PDA

View Full Version : CIA agency said to be in turmoil under new director Goss



DarkAce
Nov 13th, 2004, 12:29 PM
Deputy chief resigns from CIA
Agency said to be in turmoil under new director Goss

WASHINGTON - The deputy director of the CIA resigned yesterday after a series of confrontations over the past week between senior operations officials and CIA Director Porter J. Goss's new chief of staff that have left the agency in turmoil, according to several current and former CIA officials.

John E. McLaughlin, a 32-year CIA veteran who was acting director for two months this summer until Goss took over, resigned after warning Goss that his top aide, former Capitol Hill staff member Patrick Murray, was treating senior officials disrespectfully and risked widespread resignations, the officials said.

Yesterday, the agency official who oversees foreign operations, Deputy Director of Operations Stephen R. Kappes, tendered his resignation after a confrontation with Murray. Goss and the White House pleaded with Kappes to reconsider and he agreed to delay his decision until Monday, the officials said.

'Confusion throughout the ranks'
Several other senior clandestine service officers are threatening to leave, current and former agency officials said.

The disruption comes as the CIA is trying to stay abreast of a worldwide terrorist threat from al Qaeda, a growing insurgency in Iraq, the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan and congressional proposals to reorganize the intelligence agencies. The agency also has been criticized for not preventing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and not accurately assessing Saddam Hussein's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction.

"It's the worst roiling I've ever heard of," said one former senior official with knowledge of the events. "There's confusion throughout the ranks and an extraordinary loss of morale and incentive."

Current and retired senior managers have criticized Goss, former chairman of the House intelligence committee, for not interacting with senior managers and for giving Murray too much authority over day-to-day operations. Murray was Goss's chief of staff on the intelligence committee.

Changing of the guard
Transitions between CIA directors are often unsettling for career officers. Goss's arrival has been especially tense because he brought with him four former members of the intelligence committee known widely on the Hill for their abrasive management style.

Three are former mid-level CIA officials who left the agency disgruntled, according to former colleagues. The fourth, Murray, who also worked at the Justice Department, has a reputation for being highly partisan. When senior managers have gone to Goss to complain about his staff actions, one CIA officer said, Goss has told them" "Talk to my chief of staff. I don't do personnel."

The overall effect, said one former senior CIA official, who has kept up his contacts in the Directorate of Operations, "is that Goss doesn't seem engaged at all."

If other senior clandestine officers leave, said one former officer who maintains contacts within the Langley headquarters, "the middle-level people who move up may eventually work out, but meanwhile the level of experience and competence will go down."


Link:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6473454/

DarkAce
Nov 15th, 2004, 4:54 PM
Reports have emerged over the weekend that the White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

One former senior CIA official told Newsday "The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House." The official went on to say, "Goss was given instructions ... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda."



Full Report:http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/15/1448214&mode=thread&tid=25

Great...seems Jesusland might be an actual possibility in the near future.

substand
Nov 15th, 2004, 6:57 PM
Reports have emerged over the weekend that the White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

I'm glad about the purging and/or resignations of all these folks. I do not dispute the purging requested by the administration, but simply would like to put it in context: "Disloyalty" is major code for "leaks" and we could certainly use a secret organization that prefers to remain secret on matters of national security. I know the quote you gave mentioned leaks, but it did not highlight it. Certainly "conservative republicans" are not likely to be the leakers, but "liberal Democrats" are most likely to be the leakers... thus, it was superfluous to mention both.

In any case, this agency, we've heard, had become set in its ways- developed a culture that would not help as much as possible. So the shakeup, IMO, is a good thing, and most needed.

DontBeAfraid
Nov 15th, 2004, 7:30 PM
It doesnt say they are getting rid of people who leak fact that could be damaging to security, only people who leak things which might make the adminstration look bad....

If the administration is doing bad things wouldnt you want to know about it?

substand
Nov 15th, 2004, 7:50 PM
It says that they are targeting people who leak info. Almost any info leaked is damaging to national security, whether it be damaging to the administration or not.

I am not saying if they leak "Bush dyed his hair" (or something equally irrelevant) that it is harming. But when you leak things like "we really wanted to pursue option 1, but the president thought option 2 was the best policy, even though we thought it would be disastrous," then:

1) I would like them to keep their damn mouth shut because it gives our enemy knowledge of what we are doing, what we could have done, what we could possibly do, and what we think should be done or not done- and they can base plans around it.

2) yes I would like to know about it- when the Dubya presidential library opens and later on down the line when the information is not relevant to our enemies, but useful in evaluating the presidency for historical purposes.

Any leak makes the administration look bad- because leaks aren't supposed to happen from the executive branch, as they all work for the president. They should all be loyal to him. They don't need to rubberstamp his beleifs, but they need to provide him with knowledge and insight into problems, and let him make the decision- as it is his to make. They do not need to provide him with knowledge and then when some career bueracrat doesn't agree with the decision the president makes, say otherwise.

Especially not in the CIA, where information like that is of utmost value.

This goes for all presidents, not just dubya. Leaks of this sort are more useful for historical purposes rather than present, if not for anything else besides the fact that they will rarely change any policy- only let enemies know things they shouldn't.

DontBeAfraid
Nov 15th, 2004, 7:58 PM
because leaks aren't supposed to happen from the executive branch, as they all work for the president. They should all be loyal to him.

They work for US subs.... Their loyalties should be with the best interests of the USA, not a single person, not a political party, not a company and not a religious group.

If the president is and co. are making decision that benefit anything other than the people they are supposed to be working for then I dont care if terrorists know or the French know, as long as everyone he works for(us) know.

substand
Nov 15th, 2004, 8:03 PM
that is a good point. the pres does work for us, but the exec branch works for him, and therefore, us. I don't mean they should be partisan at all... but they work to provide information to their superiors, who provide info to their superiors, who provide info to the cabinet, who provide info to the president. The president will make the best decision he can with the information available.

While it would be nice to know all of the intelligence going around, or even part of it, I would rather they give the intel to the pres, and not to the world at large.