Via Matt Yglesias, a KR story on Porter Goss's planned post-election purges of the IC. Apprently, he intends to replace "80 to 90 people" in the Directorate of Operations with new appointees, probably partisan Republicans. Given Goss's record, this shouldn't be surprising; Democrats have probably flubbed this as a political issue, but it segues nicely with the Levin Report. A vote for Bush is a vote for more Feith-based intelligence.
Update, 10/23/04, 5:22 PM EST: See also Laura Rozen. I think she is being overly generous to Goss & Co., dismissing the planned purge as "tough-guy tactics masquerading as intelligence reform." Goss has a long record of partisanship, and his only major move thus far was to replace four professionals with Republicans. Goss isn't sending out "reformer" signals, he's sending out "Republican" signals.
We need partisans in the IC, but they need to be partisans of the reality based community.
Update, 10/24/04, 12:34 PM EST: The CIA is apparently not very please with Goss:
Meanwhile, a Democratic campaign official confirmed a Financial Times report yesterday that Rand Beers, national security adviser to the Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry, said that the new CIA director, Porter J. Goss, would "likely" be asked to resign if Kerry wins the presidency on Nov. 2. "It is to be expected," the official said, noting that other political appointees to that post, including onetime CIA director George H.W. Bush, who later became president, were also asked to leave.The Financial Times article is available here.
"Kerry ought to announce that publicly," a former CIA official said yesterday, "because it would get him votes among agency employees." They resent Goss bringing as aides a handful of GOP staff members from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which he had chaired. [WP]