Democrat Warns Against Fight on CIA Chief

[G_j]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4424509,00.html

Democrat Warns Against Fight on CIA Chief

Monday August 16, 2004 3:16 AM


by LEIGH STROPE

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee warned fellow Democrats in the Senate on Sunday against trying to block the nomination of Rep. Porter Goss as CIA director, saying that would be picking the wrong fight in this election year.

Democrats should ask tough questions of Goss, R-Fla., at Senate confirmation hearings next month, but ``my view is this is the wrong fight,'' Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said on NBC's ``Meet the Press.''

``To get stuck in a fight about Porter Goss after tough questions are asked of Porter Goss is not where we ought to be this fall,'' said Harman, who has no vote on the matter because the Senate confirms presidential nominees.

Goss resigned as chairman of the House intelligence panel last week after President Bush nominated him to replace George Tenet at CIA.


..more..

[Zorra]

1. Jane Harman is making a huge mistake. She is deadly wrong.

Here is why: Nothing should distract the CIA from doing their jobs right now. Senate confirmation hearings, and the transition to a new CIA director, could lead to disruption and chaos at the CIA during this critical period.

The Bu$h administration, through Tom Ridge, has warned the public repeatedly that terrorists are planning an attack in order to disrupt the November election. Here is a CNN article outlining these warnings:

Officials: Bin Laden guiding plots against U.S.
Ridge: Terrorists' aim is to influence presidential vote
Thursday, July 8, 2004

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A plot to carry out a large-scale terror attack against the United States in the near future is being directed by Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda members, senior intelligence officials said Thursday.
snip------
Arrests of terror suspects in Europe and the Middle East resulted in the new warning, said Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.
snip----
A senior U.S. intelligence official said the warning was based on "a very strong body of intelligence."

The planned attack is "an effort to disrupt the democratic process" before November's elections, Ridge said.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/08/ridge.alqaeda /

Clearly, it is critical that the CIA maintains the status quo and remains undistrtacted until after the November elections. Mr. Goss, by his own admission, is not qualified to step in and take over the CIA at this very critical time. Any administrative change would almost definitely lead to disaster, when viewed in light of the evidence and warnings that Mr. Ridge has publically announced.

Senate confirmation hearings at this time would naturally distract CIA officials and agents from doing their jobs properly, because they would all be interested in these proceedings that will directly affect their respective and collective futures. Distractions to the CIA before November could result in a deadly tragedy.

Therefore, Senate Confirmation Hearings on Mr. Goss can logically and prudently be put on the back burner until after the election in November.

It would be counterproductive and senseless to hold any Senate Confirmation Hearings during this critical period between now and the election. The CIA clearly needs to remain focused and vigilant. Any transition or distraction at this time would disrupt the focus of the CIA, and would undoubtedly cause an administrative chaos that would lead to a critical breakdown of the ability of the CIA to recognize and prevent a terrorist attack.

Any attempt by republicans to rush confirmation hearings prior to the November election can only be interpreted as partisan political maneuvering that would unquestionably, based on Mr. Ridge's warnings, put our country in severe danger. If republicans are truly interested in protecting our nation against terrorist attack, they would be wise to understand this fact, and agree to hold off on the hearings.

Otherwise, the Bu$h administration and republican legislators may be held fully responsible, because of their partisan political goals, for the deaths of many Americans.

Not only Senate Democrats, but all of our federal legislators, need to exercise common sense, recognize this probability, and take the necessary steps to protect our country by insuring that the CIA remains stable and completely undistracted until this imminent pre-election terrorist threat outlined by Tom Ridge is over.

[francisurquhart]

2. You Might be Right

But opposing Goss' nomination would be an insane move. Politically horrible, unless Goss has something awful in his past that we can dig up.

We can't shout for action and then obstruct when Bush nominates a man who's such an obvious choice for the job. It would look to purely partisan and it would have negative results.

[sally343434]

4. "Obvious choice?"

> We can't shout for action and then obstruct when Bush nominates
> a man who's such an obvious choice for the job.

Why not? The only thing that's "obvious" about this choice is the political nature of it. The last thing Bush cares about is the proper functioning of the CIA, or else he would have chosen someone qualified for the job. Instead, he merely chose a republical operative who, by his own admission, is unfit.

[francisurquhart]

10. That's not what he said...

That's just Michael Moore playing his games: he said that he wouldn't be qualified to enter as a new case officer today. Not nearly the same thing.

There are a lot of cases where senior managers in a company, were they not already inside, would have a hard time coming in at an entry level (the most obvious example being senior managers without degrees in companies which require a Bachelor's Degree even for entry-level jobs).

