• Oh No!! Not Porter Goss!!!

    Email Print

    To: Website Fans, Browsers, Clients
    From: Jude Wanniski
    Re: Another Perle Stooge

    If the United States Senate confirms Rep. Porter Goss [R FL] as
    the new Director of Central Intelligence, it will simply replace
    one stooge of Richard Perle and the neo-cons with another. There's
    no way George Tenet could have bumbled his way through the job all
    those years without the backing of the neo-cons, and in the end
    it was Perle who went to the White House with his team, to meet
    with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and demand Tenet
    be cashiered for turning against Ahmed Chalabi, a more prized Perle
    agent. Tenet fell on his sword, but of course Perle had the backing
    of Vice President Cheney on this matter, and Porter Goss, chairman
    of the House u201CIntelligenceu201D Committee, has been Cheney's lapdog
    at least for these last four years. We can see that Perle and his
    pals do not give up, and President Bush is still being manipulated
    by them.

    When the 9-11 Commission issued its report last month, the one word
    it used to sum up the failure of the Intelligence Community was
    that it lacked u201Cimagination.u201D The dimmest bulb in the Intelligence
    Community had to be Porter Goss, an ex-CIA agent who parleyed his
    experience in that realm into a seat in the House, plus the chairmanship
    of the Intelligence Committee. Chairman Pat Roberts of Senate Intelligence,
    a Kansas Republican with very little imagination, at least has the
    excuse that he was never a CIA operative and thus never understood
    how corrupt the Agency has become over the years, which Rep. Goss
    had known first hand. By u201Ccorrupt,u201D I of course do not mean u201Ccashu201D
    corrupt, but intellectually corrupt, feeding the politicians they
    serve what they believe the politicians want to hear, not what is
    really going on out there in the cruel world. President Bush supposedly
    picked Goss because Senators do not normally reject a sitting member
    of Congress for a Cabinet post, although they have done so now and
    then. Remember Senator John Tower going down the tubes when nominated
    by Bush #41 for Defense Secretary?

    Maureen Dowd of The NYTimes had it about right in her comment
    about Goss on HBO's Bill Maher’s “RealTime” show August 13: “Porter
    Goss is not going to make me sleep better at night, if Al Qaeda
    is coming to get us… The 9/11 Commission found that congressional
    oversight of intelligence was dysfunctional. Guess who was in charge
    of congressional oversight of intelligence? Porter Goss… You know,
    he helped Cheney try and suppress the 9/11 Commission at birth.
    They tried to suffocate it… But still, I mean, if Cheney gets
    his own guy in there – you know, he was already over at the
    CIA lurking over the analysts, trying to get them to help him make
    up evidence to go to war – if he has his own guy in there,
    think of what he can do.”

    Then there is the July 3 report that showed up on the Internet's
    u201CTruthout,u201D by Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst for 27 years who has
    been openly expressing his disgust with how thoroughly the agency
    has been compromised. I posted his comments the same day as a u201Crecommended
    reading to my clients.u201D Here it is again:

    Cheney Cat’s Paw, Porter Goss, as CIA Director?
    By Ray McGovern

    There is, thankfully, a remnant of CIA professionals who still put
    objective analysis above political correctness and career advancement.
    Just when they thought there were no indignities left for them to
    suffer, they are shuddering again at press reports that Rep. Porter
    Goss (R-FL) may soon be their new boss.

    That possibility conjures up a painful flashback for those of us
    who served as CIA analysts when Richard Nixon was president. Chalk
    it up to our navet, but we were taken aback when swashbuckling
    James Schlesinger, who followed Richard Helms as CIA director, announced
    on arrival, “I am here to see that you guys don’t screw Richard
    Nixon!” To underscore his point, Schlesinger told us he would be
    reporting directly to White House political adviser Bob Haldeman
    (Nixon’s Karl Rove) and not to National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger.

    No doubt Goss would be more discreet in showing his hand, but his
    appointment as director would be the ultimate in politicization.
    He has long shown himself to be under the spell of Vice President
    Dick Cheney, and would likely report primarily to him and to White
    House political adviser Karl Rove rather than to National Security
    Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

    Goss would almost certainly follow lame-duck director George Tenet’s
    practice of reading to the president in the morning and become an
    integral part of the “White House team.” The team-membership phenomenon
    is particularly disquieting.

    If the failure-prone experience of the past few years has told us
    anything, it is that being a “team member” in good standing is the
    kiss of death for the CIA director’s primary role of “telling it
    like it is” to the president and his senior advisers. It was a painful
    moment of truth when former Speaker Newt Gingrich – like Cheney,
    a frequent visitor to CIA headquarters – told the press that
    Tenet was “so grateful to the president that he would do anything
    for him.”

