Monica's worth an investigation, but outing a covert agent isn't?

August 10, 2004 8:10 AM

Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation, said Porter Goss while downplaying Valerie Plame's outing. Bush's choice today to replace Tenet as head of the CIA had already been shot down by the very people who'll be voting on his confirmation. It is widely believed that Bush will soon appoint a new CIA director, partly to avoid extra criticism should terrorists strike the homeland between now and November. Why Goss?
posted by amberglow (46 comments total)

To begin this on a completely objective note:
Why not Goss?
answer: His face just seriously creeps me out.
posted by Peter H at 8:24 AM on August 10, 2004

These decisions usually hinge upon more than a single factor, but I would guess that in part they want someone in the job who finds the Plame affair trivial. I would guess they sense real vulnerability here. Perhaps the outing came from the highest levels such as Cheney or Bush or Rummy and they think putting Goss in protects them somewhat. If an attack occurs during a contentious confirmation fight they will blame the Democrats for delaying intelligence enhancements. In any event they can use it as a platform to claim that the Democrats are playing politics with the security of the nation. Of course the countercharges from the Democrats will flow naturally. I see this as a lose/lose proposition, a loser for the Republicans, a loser for the Democrats and especially a loser for the nation.
posted by caddis at 8:30 AM on August 10, 2004

In my waking state just this morning, I was trying to decide if the bigger plague on our society is:

• excessive sentimentality where voyeristic, Oprah-like phony empathy passes for genuine emotion and feeling, or
• hardened cynicism where every governmental action is the result of a careful calculation of possible outcomes and cover-your-one's-own-ass-ness.

I think it's a draw.
posted by psmealey at 8:32 AM on August 10, 2004

Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation

Lewinsky, Plame -- it all depends on who's leaking what
posted by matteo at 8:37 AM on August 10, 2004

(literally)
posted by matteo at 8:38 AM on August 10, 2004

Amusing side-note: all the Google ads on this thread so far are for gay marriage.
posted by Peter H at 8:42 AM on August 10, 2004

Goss also says us thinking there were WMDs in Iraq is Clinton's fault. (via pseudo self link)
posted by evening at 8:46 AM on August 10, 2004

Interesting--I'm getting ads for "Bush/Cheney gear".

I can't decide what seems more morally bankrupt at the moment, this or the Alan-Keyes-for-Senator thing.

The partisan antics of the Republicrats and Democans just get more and more desperate. I feel like a Bull Moose!
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:48 AM on August 10, 2004

Why Goss?

Ashcroft needs a soul mate?
posted by nofundy at 8:51 AM on August 10, 2004

At least Keyes is entertaining and there's no chance he'll win. Goss is scary, for the reasons enumerated above.
posted by Vidiot at 8:51 AM on August 10, 2004

Other point

Discussion topic: What is the worst thing that can happen to America from a silly Bush appointment that will be embraced without contest 100% by free-thinking GOP herd?


Never Forget!
posted by Peter H at 8:52 AM on August 10, 2004

[on preview] DAGNABBIT, nofundy beat me to it! (spent too much time looking for an Ashcroft with the appropriate Mariah Carey pose)
posted by Peter H at 8:53 AM on August 10, 2004

Well, CIA directors have often had conflicts with Congress. They're in the secrets business and Congress wants in on the secrets. So by putting a congressman in there, Bush probably expects better relations between the two.

But if there is one man in Congress (both houses) that I respect, it's Pat Roberts. There has been a lot of opposition to Goss within Congress. I'm not sure what Bush was thinking. Goss is a good candidate, but might not be able to make it...and might get filibustered. (Like a kid with a new toy, the Democrats won't be able to resist.)
posted by MrAnonymous at 8:54 AM on August 10, 2004

"My view is this was in no way willful,"

So he literally acknowledges the fact that Plame's cover was blown, but says it's okay because it was probably just an accident?

In what twisted universe is describin someone to a journalist as "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction", an unintentional disclosure? I mean, just how stupid do they think we are?
don't answer that, it's too depressing to think about
posted by ook at 8:55 AM on August 10, 2004

I'm not saying that the Goss nomination isn't political, but I doubt that it has much anything to do with the Plame affair. Why? Because the resolution of the Plame affair is not dependant on the CIA. We already know that Valeria Plame was some sort of covert operative working for the CIA. The leak itself, however, did not come from the CIA, it came from the White House. The CIA is not responsible for the investigation, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald is. Who cares if Porter Goss didn't think it was that big a deal? Fitzgerald thinks it is, and he's pursuing it. There are plenty of other, better reasons to oppose Goss, as evening indicates above.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:56 AM on August 10, 2004

