underzealous

I haven't really made a post on Porter Goss other than the one about the Bush campaign taking his quotes down. One problem is that Goss is vehemently partisan to the point that he is either clueless or lying:

On June 1, Goss took part in a Bush-Cheney conference call with reporters to critique Kerry's first national security speech. He described one of Kerry's nonproliferation proposals as "naive," and answered "clearly yes," to a question about whether Bush's policy toward North Korea was producing results. North Korea, he said, is "no longer making the progress they were making at Yongbyon [their key nuclear production site] and other places because we have called their bluff."

In fact, since the Bush administration confronted the Pyongyang government, North Korea has thrown out inspectors, removed nuclear fuel from internationally monitored storage, and may have increased the size of its nuclear arsenal, according to U.S. intelligence.

Here are a few more thoughts:

1) This is politically timed. Bush wants to take Kerry and Edwards off the campaign trail. He also wants to force them to vote on the issue (see #2), especially given the political nomination. And Bush can say that he has moved quickly on national security, while wagging the dog on the 9/11 Commission recommendations:

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."

[More:]

2) Bush will have 2 reactions to Kerry and Edwards' vote: a) if they vote yes, then they will ask if Goss would be removed under a Kerry administration, and the answer would of course be yes, so it would be seen as a flip-flop; b) if they vote no, they will spin it as the Kerry/Edwards campaign obstructing the CIA and thus being soft on national security.

3) The Democrats can't filibuster this or they will be spun as looking soft on national security, and Kerry & Edwards will get blamed since they're in the Senate.

4) I think Senator Rockefeller has the right attitude, especially given the easy "groupthink" noted previously:

"We need a director that is not only knowledgeable and capable but unquestionably independent," said Rockefeller in late June. "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."
...
"I said then (in June) and I still believe that the selection of a politician, — any politician, from either party — is a mistake."

5) Edwards can do well by asking Goss tough questions in the confirmation hearings. Edwards should definitely ask why essentially the 9/11 Commission reforms have gone nowhere on Goss' own House Intelligence Committee for months:

But if that is the real issue of difference with the Democrats, Mr. Goss's confirmation hearings will more likely focus on how he dealt with intelligence overhaul issues in his committee. The ranking Democrat on the committee, Representative Jane Harman of California, wrote to Mr. Goss last week arguing that the intelligence overhaul legislation proposed by the Democrats four months ago "is nearly identical to the 9/11 commission's recommendation. Yet this legislation has been languishing in our committee."

6) Edwards, among other people, can highlight Bush failings on national security.

7) Kerry and Edwards have to vote no. They should say that a) they think the position shouldn't be so politicized; b) it would be better to have McLaughlin fill in until the appropriate reforms recommended by the 9/11 Commission have been made, especially because Goss does not believe in the 9/11 Commission's recommendations -- as shown by his committee not taking action.

Billmon has a good summary of the ordeal (including Goss' failings in the House Intelligence Committee and a good quote by Former CIA Director Stansfield Turner about how the office shouldn't be political), so go on and take a slow drink at the Whiskey Bar.