    The Whore of Babylon

    One need look no farther than what has become known as a latter-day
    Whore of Babylon – the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)
    of Oct. 1, 2002, the very title of which betrayed a politically
    correct, but substantively wrong, conclusion: “Iraq’s Continuing
    Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction.” And bear in mind that
    it was only several months after President Bush decided to attack
    Iraq that Tenet commissioned that estimate. Not unreasonably, Congress
    was wondering about the views of the intelligence community, and
    the White House needed congressional acquiescence.

    No problem. “Slam-dunk” Tenet, following White House instructions,
    ensured that the estimate was cooked to the recipe of Cheney’s tart
    speech of August 26, 2002. “We know that Saddam has resumed his
    efforts to acquire nuclear weapons,” Cheney said, and the estimate
    Tenet signed gave belated endorsement – with “high confidence,”
    no less – to that lie.

    The intelligence process, of course, was not the only thing undermined.
    So was the Constitution. Various drafts of that NIE, reinforced
    with heavy doses of “mushroom-cloud” rhetoric, were used to deceive
    congressmen and senators into ceding to the executive their prerogative
    to declare war – the all-important prerogative that the framers
    of the Constitution took great care to reserve exclusively to our
    elected representatives in Congress.

    What was actually happening was clear to intelligence analysts,
    active and retired. We Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
    were not the only ones to expose it as clearly and often as the
    domesticated US media would allow.

    But what about CIA alumnus Porter Goss, then in his sixth year as
    chairman of the House intelligence oversight committee? Republican
    party loyalist first and foremost, Goss chose to give an entirely
    new meaning to “oversight.” Even when it became clear that the “mushroom
    cloud” reporting was based mostly on a forgery, he just sat back
    and watched it all happen. Like Br’er Fox, he didn’t say nothin’.

    From Sycophant Tenet to Professional Politician

    This is what CIA would get with Porter Goss at the helm. Appointing
    Goss would administer the coup de grce to intelligence analysts
    trying to survive while still speaking truth without fear or favor.
    The only saving grace for them would be the likelihood that they
    would be spared “multiple visits” by Cheney to the inner sanctum
    where it used to be possible to produce unvarnished analysis without
    vice presidents and other policy makers looking over their shoulders
    to ensure they “had thought of everything.” Goss, who has a long
    history of subservience to Cheney, could be counted upon to play
    the Cheney/Gingrich/et al. role himself.

    Don’t Throw Me in That Briar Patch

    Last month when Tenet was let go, administration officials indicated
    that a permanent replacement would not be named until after the
    election. They indicated they wanted to avoid washing the dirty
    linen of intelligence once again in public. Evidently, they had
    not yet checked with Karl Rove.

    The Democrats warn smugly that an attempt by the administration
    to confirm a new CIA director could become an embarrassing referendum
    on CIA’s recent performance, but they miss the point entirely –
    and show, once again, that they can’t hold a candle to Rove for
    political cleverness. The name of the administration’s game is to
    blame Iraq on intelligence failures, and Goss already did so last
    week in what amounted to his first campaign speech for the job of
    director. Consider court historian Bob Woodward’s book, “Plan of
    Attack,” which Condoleezza Rice and other officials have promoted.
    Rice has publicly confirmed Woodward’s story about Tenet misleading
    the president by claiming the evidence on Iraqi weapons of mass
    destruction was a “slam dunk.”

    While there is ample evidence of ineptitude on Tenet’s part, this
    now-famous vignette obscures the fact that President Bush had unleashed
    the dogs of war well before checking to see if there was any credible
    intelligence to justify doing so. As the election nears, it serves
    the administration nicely to keep the focus on intelligence shortcomings
    and to make it appear that the president was misled – on weapons
    of mass destruction, for example. And Porter Goss is precisely the
    right person to cooperate in this effort. I can imagine Rove laughing
    up his sleeve last week at word that the Democrats are urging Senate
    minority leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) to prepare for extensive confirmation
    hearings this fall. (In my mind’s eye I can see Rove musing, Bring
    ’em on!)

    The report due later this month by the Senate Intelligence Committee
    investigating intelligence performance regarding the long-sought-after
    Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is said to be scathing in its
    criticism of CIA. No problem. This too will help keep the focus
    where the White House wants it – the more so since committee
    chair and Republican stalwart Pat Roberts (R-KS) can be counted
    on to do whatever Cheney and Rove tell him to do. It was not until
    Roberts was instructed to give Tenet the cold shoulder that the
    latter began to see the handwriting on the wall.

