August 11, 2004
POLITICOS NEED NOT APPLY
Apparently, President Bush didnít read my March 9th posting about nominating sitting members of Congress to fill Cabinet level positions. To review, I believe that if you've been elected to represent a specific constituency, you should not be allowed to seek or accept another positionósuch as a spot in the President's Cabinet or as an Under Secretary of this or a Special Advisor for thatóuntil youíve first finished out your elected term. Plain and simpleÖ if you were elected to do a job, just do that job.
Had he read my thoughts on all of this, President Bush may not have nominated an 8-term Congressman from Florida as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Aside from the fact that the individual who was nominated yesterday afternoon to fill George Tenetís vacated slot at the top of the CIA is still serving an elected term, the President nominated someone whose politics are anything but partisan, which benefits no one but the current Administration. Bushís nominee, Porter Goss (a Republican congressman from Florida), recently had this to say about the Democratís nominee for President of the United States:
"John Kerry's speeches amount to little more than political 'me-tooism.' He lays out some old goals that everyone agrees to, without offering concrete proposals to achieve them. He also neglects President Bushís historic achievements. While John Kerry ignores the remarkable progress that has been made under President Bush, he largely embraces the goals that the President has already laid out to make the world a safer place."
Iím sorry, but do we really need someone who plays partisan politics heading up the CIA? I think not! What we need instead of the Porter Gossí of the world is a director who is not only knowledgeable and capable, but is someone who is also unquestionably independent. .
And least you think that this is a Republican problem unto itself, think again. The buzz in Washington, DC, these days is that if John Kerry and John Edwards are elected, their Cabinet will be packed with partisan politicians who have been elected by the public to serve in entirely different roles as well. For example:
Secretary of State: U.S. Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.)
Secretary of Defense: U.S. Senator Chuck Hagle (R-Neb.)
Director of Homeland Security: U.S. Rep. Jane Hartman (D-Calif.)
Secretary of the Interior: U.S. Rep Mark Udall (D-Colo.)
Secretary of Agriculture: U.S. Rep Charlie Stenholm (D-Tx.)
Secretary of Commerce: U.S. Rep Harold Ford, Jr. (D-Tenn.)
Secretary of Labor: U.S. Rep Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.)
Secretary of Health & Human Services: U.S. Rep Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)
Secretary of Transportation: U.S. Rep James Oberstar (D-Minn.)
Secretary of Energy: U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
(More on this in another post.) For the time being though, the Democrats are indicating that the Bush administration is in for a fight on Goss' nomination, saying that any attempt to confirm Goss will be an embarrassing referendum on the CIA's performance under President Bush. But what the Democrats don't seem to understand are the rules by which the Bush administration is playing this game. President Bush and Vice President Cheney WANT to blame intelligence failures on George Tenet's part for the reasoning behind our attack on Iraq. And since Tenet was appointed by Bill Clinton, he's an easy scapegoat for anyone interested in looking for a way to justify our actions in Iraq.
While there's a ton of evidence of ineptitude on Tenet's part, his predicament obscures the fact that President Bush had let loose the dogs of war well before checking to see if there was any plausible intelligence to justify doing so. And as the 2004 election nears, it serves the Bush administration well to keep the focus on intelligence shortcomings, which make it appear as if the President was misled, which is something Porter Goss has been saying for well over a year now.
Posted by Mikal at August 11, 2004 12:28 AM
| TrackBack
John Kerry was re-elected to the Senate in 2002 and if elected President will abandon his term 4 years early which clearly violates your Rule #1. This most likely doesn't bother many Democrats who cringe every time Kerry says anything while secretly wishing that they would have chosen anyone else to run against Bush. Although I don't support Kerry, his oath of office does not require that he finish the term, just that he obey the Constitution.
Regarding your Goss quote -- "John Kerry's speeches... a safer place", I have read it a few times and frankly find it to be accurate albiet opinionated. But merely being a Republican or Democrat doesn't make one a nasty partisan and therefore lacking credibility.
But then again I just finished reading a review of John Kerry's speech at the DNC written by liberal writer Matt Taibbi of the New York Press, titled "The Liberal Case Against John Kerry." in which he describes the speech as "maddening gibberish." It's long but worth it for the guffaws.
Furthermore, Kerry just can't seem to keep his foot out of his mouth. As recently as last Monday, Kerry said that he would have still gone to war notwithstanding the intelligence of WMD's that Bush used to justify it. Not only is this a particularly egregious example of "me-tooism" but crushes the central reason why his supporters hope to vote Bush out of office.
I agree that it is a power-play by the Bush team floating Goss as the candidate. However, I disagree that Goss will go down as the fallguy for the war. The notion that Iraq had WMD capabilities was well established around the globe and here at home. Check out these damning quotes:
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating Americaís response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
It's too inconceivable that all of these leaders (and more uncited) relied solely on George Tenet. So if Bush was fooled into going to war for WMDs, shouldn't these other folks take their lumps as well?
Dave, speaking of damning quotes, check out this one from our man Mr. Goss retrieved on August 17, 2004 from Democracy Now
Porter Goss to Michael Moore: I Am Not Qualified for CIA
Meanwhile filmmaker Michael Moore has released an excerpt of an interview that he conducted with Goss during the filming of Fahrenheit 9/11 in which Goss himself raises questions about his qualifications for working again in the CIA.
Goss said "I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified. I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably. And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day: 'Dad you got to get better on your computer.' Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have."
