Posted by 79 at 11:34am Aug 12 '04So Bush has nominated a new CIA director. i temporarily forget the guy's name, but he's from the House Intelligence Committee (is he not?), and he's worked extensively with the CIA - including several years working directly for. there were many names on the ballot, and not many people expected this one.
many republicans, of course, think it's an excellent move. Bush is working quickly to fill up the vaccum, they say, there was only an acting director and we need the protection of having someone there - and many of them admit that it helps to cover Bush's ass in case something happens before he gets around to nominating someone.
here's the catch. the guy is about as non-partisan as you could get. he's joined Bush for campaign conference calls to the press. he's denounced Senator Kerry on the floor of Congress - attacked, actually.
the post of Director of the CIA is, quite blatently obviously, supposed to be extremely non-partisan. it's an appointed post with no legislative powers, and a responsibility to everyone. Bush is going around saying this guy is the best man for the job, and that's why he picked him - but there were better men, as even his own advisors were pointing out until the announcement was made. this guy was picked because of his extreme loyalty to Bush (one of the things Bush has never been shy about weighing heavily in those around him) and his antagonistic feelings towards Kerry in an election year.
my thoughts, more directly:
this guy is gonna make Ridge look like a Democrat. forget "we can thank Our President for this knowledge about a possible terrorist attack" or whatver. forget the CIA being asked to filter out unwanted intelligence. it's now going to be able to do that on it's own. with the Director being such a gung-ho supporter of Bush, do you think any intelligence counter-productive to this administration would surface?
even if i'm panicking about the extent, it's certainly not good "uniter" politics to appoint someone this partisan to one of the all-time non-partisan posts....especially in an election year.
here's the deal, though.....
can the Democrats, especially Kerry and Edwards, afford to stand up to Bush on this? obviously they should - but Bush is provoking them. they can't, not now. if the Democrats start to call foul, the Administration and GOP will start running around the country talking about how Kerry and Edwards are trying to stop the President from protecting the country, letting politics get in the way of america's safety.
end result, i think this is one of the sleaziest moves made by Bush during his presidency. maybe the end result won't come to much, i dunno, but it's still really, really sleazy. either the nomination goes through and he puts a very vocal Bush-Yes-Kerry-No guy as the head of the CIA, or he gets to fabricate more attacks about the Democrats not protecting the country and Kerry being a flip-flop (as Kerry has called for these sorts of measures since before Bush did).
(all relevant facts taken from yesterday's NY Times)
many republicans, of course, think it's an excellent move. Bush is working quickly to fill up the vaccum, they say, there was only an acting director and we need the protection of having someone there - and many of them admit that it helps to cover Bush's ass in case something happens before he gets around to nominating someone.
here's the catch. the guy is about as non-partisan as you could get. he's joined Bush for campaign conference calls to the press. he's denounced Senator Kerry on the floor of Congress - attacked, actually.
the post of Director of the CIA is, quite blatently obviously, supposed to be extremely non-partisan. it's an appointed post with no legislative powers, and a responsibility to everyone. Bush is going around saying this guy is the best man for the job, and that's why he picked him - but there were better men, as even his own advisors were pointing out until the announcement was made. this guy was picked because of his extreme loyalty to Bush (one of the things Bush has never been shy about weighing heavily in those around him) and his antagonistic feelings towards Kerry in an election year.
my thoughts, more directly:
this guy is gonna make Ridge look like a Democrat. forget "we can thank Our President for this knowledge about a possible terrorist attack" or whatver. forget the CIA being asked to filter out unwanted intelligence. it's now going to be able to do that on it's own. with the Director being such a gung-ho supporter of Bush, do you think any intelligence counter-productive to this administration would surface?
even if i'm panicking about the extent, it's certainly not good "uniter" politics to appoint someone this partisan to one of the all-time non-partisan posts....especially in an election year.
here's the deal, though.....
can the Democrats, especially Kerry and Edwards, afford to stand up to Bush on this? obviously they should - but Bush is provoking them. they can't, not now. if the Democrats start to call foul, the Administration and GOP will start running around the country talking about how Kerry and Edwards are trying to stop the President from protecting the country, letting politics get in the way of america's safety.
end result, i think this is one of the sleaziest moves made by Bush during his presidency. maybe the end result won't come to much, i dunno, but it's still really, really sleazy. either the nomination goes through and he puts a very vocal Bush-Yes-Kerry-No guy as the head of the CIA, or he gets to fabricate more attacks about the Democrats not protecting the country and Kerry being a flip-flop (as Kerry has called for these sorts of measures since before Bush did).
(all relevant facts taken from yesterday's NY Times)