Less than a month ago, Peter Goss, a former CIA case officer and current chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, was rumored to be Bush’s top choice to replace George Tenet as director of the CIA. Bush aides let it be known that Goss was the frontrunner — while congressional Dems let it be known that he was an unacceptable choice.
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, publicly concluded that Goss had no shot at the job. Roberts even had some advice for his allies at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue: “My only message to the White House is if they do this, make it an extraordinary person that will get bipartisan support.” He added, “We do not want a partisan fight right before the election.”
Well, as it turns out, that’s exactly what Bush wants.
President Bush today named Florida Republican Rep. Porter J. Goss to head the Central Intelligence Agency.
Goss has long been mentioned as a leading candidate to replace George Tenet, who resigned as Director of Central Intelligence in June. But there had been some delay in part because of the potential for opposition in Congress in the middle of the presidential campaign.
Administration officials said the announcement was intended to send a signal of stability at a time when the intelligence services are roiled by competing reorganization plans.
That’s not the only signal the announcement was intended to send.
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W. Va), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, just three weeks ago emphasized the need for a director who is “unquestionably independent.”
“I strongly urge the President to look for an individual with unimpeachable, nonpartisan national-security credentials and the stature and independence to bring about much-needed reform of our intelligence agencies.”
The message was less-than-subtle. Goss is not “independent” and is very much a “partisan.”
In June, for example, Goss took to the House floor with a poster of John Kerry’s alleged positions supporting cuts in intelligence budgets. It was a cheap stunt with misleading information, generated by deceptive White House talking points. It was the kind of thing that made Karl Rove happy, but infuriated congressional Dems, who pretty much decided on the spot that Goss was far too ideological to head the CIA.
Of course, it wasn’t the first time Goss has played the role of partisan hack for his White House allies. In February, Goss, in trying to defend the administration’s catastrophic mistake about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, said the whole mess was Bill Clinton’s fault.
And now Bush wants this guy to head the CIA. The White House’s message is clear: When it comes to intelligence and national security, consensus, independence, and bi-partisan support is not only irrelevant, it’s rejected out of hand.
Here’s my prediction: Goss’ controversial nomination will go the Hill and will generate considerable opposition for Dems. Bush will then accuse Dems of “playing politics” with national security and turn the whole thing into a campaign issue. Can anyone seriously doubt that this is going to happen?