For instance, while Goss often dutifully sided with the Congressional Republicans in the House to oppose president Clinton’s domestic and foreign policy measures, Goss nevertheless voted against (a Florida colleague) Congresswoman Tillie Fowler’s amendment to block US intervention in Kosovo that she had introduced in the House of Representatives on March 11, 1999 - just mere 14 days before the US-led NATO invasion & bombing of Serbia. A Republican and a strict constitutionalist, Ms. Fowler was convinced of the utter unconstitutionality of president Clinton’s soon-to-come Kosovo intervention. She did her best to stop it - but was of course unable. Thanks, in large measure, to the ambivalent approach on the issue by many of her Republican colleagues.

In clause #3 of her amendment Fowler also noted: "(3) Kosovo, unlike Bosnia, is a province of the Republic of Serbia, a sovereign foreign state..." Fowler motion was defeated, however, by a vote of 237 while 178 votes were cast supporting her measure. In all, 48 House Republicans voted against Fowler’s proposal, including Congressman Porter J. Goss [4].

In the final analysis, how the CIA agency may handle intelligence in the Balkans region under Goss’s leadership will in large extent depend on (1) who the next US president will be after the November election, since we can certainly expect greater changes in the intelligence apparatus should Senator John F. Kerry win the presidency. Then too (2), Congressman Goss’s own say in the intelligence gathering processes - whether in the Balkans or elsewhere - may well be greatly altered once the new Intelligence Czar is appointed - either by president Bush - who has the option to make such appointment right now in fact, should he decide to exercise that option, or next year, by either Bush or Kerry, whoever of the two wins the presidency.

In view of the president Bush’s propensity to extreme stubbornness, it is exceptionally interesting that president Bush first totally rejected the idea of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation for the creation of a new Cabinet-level Intelligence Chief who would oversee all the nation’s intelligence work. Yet president Bush then changed his mind just a week ago, stating that he will create that post after all. I believe several reasons are behind that (rare) change of mind, and 2 of those call for some elaboration:

First, Bush wants (and needs) to keep up with the other presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry, who has said that he “totally accepts all” of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations, and if he were the president, he would “immediately” implement all the Commission’s recommendations. Which should come as no surprise to anyone.

The 9/11 Commission’s recommendations have received a wide public support, including the Commission’s major recommendation that the president should create the new position of the national Intelligence Chief. Hence both presidential candidates want to appear “agreeable” - for now. Though Bush less so, since he is perhaps one of the most obstinate US presidents to occupy the White house - quite likely since the presidency of Ulysses Grant.

Secondly, it is also possible that after some steady lobbying (by a number of supporters and Republicans alike in behalf of Congressman Chris Cox, Bush might (or might not) be considering Chris Cox for the new Intelligence Chief. If so, that would be even better. Infinitely better for the Serbs, for example, and the Balkans region in general, since Rep. Cox has shown impartiality and independence of thought for the intricate Balkans geopolitical situation, and the ongoing ethnic strife in particular.

Rep. Cox would make a great national Intelligence Czar. Nonetheless it should be pointed out that president Bush could also be saving the post of the Intelligence Czar for someone else as a “reward” for years of loyal support. There is already ongoing speculation that Bush may eventually elevate Porter Goss to that position. I think that is unlikely. Bush will have hard enough time in the Senate getting Goss’s CIA directorship confirmed. Among the possible candidates for the national Intelligence Czar are those with extensive background in intelligence work, someone such as John F. Lehman, for example, a member of the 9/11 Commission and chairman of J.F. Lehman & Company, a private equity investment firm. Lehman was appointed Secretary of the Navy by President Reagan in 1981 and served in that capacity until 1987.

Whoever the post goes to, at any rate, there is no denying the fact that the new Intelligence Chief will be overseeing the intelligence operations of all agencies - and, by implication, the work of the heads of all the intelligence agencies-including the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Council, the Pentagon, to name but a few of the 15 or so of the top national intelligence agencies and departments. It is an awesome responsibility. And it is to be expected that only the top-notch candidate must be considered for that post.

I can think of few experienced individuals who can fill-in those shoes better than Congressman Chris Cox [5].

It would only be natural for president Bush to consider Chris Cox for the new Intelligence Chief.  Congressman Cox is exceptionally knowledgeable about foreign affairs. For example, how many Congressional members can boast that they have run the English translation of the PRAVDA, the former Soviet Union leading newspaper?  Chris Cox can. According to Congressman Cox’s bio, “the translations were used by the CIA, the FBI, U.S. military intelligence, and colleges and universities in 26 countries throughout the world…” Cox is also the Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee. And is exceptionally adept at bipartisan consensus building [6].