In short, that won't hold up.

Former CIA Officer and Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. We can't howl that he's not qualified for the job without good reason.

Look, if Kerry wins, he can get rid of him in five months anyways. If he doesn't, well, Goss will be better than whoever Bush would nominate without an election coming right up.

[G_j]

12. LOL n/t

[Tight_rope]

20. At first I was going to say...OK let's play...But then I remembered...

All the lies, the secrecy, and the deception that the Bush administration has bestowed on the American people. The Florida fiasco that lead to Bush stealing the US Presidental election, the victims of 9/11, the Valarie Plame case comes to mind. The lies, especially those of WMD, the Chalabi's/Allawi connection to CIA, "Uncle Bandar Bush", the "Fear Alerts", Haliburtons "Food for Oil", the Cheney's "Fuck you's", the "swift-boaters", and even the dirty tricks done to McCain in 2000 (someone on their side). I could go on for quiet a while. But, I'll stop here.

I remember all these things and say to myself, "HEY THEY HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH ENOUGH ALREADY. WE NEED TO STAND AND FIGHT.

[Zorra]

22. Yep. And remember Mueller took over FBI 9/4/01. 7 days later, al Qaeda

hit the WTC, like they, (or someone), were waiting for the FBI to go into the chaos of transition.

I can just see Goss taking over on Oct. 20, and al Qaeda nuking Los Angeles or something like that on Oct. 27, during a chaotic CIA transition and right before the election.

[Tellurian]

36. Yep! Or is this going to be another, "I didn't have all the facts." case

scenario?

[GHOSTDANCER]

23. Pah Lease.......

<>

[G_j]

6. didn't he co-sponsor PATRIOT II ?

and why an obvious choice? He himself said he wasn't qualified.

There are many damning quotes from Goss about WMD etc.

I also think she is wrong on this.

[unfrigginreal]

7. What makes him an obvious choice for the job?

The guy was in charge of the committee with oversight responsibilities for the CIA that failed us in 2001. What's he going to do now to make the CIA more effective that he couldn't do before? He seems like exactly the wrong choice.

[Zorra]

8. Goss has a great deal in his past that we have already dug up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=739904

Goss has admitted that he is unqualified to work for the CIA and his confirmation will be a deadly mistake. He is not being nominated because he is qualified for the job, but because he is a PNAC puppet.

[Jazzgirl]

13. Sniff, sniff...

Do I smell....sniff....freep?

[0007]

51. I got a whiff of that myself........

C'mon Dems fight that asshole nomination all the way. Fuck that horse shit, this is the wrong fight.

[DoYouEverWonder]

34. How about eating breakfast on 9-11 with Pakistan's Chief Spy

General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money-man" behind the 9-11 hijackers?

Ahmad had given Mohammad Atta $100,000 a few days before the attacks. Also the Venice Flight School is in Goss's district. This is the type of people two Bonesmen, Sen Bob Graham and Rep Porter Goss like to hang out with? Both of who happen to be on the Senate Intel Committee?

Porter Goss is to Bu$h, what Ollie North was to Bu$h Sr. I bet Office Depot will be having a run on shredders soon.

[BobL]

35. In politics, perception is reality

The truth doesn't matter...

How do you suppose the Senate Republicans would characterize the Democrats opposition ? Do you suppose Sen. Kerry might get drawn into this ?

This is what they would say, It is essential that the CIA remain stable in a time when we are facing terrorists threats, the Democrats have chosen to play politics with the issue by delaying this nomination and they are putting us all in danger.

That's what they would say and that's what the media would repeat 24/7 right up until the Nov election.

This nomination is a ploy designed to refocus the debate on terrorism (Bush's one strong point) and to portray the Democrats as partisans that put politics above national security.

This is the right strategy, they can ask Goss the tough question and make Bush look like a fool for ever recomending this guy in the first place.

Think about it, When Kerry is elected he can always fire the guy, right ?

[Zhade]

46. Maybe b*shco WANTS the CIA distracted right now.

NT!

[bemildred]

3. Surely she is not suggesting we allow a moron to head the CIA

for mere reasons of shallow political expediency?

[G_j]

11. of course that is what she is suggesting

our 'fearless leaders' have turned 'shallow political expediency' into a fine art.

[mitchtv]

5. Jane Harmon- a Joe Biden Democrat

or should I say Lieberman

[IndianaGreen]

29. Biden is a discredited plagiarizer and Cold Warrior

who is as much a war hawk as the equally idiotic Harman.

