Bush’s decision to announce Rep. Peter Goss (R-Fla.) as his pick to be the director of the CIA seemed to suffer from odd timing.
Most officials in DC have been focusing on which recommendations from the 9/11 Commission needed immediate attention, Goss is likely to spark partisan tensions on the Hill, and the government’s intelligence apparatus is being reorganized, so no one really knows where Goss would fit into the new hierarchy anyway. Since the new director, no matter who he or she is, can’t even start working until November, it’s peculiar that the White House is yet to explain why Bush made the announcement yesterday.
Slate’s Fred Kaplan theorized that Goss’ selection had little to do with policy and everything to do with public relations.
So, why is Bush nominating Goss now? One possible answer: to create the impression that he’s moving forward — that he’s doing something in the war against terrorism. The president took a similar step last week when he announced with great fanfare the creation of a national intelligence director, as recommended by the 9/11 commission, but without giving this NID any of the statutory powers that the commission said would be needed to make the post meaningful.
Putting Goss’ name on the table now — even though he probably couldn’t become the CIA director for at least three months — has the same effect.
The Washington Post spoke to one Republican who confirmed that this was exactly what motivated the announcement.
A Republican political operative, who requested anonymity because of participation in the party’s regular conference calls, said the president turned back to Goss because “poll data showed Kerry had closed the gap with Bush on handling of terrorism and was slightly ahead as fit to be commander in chief.” The operative also said polls showed the president’s embrace of the commission’s suggestion for a new intelligence director “was not understood by the public.” Goss had to be named “to show Bush was moving ahead.”
So the president who claims to reject the very idea of governing based on polls decided it was time to act because the polls were going in the wrong direction. Almost as annoying, it’s the kind of action that gives the appearance of progress without actually doing much.
Remind me again who likes to play politics with national security?