Article

2004-06-04 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by someone 2004-06-04 4:09:37 AM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Armitage is Powell's boy. I would hate to see State Dept stripey-pants influence spread to the CIA. The CIA head needs to be smart, ruthless, and above all, put America's interests ahead of anyone else - doesn't sound like anyone at the State Dept fits that bill, even Colin

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-04 10:10:27 AM|| 2004-06-04 10:10:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I liked the line about Goss, "he has a certain amount of charisma and leadership tendencies". Now there is a pretty damning endorsement. I think leadership, not a tendency to leadership is what is needed.

Posted by Jim K 2004-06-04 10:54:54 AM|| 2004-06-04 10:54:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 My vote: bring Charles McCarry out of retirement (he's the author of a fantastic series of spy novels, and a thoughtful man). He's an old timer but maybe that's what we need.

My serious vote: Wolfowitz. The guy knows how to kick ass and take names, something the CIA desperately needs.

Posted by Jonathan 2004-06-04 11:20:16 AM|| [www.workaround.blogspot.com] 2004-06-04 11:20:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Too bad Donald Rumsfeld is already busy. With the 1000 Fighting Styles of Rumsfeld he would be invincible.

Posted by SteveS 2004-06-04 11:52:01 AM|| 2004-06-04 11:52:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 How about Rudy Guiliani? He has no specific intelligence background, but he does have appropriate ass-kicking and executive leadership credentials. Plus, it will shore up his foreign policy resume should he run in 2008.

I fear that Wolfowitz is damaged goods (at least as far as Congress is concerned), even though I do think he may be a good choice to succeed Rummy if he steps down.

About Rummy, he would be a great choice for State or DCI, but he has the same problem as Wolfowitz in that he may be damaged goods in the eyes of Congress. It's too bad, because he more than almost anyone else I can think of could get State and CIA on the President's side for a change.

Posted by Tibor 2004-06-04 11:56:57 AM|| 2004-06-04 11:56:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 No, what you want is somebody described thusly: "Carries a baseball bat and gets good results."

Posted by mojo 2004-06-04 11:59:19 AM|| 2004-06-04 11:59:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Mojo, are you nominating Barry Bonds?

Posted by Tibor 2004-06-04 12:16:54 PM|| 2004-06-04 12:16:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 The NY Sun's take was that Wolfowitz's odds were 75 to 1 -- he'd been canoodled by Chalabi, is too much of an academic, and in any case is damaged goods to Congress -- while Tenet's deputy-turned-acting-director has 2 to 1 odds for being a respected technocrat in the intelligence community.

Posted by Edward Yee 2004-06-04 1:00:48 PM|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2004-06-04 1:00:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Tibor - more like Ward Bond, I think...

Posted by mojo 2004-06-04 2:19:08 PM|| 2004-06-04 2:19:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 FoxNews awhile ago did a short bit on this and said that, *gasp*, Bob Kerry was one of the people being considered. Lol! Oh yeah, we want the 2nd-most disingenuous 'tard of the 9/11 circus! Unfreakinbelievable.

2 generic questions for RBers:

1) Does anyone here think that Dubya will nominate anyone prior to the election? I don't. He will let the acting head continue in the post - because that is his style.

2) Does anyone here think Dubya will agree to any sort of public "redesign" of the myriad intelligence services prior to the election? Again, IMO, no way. We don't need a new circus, we already have several on tour. I do not doubt that, internally, there might be a working group put together to make a plan, but almost nothing bi-partisan is possible at them moment, IMO.

This is where the rubber meets the road: whomever is elected President will have a huge task: resovling #2 and, one can hope, actually making us safer with the end result. I doubt that it could be done successfully in the first year (or maybe even longer) after the elections - no matter who wins there will be incredible rancor. The only factor that will override this is if we get hit in the US - then the partisanship just might actually wane long enough to get a productive and useful redesign. I'm not holding my breath, however. I have incredibly low expectations.

Posted by .com 2004-06-04 3:02:32 PM|| 2004-06-04 3:02:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Re your two questions, I concur: no, and no.

Frankly, I don't think this country is going to be capable of getting really serious about anything until after the election and the insane jibberjabber from the Donks-- wherein EVERYTHING Bush does is somehow wrong, for whatever outlandish, contrived reason-- dies down.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-06-04 3:17:19 PM|| 2004-06-04 3:17:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Dave D - Things won't die down if Bush wins, because the Left and the media will go overtime into shouting conspiracy theories on how Bush "stole" the election "again." Be it close like last time or a Reagan-level destruction.

Posted by Laurence of the Rats 2004-06-04 4:20:43 PM|| [http://www.punictreachery.com/] 2004-06-04 4:20:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 I have a sleeper candidate for CIA Director: Let's bring back James Woolsey and let him *really* do the job!

Posted by Jen 2004-06-04 5:13:56 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-04 5:13:56 PM|| Front Page Top

14:38 JERKFACE101
08:04 Anonymous5089
01:40 Phil_B
01:23 Damn_Proud_American
01:18 Igster
01:04 ed
00:48 Phil Fraering
00:25 rex
23:49 Edward Yee
23:29 Phil B
23:25 Phil B
23:17 smn
23:08 Super Hose
23:08 .com
23:04 smn
23:02 Atomic Conspiracy
23:02 Super Hose
22:59 smn
22:59 Lucky
22:56 Super Hose
22:54 Frank G
22:48 Super Hose
22:44 Super Hose
22:42 Frank G