Harman and Biden support a PNAC-style foreign policy for the US, except they are neo-libs.

[Rose Siding]

9. dupe, here's a link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=752262

[goforit]

14. LOL!!!!...DEMS always running from the fight!!!...just one too many times

Unbelievable!!!

Quite frankly.....I do believe 1776 is in order

[0rganism]

15. I wonder what kind of leverage Rove has on Rep. Harman

Shadey campaign finance?

Homosexual affairs?

Drug abuse?

Mafia ties?

The bushistas are in strong-arm mode this month.

[Zhade]

47. She's a Vichy Democrat. 'Nuff said.

NT!

[wurzel]

16. It is avoiding fights that got us where we are today!

On the outside looking in!

[leesa]

17. Ah yes. Let's not find out what happened on 9-11...because LOT'S of

government people know way the hell more than they are willing to say.

[Rageneau]

18. Harman no longer deserves the support of Democrats.

If Jane Harman feels that Goss deserves the support of Senate Democrats, then she no longer deserves the support of Democrats at all.

Appeasers like Harman, Lieberman, Biden are completely out of touch with their party's rank and file, and they either don't know that or don't care about it. Either way, it makes them unworthy of our support.

In the first place, Democrats should oppose ANY Bush nominee simply because he or she IS a Bush nominee. If Bush wants them, they HAVE to be wrong for America, and especially for liberals. Is there a single Bush appointee who hasn't done a crappy job? If so, I'm unaware of them.

Democrats should fight every Bush move, evey chance they get to -- like the Pubs do. If this pisses off the pundits and pollsters, that's just fine with me. I'd rather go down fighting than go down compromising smarmily like Harmon, Biden, et al.

In the second place it is WRONG for someone as politically biased as Goss is to be placed in charge of an ostensibly non-partisan agency, especially one with such unaccountable power.

Remember when Reagan appointed Casey? The Dems played pattycake with them back then, too -- said "let the prez have who he wants."

And what did we get in return? Iran-Conta and the October Surprise, the crack explosion and BCCI, among other America-staining scandals. And the CIA was right in the big middle of ALL of them.

Partisan politics and crucial intelligence-gathering have nothing to do with one another. If Bush wants to try to FORCE them together, it is up to the Democrats to keep them from doing it -- because the damage, once done, can never be repaired.

I wish there were some way to take the entire Democratic Congressional Delegation and just shake them until their eyes rolled -- all the while shouting," Stop helping those bastards screw us! Just stop it! Stop it! Do you hear?"

[TahitiNut]

41. I agree. Jane Harman has been one of the more disappointing ...

... "Democrats" I've seen. On various vote rating scales (ACLU, ADA, etc.) she consistently rates low on liberalism. She's a SoCal representative and far too cozy with the likes of Dreier, Bono, Hunter, and (in his day) Dornan rather than Waters or Sanchez, whom I'd regard as more "natural" allies. Her voting has been closer to that of Steve Horn (R, CA-38) than either Waters or Sanchez among the members of the California delegation.

She's consistently advocating Quisling-like "cooperation" even though there's been absolutely nothing to show reciprocation from the right, and far too many indications of just the opposite.

Porter Goss is a lockstep reichbot, 100% compliant to the neoconservative line. When we get a Commission report that criticizes both Congressional oversight and "groupthink," he's one of the worst possible choices that could be made in the light of those critiques.

