A Lamer Duck Follows Closely Behind
Mr. Beerman asked that I comment on Porter's Goss' resignation as CIA Chief and "the shake-up of the Bush administration." I am happy to oblige, but I cannot promise anything substantive, as I am, at best, an angry yuppie shaking his fist from the left. If you are looking for an insightful, informed discussion, then I suggest you stop reading now. All you are going to find from here on out is baseless rambling (but isn't that what I originally promised?).
First off, I am not at all surprised by Porter's resignation, or more appropriately, his cordial acceptance of President Bush's pink slip. Although I cannot say for certain, I doubt anyone close to Porter was caught off guard by his departure, which, surprisingly, was labeled "breaking news" by CNBC and Fox News. The high profile political resignation has been a damaging tool for this administration and many before it - some quit in protest, others simply fail to meet expectations.
To be sure, I don't see anything extraordinary about Goss' resignation. As you noted, Mr. Beerman, there have been a number of recent "hirings and firings by W," all of which have done nothing aside from clog headlines and reroute eyes for a couple of days. These job transfers are, to condense my opinion, political stunts aimed at appeasing short-sighted politicians, voters, and the media. I would label them incongruous exercises in inaction - sensational politicking that portrays a sense of accomplishment, when nothing actually happened. The intelligence community will not experience an immediate revitalization and rebirth simply because Goss stepped aside. A department-wide change, similar to the "transformation" the CIA was supposed to undergo at Goss' appointment, is a cultural event that takes years to develop and mature. Systemic change rarely happens over night in a democracy.
As for the cause of Porter's firing, I would guess it's a product of both internal strife and public discontent. As I suggested earlier, people have already begun applauding Bush for firing Porter, thus settling public discontent (if only for a short while). In terms of internal strife, the Bush administration has demonstrated - on numerous occasions - what happens to dissenting opinions in the White House. For better or worse, Bush's team has done well to present a strong, united facade despite constant criticism and painful accusations. Porter rarely spoke publicly, and that's probably because he was told not to.
Goss was a political paperweight, just as many high-profile appointed politicians are. His hiring and firing, like those before him, will mean next to nothing for this country. As an isolated event, Goss' departure was about as meaningful as the child who finds the most eggs at the annual White House Easter egg hunt. The Bush administration's intelligence policies, both foreign and domestic, will be no different next week. They are too strongly dictated by a limited group of powerful individuals - we all know the cast - who issue decisions with only a narrow, monolithic agenda in mind. I would argue, therefore, that the "real problems lie in the hands of people whose jobs are secure."
First off, I am not at all surprised by Porter's resignation, or more appropriately, his cordial acceptance of President Bush's pink slip. Although I cannot say for certain, I doubt anyone close to Porter was caught off guard by his departure, which, surprisingly, was labeled "breaking news" by CNBC and Fox News. The high profile political resignation has been a damaging tool for this administration and many before it - some quit in protest, others simply fail to meet expectations.
To be sure, I don't see anything extraordinary about Goss' resignation. As you noted, Mr. Beerman, there have been a number of recent "hirings and firings by W," all of which have done nothing aside from clog headlines and reroute eyes for a couple of days. These job transfers are, to condense my opinion, political stunts aimed at appeasing short-sighted politicians, voters, and the media. I would label them incongruous exercises in inaction - sensational politicking that portrays a sense of accomplishment, when nothing actually happened. The intelligence community will not experience an immediate revitalization and rebirth simply because Goss stepped aside. A department-wide change, similar to the "transformation" the CIA was supposed to undergo at Goss' appointment, is a cultural event that takes years to develop and mature. Systemic change rarely happens over night in a democracy.
As for the cause of Porter's firing, I would guess it's a product of both internal strife and public discontent. As I suggested earlier, people have already begun applauding Bush for firing Porter, thus settling public discontent (if only for a short while). In terms of internal strife, the Bush administration has demonstrated - on numerous occasions - what happens to dissenting opinions in the White House. For better or worse, Bush's team has done well to present a strong, united facade despite constant criticism and painful accusations. Porter rarely spoke publicly, and that's probably because he was told not to.
Goss was a political paperweight, just as many high-profile appointed politicians are. His hiring and firing, like those before him, will mean next to nothing for this country. As an isolated event, Goss' departure was about as meaningful as the child who finds the most eggs at the annual White House Easter egg hunt. The Bush administration's intelligence policies, both foreign and domestic, will be no different next week. They are too strongly dictated by a limited group of powerful individuals - we all know the cast - who issue decisions with only a narrow, monolithic agenda in mind. I would argue, therefore, that the "real problems lie in the hands of people whose jobs are secure."
posted by Dr. Cook at 11:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home