Porter Goss, new Director of the CIA?

[VolcanoJen]

Very sorry if this is a dupe... my Tivo's delayed. :+

CNN's reporting that Bush is poised to nominate a new CIA Director. I'm a bit confused... after Tenet's resignation, didn't Bush say he wouldn't appoint a new Director, and instead would leave Deputy Director John E. McLaughlin in charge, at least until after the November elections? Because he had such "confidence" in him, and what-not?

Is that a flip, or a flop?

David Ensor, CNN's National Security Correspondent, says that he's hearing the announcement will come soon, and that the rumored front-runner for the job is Florida Republican Congressman Porter Goss. I know nothing of this man, so if any of our Florida DUers has the goods, please share.



Just curious... what's brewing here? I can't think of one single politically advantageous reason to nominate a new Director and subject him to contentious and likely damaging Senate Confirmation hearings just before what will surely be a difficult election.

I think that was a cold chill that just ran through my body...

[freetobegay]

1. Porter Goss is retiring after this term

To be with his family. Is this carrot beg enough for him?

[UTUSN]

2. WOOLSEY Told BLITZER This Dude Would Fly Thru Confirmation n/t

[Nikki Stone 1]

3. Decoy or long term strategy?

(How do you do quotes here?)

There are only a couple of reasons I can think of for nominating a new CIA director at this time, and some of them depend on who Goss is.

1. A contentious battle over a new director will capture the attention of both Congress and the press and take at least some of the focus off Iraq. Nominee as decoy: the question become's Goss's background and not "Why did Tenet resign?"--which leads back to Iraq and 9/11. Most Americans don't really pay close enough attention and only the press will be doing any real questioning. Tenet will become yesterday's news.

2. Perhaps Bush is thinking on the long term. But this totally depends on who Goss is and what his loyalties are. IT may be Bush's way of getting a friendly face in place or screwing the CIA.

Of course, Goss may be the CIA's man, and the CIA is striking while the iron is hot.

[VolcanoJen]

5. Welcome to DU, Nikki!

Those were some very good points, and I think you may be right. But, #1 is an especially risky strategy, because in the middle of a heated election, the Senate Dems are not going to give Goss an easy ride. It's going to be hell, it's going to be partisan, and it's likely going to indict the failed intelligence agency all over again, which certainly can't help Bush.

I'm more concerned that he's putting a new CIA Director in because he knows something super-big is coming, and he's playing pre-emptive "cover my ass." :scared:

[Nikki Stone 1]

8. The CYA strategy

The ass-covering strategy only works if Goss is a friendly face. Being from Florida, maybe he is.

I do think the strategy has more risk than the Bush administration would like. Perhaps, that is an indication of the desperation of Bush & Co. High risk strategies are better than just sitting there like a duck in a canned hunt.

I was rereading some Seymour Hersh articles from around 9/11, and it is clear that from the beginning, intelligence types like Richard Armitage were entirely opposed to the Iraq invasion. Clearly, they had a different focus and foresaw the disaster which the occupation became. It think these folks--even within the administration--have been hostile to it and some may have turned on the President when they couldn't stop the war from moving ahead.

AT this point, there is high stakes game of some kind going on between Bush and the CIA--Hersh indicates as much, especially when he implies that the Niger documents were a deliberate forgery by some "disgruntled" intelligence types here in the US.

[VolcanoJen]

9. Great post, Nikki.

Very glad that you're here! :D

I wasn't aware that Hersh alleges the Niger docs were forged right here at home... do you have a link?

[merh]

4. Perhaps it is in prep for the Oct. Surprise...

He nominated a director, Dems held up his appointment and bad things happened. Blame Dems. :shrug:

[VolcanoJen]

6. Yeh, that's pretty much the way I see it, too. Preemptive Ass-Covering.

I'm kind of freaked out, to be honest. Is something super-big on its way, and Bush is well aware of it?

[jmowreader]

7. I don't think they will hold him up

Porter Goss is a known quantity on Capitol Hill, and he's not that bad of a choice*. He was an Army MI officer who went to work for the CIA, so he's not completely clueless.

Bush absolutely needs the intel community to take 100 percent of the hit for 9/11--and to make sure no one in Congress puts Bush on the stand and the Goat Book Video on a projection monitor**. By putting a Republican congressman in as DCI, he sets the stage for that to happen.

* Well, he wouldn't be that bad of a choice if anyone but Bush would have nominated him...

** Because if that happens, the first question will be "what the fuck? Remember, Mr. pResident, you are under oath."