He's an "honored" member of my "Shit List of Seventy-two House Reichbots" ...
Adam Putnam (R, FL-12)
Anne Northup (R, KY-3)
Bob Goodlatte (R, VA-6)
C.W. Young (R, FL-10)
Cass Ballenger (R, NC-10)
Charles Norwood (R, GA-10)
Charles Taylor (R, NC-11)
Chris Cannon (R, UT-3)
Christopher Cox (R, CA-47)
Cliff Stearns (R, FL-6)
Dave Weldon (R, FL-15)
David Vitter (R, LA-1)
Doc Hastings (R, WA-4)
Duncan Hunter (R, CA-52)
Ed Royce (R, CA-39)
Edward Schrock (R, VA-2)
Eric Cantor (R, VA-7)
Ernest Istook (R, OK-5)
F. James Sensenbrenner (R, WI-9)
Frank Lucas (R, OK-6)
Gary Miller (R, CA-41)
Gil Gutknecht (R, MN-1)
Harold Rogers (R, KY-5)
Henry Bonilla (R, TX-23)
Henry Hyde (R, IL-6)
Howard Coble (R, NC-6)
Howard McKeon (R, CA-25)
J.D. Hayworth (R, AZ-6)
Jack Kingston (R, GA-1)
James Gibbons (R, NV-2)
Jim DeMint (R, SC-4)
Jim Ryun (R, KS-2)
Jo Ann Davis (R, VA-1)
Joe Barton (R, TX-6)
John Boehner (R, OH-8)
John Culberson (R, TX-7)
John Doolittle (R, CA-4)
John Duncan (R, TN-2)
John Linder (R, GA-11)
John Mica (R, FL-7)
Joseph Knollenberg (R, MI-11)
Joseph Pitts (R, PA-16)
Ken Calvert (R, CA-43)
Lamar Smith (R, TX-21)
Mark Green (R, WI-8)
Mark Kennedy (R, MN-2)
Melissa Hart (R, PA-4)
Michael Oxley (R, OH-4)
Mike Pence (R, IN-2)
Nathan Deal (R, GA-9)
Pete Sessions (R, TX-5)
Porter Goss (R, FL-14)
Randy Cunningham (R, CA-51)
Richard Baker (R, LA-6)
Rob Portman (R, OH-2)
Robin Hayes (R, NC-8)
Roger Wicker (R, MS-1)
Roscoe Bartlett (R, MD-6)
Sam Johnson (R, TX-3)
Scott McInnis (R, CO-3)
Spencer Bachus (R, AL-6)
Steve Chabot (R, OH-1)
Sue Myrick (R, NC-9)
Terry Everett (R, AL-2)
Thomas Reynolds (R, NY-27)
Thomas Tancredo (R, CO-6)
Todd Akin (R, MO-2)
Tom DeLay (R, TX-22)
Virgil Goode (R, VA-5)
W.J. Tauzin (R, LA-3)
Walter Jones (R, NC-3)
William Jenkins (R, TN-1)

[Zhade]

48. A poster with 33 posts gets it, and we've got 1000+ posters who don't.

It's like I'm in Bizarro World!

Excellent points. It's clear you're not under the spell that causes many posters here to refuse to see the truth about the current state of the Democratic party. You are VERY welcome here!

[dennis4868]

19. the wrong fight in this election year?

Ms. Harman....exactly what fight is worth fighting to you....I cannot thuink if one fight you have fought for us! You are a spineless and worthless piece of DNA!

[fizzana]

21. It is the wrong fight.

It's a fight we cannot win because the GOP have the votes to get him passed and if the Democrats fight his nomination we'll be handing the Republicans an issue they can hammer the Democrats with.

Think about it before reacting emotionally.

If we fight the nomination we'll be seeing ads that say "The Democrats wanted to reform the CIA but then they voted against it".

Keep your eyes on the prize and that is November 2. We have to win that election and we can't give the GOP any openings. Then when Kerry is elected, he can fire Goss' ass. That's the rational way to deal with this.

[Zhade]

49. See the first reply. I believe you are wrong on this.

They're going to spin it against the Dems no matter what they do - better that the Dems fight against Cheney's puppet, a guy who wants to allow the CIA to spy on American citizens!

[Democat]

24. If you disagree with her, you're just a hand wringing armchair strategist!

Democrats must learn not to fight, not to upset the right wing.

We can only win by giving in.

Sit down and shut up!

:)

[depakid]

25. And the Democrats wonnder why they are the minority party

A lot of people think that they don't believe in much- at least not enough to stand up and fight for it- so why bother voting for them? I completely sympathize with that view- and this is yet another case in point.

It's also a strategic blunder. Porter Goss has so many weaknesses and vulnerabilities that could be exploited- and through a confirmation fight, the Dems could- if they were smart, elucidate the many intelligence failings leading up to 9-11 and to the war that Porter Goss is himself implicated in... along with a host of other Republicans. Not fighting here is akin to just giving the Republicans another pass- and quite probably- the House, because it seems pretty obvious that the Kerry campaign isn't interested in holding the Republicans there accountable for their egregious behavior.

So I guess they'll just get away with it all, like they always do.

Thanks, Ms. Harman- even if you felt this way, you should have had the good sense- if not the good graces to keep your mouth shut and stay off Russert's show. You don't even have a vote on the matter.

[Democat]

28. Democrats look weak to the American people

If they won't even stand up and fight Republicans, why should the American people trust them to stand up and fight anyone else?

[sampsonblk]

38. For some, there is NO right fight

This is why they say Dems don't stand for anything.

[genius]

26. She gets NO contributions from me. She's in a safe district.

Harman has been too willing to back Bush in too many matters. In two years, lets run a Democrat against her in the primary.

[depakid]

27. either that, or she may find a Green running against her

in the general election.