    And Republicans are also in control of the 9/11 Commission, which
    will be issuing its own report later this month. There are already
    signs that Republican commissioners have begun to water down findings
    critical of the administration, while highlighting those critical
    of intelligence performance.

    Goss was happy to let the Senate intelligence committee take the
    lead in investigating intelligence performance on key issues like
    weapons of mass destruction and, before he decided to promote his
    candidacy for director, he generally chose to keep his committee’s
    head (and his own) down. With good reason. The myriad shortcomings
    in intelligence work appeared on his somnolent watch; by any reasonable
    standard, he bears some responsibility for impaired oversight –
    not only on Iraq, but on 9/11 as well.

    Goss on 9/11

    With respect to the various investigations into 9/11, Goss was thrust
    into the limelight by Cheney, who initially opposed any investigation
    at all. In February 2002, Cheney went so far as to warn that if
    Congress decided to go ahead with an investigation, administration
    officials might not show up to testify. When folks started talking
    about the need for a genuinely independent commission, though, Cheney
    acquiesced in the establishment of the congressional joint committee
    as the lesser evil and took reassurance in the fact that Goss could
    be counted on to keep the lid on – and, when necessary, run
    rings around co-chair Sen. Bob Graham, (D-FL).

    Porter Goss performed that task brilliantly, giving clear priority
    to providing political protection for the president. Goss acquiesced
    when the White House and CIA refused to allow the joint committee
    to report out any information on what President Bush had been told
    before 9/11 – ostensibly because it was “classified.” This
    gave rise to thinly disguised, but eloquently expressed, chagrin
    on the part of the committee staff director, who clearly had expected
    stronger backing in her negotiations with White House officials.

    As a result, completely absent from the committee’s report was any
    mention of the President’s Daily Brief of Aug. 6, 2001, which bore
    the title “Bin Laden determined to strike in US,” even though the
    press had already reported the title and the gist of that damning
    piece of evidence. Small wonder that the families of 9/11 victims
    were outraged and pressed even harder for an independent investigation.

    And a First for a Congressional Committee

    The most notable (and bizarre) achievement of the joint committee
    was inviting the FBI to investigate members of Congress. In June
    2002, Cheney called Goss and Graham to chastise them for a media
    leak of sensitive information from intercepted communications. A
    CNN report had attributed the leak to “two congressional sources,”
    and Cheney was livid.

    Goss admitted to being “chagrined” over Cheney’s call. He and Graham
    promptly bypassed normal congressional procedures and went directly
    to Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking him to investigate the
    leak. Little thought apparently was given to the separation of powers
    between the executive and congressional branches, or the fact that
    Congress has its own capability for such investigations.

    Next thing you know, the FBI is crawling all over Capitol Hill,
    questioning members of the joint committee that is investigating
    the FBI, CIA, et al., and asking members of Congress to submit to
    lie-detector tests. Shaking his head, Sen. John McCain (R-NM) noted
    the ludicrousness of allowing the FBI to build dossiers on lawmakers
    who are supposed to be investigating the FBI. He and others joined
    those pushing for the creation of an independent 9/11 commission.

    That Goss and Graham could be so easily intimidated by Cheney speaks

    Bottom Line

    West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the
    Senate intelligence committee is right in saying, “We need a director
    who is not only knowledgeable and capable but unquestionably independent.”
    And politicians need not apply. Rockefeller would rule out “any
    politician from either party.” But who pays attention to minority
    members these days – ranking or non-ranking? Rockefeller might
    have added that another prerequisite is prior experience managing
    a large, complex organization. Tenet had none; neither does Goss.

    There seems a better than even chance the Bush administration will
    nominate Goss, and use the nomination hearings as yet another forum
    at which to blame the Iraq debacle on faulty intelligence. And,
    as a bonus for Bush, if there is time before the election, it would
    seem a safe bet that Goss will be able to bring to heel recalcitrant
    analysts who are still “fighting the problem,” still staring in
    disbelief at the given wisdom (given, apparently, only to the Pentagon
    and White House) that Iraq and al-Qaeda were in bed with each other.

    * * * * *
    Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst for 27 years, is co-founder of Veteran
    Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is also the author of
    A Compromised CIA: What Can Be Done? – Chapter 4 in
    “Patriotism, Democracy and Common Sense,” to be published in September
    by the Eisenhower Foundation. His chapter includes a long section
    titled “The Qualities Needed in a Director of Central Intelligence.”

    19, 2004

    Wanniski [send him mail]
    runs the financial/political advisory service Wanniski.com.
    (If you subscribe,
    and check LewRockwell.com
    in the referring website pull-down,
    LRC gets 10%).

    Wanniski Archives

    Email Print