Never Forget!
posted by Peter H at 8:59 AM on August 10, 2004

Yes, monju, the leak came from the White House, but you'd hope that Goss would be a lot less cavalier about this, considering he's a former DO and Clandestine Service officer himself, is one of the relatively few people privy to high-level intelligence disclosures, and may potentially be in charge of (and responsible for) other Operations officers.
posted by Vidiot at 9:08 AM on August 10, 2004

(Like a kid with a new toy, the Democrats won't be able to resist.)

talk about a no win situation. if it does get filibustered...i can here the spin right now: 'the dems are un-willing to work to defeat the terrorists!'

and it works too!
posted by oliver_crunk at 9:11 AM on August 10, 2004

Sidhedevil: Which is more morally bankrupt at the moment, this or the Alan-Keyes-for-Senator thing?

Hey, if Hillary can move to a "foreign" state and get elected to the Senate, why can't Keyes?
posted by davidmsc at 9:14 AM on August 10, 2004

Bush is nominating this guy because he knows there is no way he'll pass nomination. Even though there's significant resistance from legislators in his own party he'll end up blaming it on those meddling Democrats.

davidmsc: because Keyes is a joke, even to other Republicans.
posted by bshort at 9:17 AM on August 10, 2004

MrAnonymous, Pat Roberts is a right-wing extremist and the last person who should be heading the CIA. I also don't think Goss is good at anything but toeing the party like.

Robert's voting record (a snippet):

from here
# Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 25)
# Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
# Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
# Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
# Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
# Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
# Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
# Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
# Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
# Require 90 day delay for compliance before ADA lawsuits. (May 2002)
# Voted NO on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)
# Voted NO on maintaining right of habeus corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
# Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
# Voted NO on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)
# More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)

A "tough on some crime" anti-free speech bigot to run the CIA. Perfect choice alright.

>Like a kid with a new toy, the Democrats won't be able to resist.

Quit trolling. Thanks.

On preview:

> if Hillary can move to a "foreign" state and get elected to the Senate, why can't Keyes?

Because it makes Keyes a big fat hypoctite. Keyes on Hillary:

I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there, so I certainly wouldn't imitate it.

For what its worth, I agree with Keyes that carpetbagging hurts local politics, but Keyes now disagrees with himself.
posted by skallas at 9:19 AM on August 10, 2004

Well, why not Senator Shelby?
posted by Vidiot at 9:23 AM on August 10, 2004

I bet Shelby is Bush's fallback choice. : <
posted by amberglow at 9:27 AM on August 10, 2004

because Keyes is a joke, even to other Republicans.

In the internals, blacks choose Obama 9-1, whites choose Obama 2-1, 27 percent of Republicans choose Obama, women choose Obama 4-1

Everyone loves an underdog!
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:38 AM on August 10, 2004

What skallas said. I didn't like it when HRC did it, don't like it when Keyes does it. If I ever do it, you're allowed to call me a hypocrite, just as I'm calling Keyes a hypocrite.

But it isn't just the hypocrisy, it's that Keyes is such an utter and complete nutjob. Don't they have any black Republicans in Illinois? Do they really have to import crazy ones from Maryland?

I actually think that if the Executive branch staffers are "accidentally" leaking the names of field agents of the CIA, that's an even worse problem than purposeful sabotage. There's a hell of a lot of stuff that shouldn't be leaked, accidentally or otherwise.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:15 AM on August 10, 2004

Hey, if Hillary can move to a "foreign" state and get elected to the Senate...

Or Dick Cheney moving back to Wyoming at the last second to get around the 12th Amendment.
posted by terrapin at 10:27 AM on August 10, 2004

Porter?
posted by grabbingsand at 10:58 AM on August 10, 2004

I had just moved to New York when I voted for Hillary, who had just moved here too. I kind of like the symmetry. But then again, I don't care about Keyes moving either. Why do you (those who do)? Do you really think an intelligent person who pays attention to their constituents can't understand issues if they don't live somewhere for years? Does that apply to longtime representatives who have effectively spent most of their time away from their districts in Washington, and thus haven't really lived there for years anyway?
posted by dame at 11:00 AM on August 10, 2004

Off the main topic: The Republicans in Illinois missed a golden opportunity to groom a young up and comer by running them in the race against Obama. A young unknown would suffer no shame through the loss and they could use the name recognition gained through the endeavor in a future congress race.
posted by caddis at 11:11 AM on August 10, 2004

I think that there's a reason why we have Senators from each state, and Representatives from specific areas of each state. If it didn't matter, why not just elect the whole legislature at large?

