Senate Democrats on Monday questioned whether Rep. Porter Goss, nominated to be the director of central intelligence, would operate independently in that job, citing Goss’ past statements in support of President Bush’s foreign policy.
In the second and final session to consider Goss’ nomination, several members of the Senate Intelligence Committee expressed concern that Goss, a Florida Republican, would not easily make the transition from politician to spy chief.
“How are you going to handle matters regarding Iraq and other foreign policy matters that you supported while in the Congress?” asked Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). “It’s pretty hard for a CIA director to recuse themselves, but how can you tell us, given your past history, that you’re going to give the president the unvarnished truth, despite having a stake in policies you voted for?”
“Senator,” Goss replied, “last week I said it, I will repeat again: I understand the difference in the jobs.”
Though the job of director of central intelligence comes with authority over all of the government’s intelligence agencies, in recent years it has focused primarily on running just the CIA.
Goss’ nomination, announced by Bush in August, is coming before the Senate as the CIA and other intelligence agencies face a major reorganization.
Pushed by the report of the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress is considering proposals that would revamp the intelligence agencies and their work. Among other changes, the commission called for a new, powerful national intelligence director who would oversee the CIA director as well as other intelligence agency chiefs.
Bush and many in Congress back the idea of a national intelligence director, though just what that job would entail is far from clear.
Goss, a 15-year congressional veteran and former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is expected to win approval from the committee and confirmation from the full Senate for the intelligence director’s job. Depending on how the intelligence reforms are enacted, he is likely to end up as either national intelligence director, overseeing all 15 government intelligence agencies, or as the deputy director in charge of the CIA.
Some Democrats have viewed the nomination of Goss, a former CIA officer and a loyal supporter of the agency, as an attempt by the White House to rush a political ally into the job. On several occasions this year, Goss has made statements critical of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Bush’s opponent in the presidential race, and the Democratic Party.
Democrats argue that the CIA director traditionally has not been a politician, and Goss’ partisan comments brought him the most trouble during the two-hour session Monday.
Using past Bush administration statements about the danger of Iraq and its alleged ties to the Al Qaeda terrorist network–positions contradicted by some intelligence–Democrats wondered aloud whether Goss would have difficulty delivering intelligence reports that contradict administration positions.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) asked Goss about intelligence gathered by the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that was delivered directly to Vice President Dick Cheney without the knowledge of then-CIA director George Tenet.
Levin suggested that the Pentagon-gathered intelligence supported the case for war, particularly information suggesting a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, even though the CIA had intelligence that contradicted it.
“Where there are very public misstatements about what the intelligence provides, it’s the public that’s been misinformed,” Levin said. “A private comment to a policymaker doesn’t correct that public misinformation, of which there was a vast amount prior to the Iraq war.”
Goss said he would move to correct policymakers if they misstated intelligence publicly to support their position. Goss also defended the administration.
“Senator, I don’t believe any public official in a position of responsibility has deliberately mischaracterized or misled anybody in the United States or anyplace else,” he said.
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), the Intelligence Committee chairman, rose to Goss’ defense, suggesting the congressman was capable of leaving politics aside in his new job, which entails providing intelligence to the president and his staff but not taking part in the policy decisions that spring from those reports.
“I hope to heck that after 10 years, somebody could make a statement and [senators would] not pick and choose and say, `That’s partisan,'” Roberts said, referring to Goss’ tenure in the House.
“I think it’s partisan from the other side, and I think it’s time to quit this,” Roberts added. “The gentleman has indicated he’s independent, he will be non-partisan and he will be aggressive. I think sometimes you have to take a man at his word.”
