Rjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1369 times:
They had a really funny scene when Michael Moore was showing a video clip of an interview with the director of the CIA that was filmed several months ago, before he was chosen to head the agency. In the clip, he was asked about the CIA, and replied that he was an officer in the 1960s but was not qualified at all to run the agency today, he even joked about not knowing how to use computers. Now he's the director!
Rsmith6621a From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 194 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1345 times:
That is the Sad part about the Bush administration........Bush is not as concerned about qualifications as much as Bush is concerned about the person is just a plain YES PERSON. Condi got the SState position only because she held Georges feet(figuratively)when he did sit ups.
Porter Goss was nominated to get more FL votes just asimple as that.....I find it ironic that the statement was even mad.....but some of the RWAKs would say it was just a peice of crafty editing.
Bravo7e7 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1840 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1271 times:
I actually watched Leno last night, and I must agree with you that this was one of the dumbest things Porter Goss could have ever said. I don't think that it was literal though but rather that he was not considering it. It was really funny though.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1077 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1252 times:
I actually watched Leno last night, and I must agree with you that this was one of the dumbest things Porter Goss could have ever said
I agree that it was very very ironic, but when put in context it doesn't seem that absurd. In his previous roll in the CIA, Goss was a case worker, and the way he responded made it sound like he was saying he's no longer qualified to be a case worker.
What need would the CIA director have for language (especially Arabic) skills? Computer skills would be nice (I hate old people who refuse to learn tech), but the way he worded all his responses made it sound (to me) like he was not referring to a manegerial position but rather a field office position. Given that it was Micheal Moore feeding the questions, is it that absurd to think the answers were cropped a bit to make Goss look foolish?
The CIA director is like an airline CEO, he doesn't need to know how to fly an airplane, swap an engine, or even serve a drink... it's his job to manage the people who do have the specialized skills. More than anything, the CIA needs a strong presence to reogranize and revamp their corperate culture. They don't need a director who can speak farsi, they someone to cut out the beurecratic fat. If Goss is up to it, more power to him....
Cptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1247 times:
I was initially taken aback with Goss' response to Moore, but with a little further analysis, I tend to agree with DfwRev's take on the matter. Michael Moore is no dummy...he is very skillful at promoting his agenda, so I would find it interesting to see/hear the interview in its' entirety rather than only the "outake". Regards...Jack
N229nw From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2075 posts, RR: 30
Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1186 times:
To add to what Klaus said, this is one of the scariest things about the Bush administration, but it doesn't stop with the CIA. It worries me equally that, driven by ideology--religious or otherwise--the Bushies (who wouldn't begin to understand science and the scientific method if it came out of their soup and kissed them) are looking for obedience rather than skill in scientists too. There are several EPA scientists who worked under many administrations, Democrat and Republican, who are resigning because for the first time they are being told what they MUST find from their experiments, etc. etc.
For example, Bush wants too be able to say that there is no concensus on global warming, so he finds a couple crackpot yes-people to support his beliefs and ignores the concensus etc.
The consequences range from the desperately scary permanent envirmonmental damage to smaller things, like the fact that if this trend continues, US research will fall from a place of prominence to a world laughing stock, and be treated with the scorn we have tended to reserve for propaganda-driven conclusions under absolutist governments...
As for the CIA, after the WMD claims that it is now clear were partly foisted onto the intelligence community by overzealous hawks, we've already lost much credibilty. Soon there will be none left...
Do we really want the rest of the world to treat US intelligence claims the way we treat Saddam's propaganda minister's claims? Maybe it is too late...