence (otherwise known as facts) for the administratino to base decisions on. What is the point of having a CIA if their only job is to find information to support decisions that have already been made?

I'm not sure that's what's going on here, but I can see why this concerns some people.

So you're not sure what's going on, and that's the point I'm missing?

I can see the "concern" that some people in here have. I can also see that concern is built on a foundation of assumptions and a jump to conclusion. I rarely concern myself with fears based on assumptiveness. The vast majority of the time it's usually a waste of mental energies that can be focused on more productive areas.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Wow! So usually, and as a rule, the CIA works against the admin and doesn't support its policies? Is that what you're saying? Or are you saying the CIA should actively work against and/or undermine the admin's policies? Is 'supporting the admin's policies' the same as 'toeing the party line?'

Maybe I'm just not following your implication here.

I think you are missing the point, as you suggested. The CIAs job is to supply intelligence (otherwise known as facts) for the administratino to base decisions on. What is the point of having a CIA if their only job is to find information to support decisions that have already been made?

I'm not sure that's what's going on here, but I can see why this concerns some people.

So you're not sure what's going on, and that's the point I'm missing?

Apparently, you seem unable to follow what exactly people are concerned about and why, you said so yourself.

I can see the "concern" that some people in here have. I can also see that concern is built on a foundation of assumptions and a jump to conclusion. I rarely concern myself with fears based on assumptiveness. The vast majority of the time it's usually a waste of mental energies that can be focused on more productive areas.

It seems more like it's built on the text of a memo that's open to interpretation. Ignoring it as "oh, it's probably nothing" doesn't seem like a good use of "mental energies" to me.

 

[SuperTool]

More unnecessary wars coming our way.

 

[jlmadyson]

I'm beginning to suspect that some people would eat s**t if Bush told them it would keep them safe. :roll:[/quote]

Keep dreaming that while you smoke on that propaganda pipe. Porter Goss can clean house for all I care. Well over due. Nuff said.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
I'm beginning to suspect that some people would eat s**t if Bush told them it would keep them safe. :roll:

Keep dreaming that while you smoke on that propaganda pipe. Porter Goss can clean house for all I care. Well over due. Nuff said.[/quote]

Please define "clean house".