I personally like to vote for candidates who have experience in politics at the local and state level before they go for the Federal seats. I think it gives them a better understanding of their constituencies' needs.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:13 AM on August 10, 2004

The Republicans in Illinois missed a golden opportunity to groom a young up and comer by running them in the race against Obama.

I think that was why Jack Ryan ran. I guess now the state GOP can't be sure if their next young up-and-comer has a thing for having sex in private sex clubs.
posted by gyc at 11:37 AM on August 10, 2004

I think that there's a reason why we have Senators from each state, and Representatives from specific areas of each state.

It's a convenient way to break down large groups into smaller units?

But also, Americans move around all them time. Isn't there something to be said for a representative who appreciates that aspect of thei consituency?
posted by dame at 11:37 AM on August 10, 2004

This is getting worse: The Pakistani General's host on Capitol Hill during his official visit to Washington was Rep. Porter Goss, Bush's nominee for the position of Director of Central Intelligence. 
In fact, on the morning of September 11, Porter Goss was hosting a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill in honor of General Ahmad, the alleged "money-man" (to use the FBI's expression) behind the 9/11 hijackers.
The 9/11 breakfast meeting was described by one press report as a "follow-up meeting" to that held in Pakistan in late August 2001, barely two weeks before 9/11.
posted by amberglow at 11:45 AM on August 10, 2004

here's the WaPo article mentioned in the
other link
posted by amberglow at 11:52 AM on August 10, 2004

Hillary never said she wouldn't do it. I have fewer problems with people moving into another state for an election (though it's still not something I'm thrilled with) than I do with people saying one thing and doing another.
posted by Vidiot at 11:53 AM on August 10, 2004

Off the main topic: The Republicans in Illinois missed a golden opportunity to groom a young up and comer by running them in the race against Obama. A young unknown would suffer no shame through the loss and they could use the name recognition gained through the endeavor in a future congress race.

Two words: Rick Lazio. Remember him? Most people don't.
posted by mkultra at 11:59 AM on August 10, 2004

This is getting worse ...

that's funny (not ha ha, weird), amberglow. that breakfast with Ahmoud on 9/11 was the first thing i thought of when i heard the name Porter Goss. i had never even heard of his commments about Plame b4.

apparently no one in the mainstream news media thinks the same way we do.

this is all i could find, and it's a quite a bit out of the mainstream.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:20 PM on August 10, 2004

for those of us just about ready to try on some tin-foil hats, here's more conspiracy theory on Porter Goss.

*starts collecting cans of beans and prepares for relocation to jungles of Ecuador*
posted by mrgrimm at 12:36 PM on August 10, 2004

Robert's voting record (a snippet):

I am as liberal as the next guy, but frankly, this list didn't shock or awe me (and why should it? the worst stuff on there is the stop-habeus-appeals thing and the 90-day ADA lawsuit moratorium, and those don't generally get much attention). He could be an archconservative and I wouldn't know it based on that list--I could find a ton of Democrats who supported every thing there.
posted by norm at 1:12 PM on August 10, 2004

I currently live in the city I was born in (although I have lived elsewhere in my almost-forty years on the planet). Thus, my preference for "local talent" in politics may reflect my own experience.

Note that I don't think that people who don't live in a state or a Congressional district should be prohibited from running for a seat in that state or district (given compliance with that locality's existing residency requirements). I'm just saying that I, personally, wouldn't vote for them.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:46 PM on August 10, 2004

Bill Maher:

"It's starting to look bad for Republicans. First, they couldn't find Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, then they couldn't find weapons in Iraq. Now they can't find a black person in Chicago!"
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:02 PM on August 10, 2004

This attack (google cache) on Kerry by Goss has been removed from Bush's campaign website.
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:41 AM on August 11, 2004

They once caught Congressman Porter Goss hiding behind his office door to avoid them. --from Four 9/11 Moms Battle Bush
posted by amberglow at 7:32 AM on August 11, 2004

# Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)

What was this? A proposal to build minority and/or female only lanes on interstates? IE: how do you direct highway funds to minorities?
posted by Mitheral at 10:40 AM on August 11, 2004

for maintenance and construction and repair of highways, i think, Mitheral--it was about ensuring that at least a little bit out of all the contracts given out all over the country go to companies traditionally shut out of these contracts.
posted by amberglow at 10:53 AM on August 11, 2004

This just in [Washington Post]

Rep. Porter Goss may regret being interviewed for Michael Moore's Bush-bashing headliner of the summer, "Fahrenheit 9/11," and not just because the movie flashed his office phone number across the screen.

[...]

Goss: "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."
posted by lagado at 7:38 AM on August 12, 2004