You don't need to be a political genius to know that the resignation of Porter Goss is not good news. It indicates that curing the endemic troubles at the CIA, a difficult task in the best of times, may be well-nigh impossible in this era where that position no longer reports to the President.
This seems a good time to refer back to my piece in The American Spectator, August 2004, in which I made the case against the idea of instituting an office of National Intelligence Director. It runs longer than my usual column length, but I think it's one of the most thorough presentations I have ever made in support of a political position.
2 comments:
"You don't need to be a political genius to know that the resignation of Porter Goss is not good news."
I'm not entirely certain that the resignation of the sycophantic and under-qualified Goss is necessarily bad news, either. A resignation on a Friday, with no warning, tells me that there's way more to this than Goss being the first Administration official to actually follow a rule of leadership and take responsibility for the actions of an underling.
I don't know why you'd say Goss was under-qualified. I'd think that the combination of having been a real field agent and a Congressman dealing with intelligence issues from a political post would make for an ideal resume' for a top spook.
I don't know how it was working, but the experience was all relevant to the job.
Post a Comment