NationStates Jolt Archive

Hayden seems to be a very capable DCI and has said "amateur hour is over" in replacing Porter Goss.

Does the new treasury sec. from Goldman Sachs indicate that perhaps this sentiment is spreading in the government?

Is it possible that the poll response to the bush gov'ts failures is starting to motivate it to finally find competent people for important jobs?

If so, this is good news for the country.

We've yet to see how confident the new guy will be with his post. He's an industry insider and a great commercial investment banker...whether or not he can and wants to cut the mustard in government is another question.

We've yet to see how confident the new guy will be with his post. He's an industry insider and a great commercial investment banker...whether or not he can and wants to cut the mustard in government is another question.


Goldman Sachs is an impressive pedigree, they are a very well-respected firm and for good reason. His competence and capability are more or less unimpeachable based just on his position at GS.

Meh. My precalc teacher should lead the CIA - he was, after all, recruited by them once.

Goldman Sachs is an impressive pedigree, they are a very well-respected firm and for good reason. His competence and capability are more or less unimpeachable based just on his position at GS.
I'm not doubting his ability as an investment banker. But being an investment banker is quite different from being a Finance Minister (which is, I believe, more or less what a Secretary of the Treasury is, isn't it?).

And that quite apart from the eternal rolling door scheme that seems to grip US politics - always the same people switching from Private to Public and back again.

Meh. My precalc teacher should lead the CIA - he was, after all, recruited by them once.

I bet he tells that to all the pretty girls ;)

Hayden's a pro all right--at snooping on US citizens without a warrant. Should I be comforted by that?

As for the new Treasury Secretary, I like his stance on Kyoto. Other than that, I know precious little about him, but if past experience is any proof of future conduct, he won't be allowed to get too far off the reservation. Ask Larry Lindsey what happens when you say something the administration doesn't like.

Amateur hour has described the CIA for quite a while, all the way back before clinton. Unless he's going to perform a major shake-up nothing will change.

I can't be the only one scared that it's taken 5 years since 9/11 to end amateur hour at the CIA...

The last DCI with any really serious field time was William Casey (Reagan's DCI). Goss served in the field in a limited capacity and promptly forgot all about it when Bush appointed him.

The problem now is that the DCI reports to the Director of National Intelligence, one John Negroponte, who I would not trust to wipe my arse, much less oversee intelligence operations for the entire intelligence community.

Hayden will be kept on a short leash by him.

Paulson is a pretty sharp choice for Secretary of the Treasury. The last Goldman-Sachs guy who held that position did a really nice job (Bob Rubin under Clinton).

The problem at the CIA is that they do not, and never have performed their function, preferring to wage political warfare against the elected Administration.

The CIA has never predicted any of the events they were supposed to. Their leftist bias had them predicting a Soviet victory in the Cold War, and Soviet economic production being better than that in the US.

I think it is time the CIA was abolished, with State, Defense, and DNI taking its functions. Organisations outside the CIA already take up about 80% of the intelligence budget.

The problem at the CIA is that they do not, and never have performed their function, preferring to wage political warfare against the elected Administration.

The CIA has never predicted any of the events they were supposed to. Their leftist bias had them predicting a Soviet victory in the Cold War, and Soviet economic production being better than that in the US.

I think it is time the CIA was abolished, with State, Defense, and DNI taking its functions. Organisations outside the CIA already take up about 80% of the intelligence budget.

Leftist bias? Are you high?

Is anything you don't like always going to be accused of a leftist bias?

Have you READ the history of the operations the CIA have conducted? Do you know anyone, and I mean ANYONE who works for the CIA?

The intelligence community is loaded with the most conservative people per square foot with the exception of DoD and the uniformed services.

You see more liberals at State by far.

Is anything you don't like always going to be accused of a leftist bias?
This is Disraeliland you're talking about here. He's the only person I've ever seen who is apparently serious and who sees more leftist bias than Corneliu.

(Corneliu, if you read this, take that as a compliment. ;) )

Goldman Sachs is an impressive pedigree, they are a very well-respected firm and for good reason. His competence and capability are more or less unimpeachable based just on his position at GS.

Thank god you said that. For a moment I thought the new CIA chief was a banking executive. I was slightly worried.

Hayden's a pro all right--at snooping on US citizens without a warrant. Should I be comforted by that?

As for the new Treasury Secretary, I like his stance on Kyoto. Other than that, I know precious little about him, but if past experience is any proof of future conduct, he won't be allowed to get too far off the reservation. Ask Larry Lindsey what happens when you say something the administration doesn't like.

Well, it's pretty traditional to boot people from any administration when you say something they don't like.

What's different is what constitutes "something they don't like".

Hell, during the Clinton Administration, you could lose your job because it's really Madeleine Allbright's fault for not letting you send an AC-130 to Mogadishu, but you have to fall on your sword because Bill likes her better than you - and you know Bill isn't going to take the blame, so someone has to walk the plank. Ask Mr. Cohen what I mean.

I would add that people at the Company refer to the CIA as having two distinct periods - pre-Church hearings, and after. After is also usually lumped in with the Carter Administration, where most of the foreign intel operations were stopped and great credence placed in "national technical means" (spy satellites).

Most see the CIA as blind and feeble since that time, and have fond memories of the pre-Church days.

Not saying they're right or wrong, just making the observation.