New CIA Head
 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...oss/index.html

What's everyone's opinions?

I really don't know much about Goss, but I am a little put off by his age. 65 is a bit old to be taking over such an important agency. Maybe he's the best man for the job, but the age was a bit of a surprise.

Good choice. I hope that the Democrats won't make this some sort of election year issue and be selfish by trying not to approve him.

-Rudey

65 ain't bad. I don't think Bush would have appointed someone that wasn't up to the task. I'm a little partisan when I say this, but he's always had excellent people to appoint to these types of positions.

He's had a ton of experience in the CIA and Washington in general. Looks like he's more than qualified.

All I know was the interim head of the CIA is a Delta Sig.

Don't know much about Mr. Goss but I do know that he is a former Army intelligence operative. He also spent the 1960s in Latin America and Europe for the CIA.

I would like to see someone from a more diverse background...someone with firsthand experience in covert operations (Special Operations & such), in as many areas of the world as possible. But most importantly, be someone with very good experience operating in the Middle East and Southwest Asia since those are the big hotspots.

They're definitely going to be petty, and make this an issue. We'll see if he gets approved. They'll have a hard time digging up dirt on him because he's already a member of Congress. Dirt on him probably would have already been exposed.

There was already an editorial in the Boston Globe today criticizing the choice. Any other criticisms anyone has heard regarding the decision (from media sources)?

Out of curiosity, what was the last Republican presidential nominee that the Boston Globe endorsed?

I thought he does have experience in covert operations... could have sworn that his bio on BBC mentioned periods of his CIA service that included operations against communists in Central and South America; as well as under-cover or infaltration operations. Of course it's hard to get facts when alot of his service is classified still.

Not a criticism, but NPR mentioned that the approval process could be tough because he is sucn a close Bush political friend and supporter.

Let's face it, if the Democrats were in power, the GOP would do the same thing. It's a little like both parties whining about how the opposition is holding back judicial appointements. It's petty, but the both do it.

Why couldn't the President nominate Arnie and just scare the hell out of the rest of the world.

Now that would kick ass.

He's qualified in my opinion. Lot's of experience with CIA and what not. I'm democrat and I'm not going to jump on the bus of bashing him because Bush picked him or he was a friend. I don't think Bush would play favorites when it comes to a role that is this important. We'll just have to wait and see.


What would actually be his duties? I was reading where some people believe that having everything centralized in DC would hinder operations around the world.

Not only would he be the director of the CIA, but he also holds the post of Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), the focus point where all intelligence agency efforts are centralized before the DCI sends it to the President. In actuality he currently still has to fight off turf wars between the little intel fiefdoms. (The CIA hates the FBI, and vice versa, and the NSA (National Security Agency)really stands for Never Say Anything! And don't forget the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), who has a hard time keeping the grunts, zoomies, squids and jarhead intel shops from each other's throats.)