Would it even be possible for a new CIA director to be named that wouldn't give Al Gore an excuse to complain?
This, to me, seems to be the best evidence yet that Porter Goss is an adequate choice for the job. Not because Gore, as official representative of the paranoid wing of the Democratic Party, claims otherwise; I'm not that spitefully contrarian. No, it's that his criticisms are so vague and unserious:
[...] Gore called a Goss, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee since 1997, a "partisan ally" of Bush who is "experienced in bitterly criticizing the Democratic nominee on the subject of the war and on the subject of intelligence-gathering."
"Is that the best person to come in and fix all these problems that the 9/11 commission told us about - when he's been out there as a partisan advocate dividing people on the subject of war and on the subject of intelligence?" Gore said.
Partisan? Is that the best he could come up with? I would certainly hope
a member of the House is partisan. If he's the best candidate for the job, it shouldn't matter - presumably Goss is professional enough to, should he be appointed to a nonpartisan position, perform its duties in such a matter. Ah, but that's not the point, is it? What burns Gore is the reminder that he's
not the one making the appointments.
I suspect Gore would have no problem with a prominent Democrat being offered the job. Nor would I; I'd expect the same commitment to impartiality from a member of either party. It is disingenuous in the supreme (and more than a little condescending) to claim that Goss is automatically disqualified from a position such as CIA Director merely because he (horrors!) defended the intelligence gathered justifying the war. Let us not forget that George Tenet also maintained the veracity of that intelligence ("slam dunk"
maintained) - and yet, mysteriously, was a Clinton appointee
. I don't recall any complaints from Democrats at the time of that appointment...