csua.org/u/8jx -> www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56724-2004Aug11.html
The consensus of today's press coverage is that they will cave on the Goss nomination rather than risk being blamed -- just before the November elections -- for undermining the CIA while the nation is under threat of terrorist attacks. Stymied when it comes to Goss himself, however, the Democrats are looking at the confirmation hearings as a bully pulpit from which to attack the man who bested them. So the Senate hearings on Goss appear likely to become a pointed seminar on Bush's intelligence reform plans, with the Democrats trying to call attention to the ways in which he is resisting key elements of the very popular 9/11 commission's recommendations.
Mike Allen and Walter Pincus write in a Washington Post news analysis: "By picking a loyal GOP lawmaker to head the CIA, President Bush tried to reassert himself on an issue where he has been losing ground -- but did so at the cost of inviting Democratic accusations he is politicizing intelligence. "Administration officials said the White House calculated that the president could not lose: Democrats would either cave when faced with a fight, or Bush could accuse them of obstructing CIA stability at a time when the nation is under threat of a terrorist attack.
Bill Plante of CBS News concludes this morning that "by making this nomination now before the election, the president is throwing down a challenge to the Democrats .
Knut Royce writes in Newsday: "The announcement, less than three months before the November election, prompted leading Democrats to quickly declare that his confirmation will be a litmus test of whether the administration supports major reforms of the intelligence community urged by the Sept. "Both Bush and Goss have been reluctant to embrace some of the commission's most significant recommendations, such as the naming of a cabinet-level intelligence czar who would have control over the intelligence community's purse."
Joel Brinkley and James Risen write in the New York Times: "The Republican congressman chosen by President Bush to head the Central Intelligence Agency initially resisted efforts in Congress two years ago to create an independent commission to investigate the Sept. "Democratic Congressional officials who have been involved in intelligence say they believe that Mr Goss is now close to Vice President Dick Cheney, and they say there have been times when their impression was that Mr Goss was unwilling to pursue matters that could cause him problems with the vice president's office."
David S Cloud writes in the Wall Street Journal: "By picking the 65-year-old Mr Goss, who has questioned the need for the national intelligence director, Mr Bush increased doubts that he backs the 9/11 commission's idea. "If Mr Goss is confirmed, Mr Bush can claim that as another step forward, while getting an ally who shares his cautious approach to intelligence reform."
Dana Priest and Mike Allen write in The Washington Post: "The nomination appeared, at least in part, to be an attempt by Bush to demonstrate leadership on intelligence as it becomes a defining factor of the campaign."
Elisabeth Bumiller writes in a New York Times news analysis: "President Bush is hoping to open a new chapter at the CIA after a run of epic intelligence failures, but he may be buying himself as much trouble as he is trying to overcome."
Porter J Goss almost certainly will win approval by the Senate as CIA director, but reaction to his nomination on Capitol Hill suggested Tuesday that the confirmation process could be like a visit to the dentist -- quick but painful."
Washington Post notes this mini-drama on the Internet: "The Bush-Cheney campaign briefly stripped from its Web site yesterday an attack on Sen. "The campaign later restored the statement and said removing it was a mistake."
Mike Allen and Jonathan Weisman write in a news analysis for The Washington Post: "For President Bush, tax cuts have been an all-purpose elixir, a cure for budget surpluses and a bursting stock bubble, for terrorist attacks and boardroom scandals, for the march to war and a jobless recovery in peacetime. "Now, after three successive tax cuts, and after a record budget surplus has turned to a record deficit, the president faces an unenviable choice. He can either concede that his $17 trillion tonic has not worked as advertised, or he can insist that the economy is strong despite the slowdown in growth and job creation. "Last week's news of stagnant job creation has revived the debate over the effectiveness of the tax cuts, the centerpiece of Bush's domestic program. Economists of all political stripes say the tax cuts did jump-start the economy, which was in recession from March to November 2001. But to many, that kick is starting to look more like a sugar high than a cure for the economy's underlying weaknesses."
Bloomberg, meanwhile, reports that Bush yesterday once again insisted that "his $17 trillion in 'well-timed tax cuts' helped revive the US economy." The Al Qaeda Leak I'm still not clear about how or why administration officials leaked the name of an al Qaeda computer expert who was cooperating with investigators.
They wrote: "The unannounced capture of a figure from Al Qaeda in Pakistan several weeks ago led the Central Intelligence Agency to the rich lode of information that prompted the terror alert on Sunday, according to senior American officials. "The figure, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, was described by a Pakistani intelligence official as a 25-year-old computer engineer, arrested July 13, who had used and helped to operate a secret Qaeda communications system where information was transferred via coded messages."
Wolf Blitzer on CNN on Sunday: "BLITZER: Let's talk about some of the people who have been picked up, mostly in Pakistan, over the last few weeks. There is some suggestion that by releasing his identity here in the United States, you compromised a Pakistani intelligence sting operation, because he was effectively being used by the Pakistanis to try to find other al Qaeda operatives. "RICE: Well, I don't know what might have been going on in Pakistan. I will say this, that we did not, of course, publicly disclose his name. And the problem is that when you're trying to strike a balance between giving enough information to the public so that they know that you're dealing with a specific, credible, different kind of threat than you've dealt with in the past, you're always weighing that against kind of operational considerations. We think for the most part, we've struck a balance, but it's indeed a very difficult balance to strike." But an "on background" disclosure is still a disclosure -- that only means reporters can't fully identify the source.
Matthew Pennington reports from Pakistan for the Associated Press that "senior officials said Tuesday that some al-Qaida fugitives escaped after news reports revealed the arrest of a computer expert for Osama bin Laden's network who was cooperating with investigators. " 'Let me say that this intelligence leak jeopardized our plan and some al-Qaida suspects ran away,' one of the Pakistani officials said on condition of anonymity."
Jeffrey Fleishman writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Heightened terror alerts and high-profile arrests of suspected Islamic extremists have international security experts and officials concerned that the Bush administration's actions could jeopardize investigations into the Al Qaeda network. "European terrorism analysts acknowledge that the US and its allies are under threat by Al Qaeda, but some suggest that the White House is unnecessarily adding to public anxiety with vague and dated intelligence about possible attacks. Some in Western Europe suspect the administration is using fear to improve its chances in the November election."
Dan Balz writes for The Washington Post from Florida: "President Bush taunted rival John F Kerry here Tuesday over what he called another Kerry reversal on Iraq, seeking to put his challenger on the defensive over the central foreign policy issue of the election as he campaigned through heavily Republican territory in this battleground state."
Maura Reynolds writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Havi...
|
http://csua.com/feed/