Democrats that continue to act like this hurt progressive causes and their own party far more than their single seats are worth.

[Piperay]

30. The whole district is not safe.

Harman is my Congresswoman and I am in a very repuke area of the South Bay, Harman is a Democratic as this little enclave will ever go.

[SoCalDem]

31. The strategy is simple here.. Approve the clown

and then strategically leaked information that discredits him and proves how inept he is, will "convince" him to resign..

There are plenty of CIA people who already hate him..and you know that internal jealousies will be rampant inside the CIA and FBI.. Porter is a know-nothing.. He is just another idealogue who kissed enough asses to rise through the ranks.. He is nothing special.. To waste precious time wrangling over his "appointment" would be counter-productive..
This whole thing is just a Rove-ian trap to make the dems appear obstructionist..

[Zorra]

32. kick

[LeftHander]

33. No more neocons in power postiions...

They abuse power.

[mike_c]

37. democratic congressional leadership strategy....

1) Bend over.

2) Grasp ankles.

3) Close eyes and think of England.

4) Thank you sir may I have another?!

[tom_paine]

39. I am afraid I agree. America is dying or dead because no one has the guts

to Stand and Be True.

The Dems are playing not to lose, which of course ensures losing.

God, it does seem like nothing has changed, doesn't it?

[Pow_Wow]

52. too true

when does the point come when you stand for absolutely nothing?
These people need to stand up and be counted. They already gave us Ashcroft for God's sake! How much more pain can they inflict on us?

[Algorem]

40. Zogby 50-43.There's blood in water Dems should be tearing these water-

treading bozos up not letting them put a bushgang member as head of the goddam cia,no?

[IndianaGreen]

42. Have you considered the possibilty that these Democratic leaders...

share the same philosophy and goals as Mr. Goss? How else can you explain this except by saying that PPI and PNAC are two sides of the same coin?

[Algorem]

43. that is cricketifying

the spiny blowfish.when does spearfishing season open?

[Zhade]

50. SSSHHHH! Don't reveal the truth!

People don't want to believe that the PPI is PNAC's twin, even though its founder Will Marshall IS a PNACer!

I can't see anything changing in this country as long as BOTH Dems and Repubs refuse to see their leaders for what they are: imperialists.

The only difference is degree.

[IndianaGreen]

53. "The only difference is degree."

I can't see anything changing in this country as long as BOTH Dems and Repubs refuse to see their leaders for what they are: imperialists.

The only difference is degree.

PNAC is raw imperialism, while PPI is sugar-coated imperialism. To the victims of imperialism, it matters little that those American bombs falling on their heads were dropped by a PNAC policy or a PPI policy. People will die just the same!

[Zhade]

57. Indeed. And people wonder why we're hated?

Get a clue, people. Your willful ignorance GETS PEOPLE KILLED.

[Zorra]

44. kick

[jmowreader]

45. It may not matter who is DIRECTOR of Central Intelligence

The DCI is a political job. Always has been, always will be. Certainly he has some influence at the Company.

The two guys directly under him, the Deputy Director (Operations) and the Deputy Director (Intelligence), are long-term career spooks and they're the people who actually run the place.

And they will blow off the Director if the Director turns out to be a dumbass.

If Porter Goss leaves the Deputy Directors alone, those guys can get some work done. If, as I have a sneaking suspicion will happen, Goss micromanages or replaces the Deputy Directors, then we have trouble.

[DoNotRefill]

54. I'd like to point out....

that this guy supposedly has ties to really rabid environmental groups on the left, dating back to the '80s.

Kind of curious, eh?

[G_j]

55. this is all I was able to find

in a very quick search:

http://www.house.gov/rules/gossbio.htm

Environment: As a Floridian, Goss understands the importance of the state's natural resources and works hard to protect them. Among his on-going environmental efforts are those to place a permanent moratorium on offshore oil drilling in the environmentally sensitive areas off Florida's Gulf Coast. During the last two Congresses, he's introduced comprehensive legislation that would study oil drilling's environmental and economic effects on Florida and bring both sides to the table to broker a permanent solution. Goss' other environmental credentials include his work on two state blue-ribbon committees dealing with coastal zone management and environmental regulation and his service as a director of the National Audubon Society.
-----

do you have a link or a few more details?

[DoNotRefill]

56. it predates his house career....

and is part of the "Sanibel-lore" about how he got into it. I know some of the people involved, but prudence requires my keeping my mouth shut.

Sufficed to say, he knows some STRANGE people....and they ain't all RWers.

[G_j]

58. strange

I agree