Does that mean I might be rooting for Chris Cox for the Intelligence director post? Well, I am going to leave that to your intelligence to surmise, as you like...

The Shortest Serving CIA Chief?

Congressman Goss has advocated in the past giving CIA additional resources and expanding the agency’s ranks of its clandestine operations. Upon being introduced as the new CIA chief designate on Tuesday, Goss reiterated that those issues would remain at the very top of his agenda.

It should be noted as well, Congressman Goss has been very critical of the CIA on numerous occasions in the past year or so, and it remains to be seen how the rank and file as well as the top leadership of the agency will react to his CIA nomination and eventual directorship. Yet most observers believe that Goss is the CIA man to the core - the old-fashioned all-boys-club type. As such, some predict he is would not be predisposed to inaugurate any substantial changes inside the agency - and those that he may bring forth will be insufficient to change the current climate of the agency.

Overall, however, the CIA will not reform all that much under Porter Goss’ directorship, though the reforms are certainly in store for the CIA - as well as the entire US intelligence apparatus. But those reforms are far more likely to come from outside the CIA - namely, they are expected to come from the US Congress - rather than from any substantial changes Goss might make within the CIA agency itself. In some respects, therefore, the hints currently circulating that Goss might be the “shortest serving CIA chief in history” may well become true [10].

Then too, according to several sources, a number of committees in Congress are drafting legislation based on the 9/11 Commission recommendations. “If such legislation is enacted,” noted Los Angeles Times on August 11, “Goss could see his authority eroded within months, making him the first CIA director who does not report directly to the president or have authority over other spy agencies’ [11]

Furthermore, such changes will be substantially pronounced should Senator John Kerry win the presidential election next November. If Kerry wins the presidency, it would be within his presidential power to replace Goss too.

It is quite obvious that in order to meet the challenges of the ever-growing threat of the international terrorism, both the US president and the US Congress must work together to implement a broader intelligence reform. That also includes accepting the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission for the Intelligence Director - or, as some call it, the National Intelligence Czar.  Under such restructuring plans, the new National Intelligence Director would outrank the CIA director, the FBI director, and all other agency chiefs because he would oversee the activities of all the 15 intelligence agencies.

As I noted earlier, I can think of few experienced individuals who can fill-in those shoes better than Congressman Chris Cox [12].

Endnotes & References:

[1] As I have noted earlier, I believe Rep. Chris Cox of California would have made a great CIA chief. Obviously, the White House, and president Bush in particular, had other plans. From the very departure of George J. Tenet all indications were that Bush’s first choice for the post was Rep. Porter J. Goss, with Rep. Chris Cox and 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman close second. There is no doubt that Goss will be confirmed the next CIA chief at the forthcoming confirmation hearings - Democratic challenges in the US Senate notwithstanding.

Congressman Goss had announced several months ago that he was “planning” to retire from the US Congress at the end of his current term.  Clearly, at the age of 65 he was viewed by many as “still too young” to say a complete goodbye to the public service. In short, it is not too much to view Goss’ selection for the CIA directorship as a final “thank you” note from president Bush, a payback if you will, for years of loyal support.

[2] Washington Post went on to say: “… But Democrats on the Hill disputed the idea that Goss would sail through the process. "We could have a referendum on the CIA," said one senior Democratic staff member yesterday. Intelligence will come under close scrutiny during the presidential campaign, one reason that led Tenet to leave before the end of the year. While Republicans said choosing Goss would give Bush a clean break and allow him to say that changes were being made, Democrats yesterday responded that some would describe Goss as an attempt to politicize the agency directorship.

Rockefeller has told aides he is concerned that Goss, a vocal supporter of Bush's, has become "too political" for the CIA director job, an aide to the senator said yesterday (see Washington Post, 6/25/2004: "Bush Considers Goss for CIA Director"

[3] For additional quotes by Rep. Goss on the Balkans see www.suc.org report: “Quotes by new CIA Director Porter Goss on Yugoslavia - USA Today/The New American-1999”

[4] The reader may note that Congressman Chris Cox of California (R-Newport Beach) was not among the House Republicans who voted against Ms. Fowler’s proposal. For additional information on this issue, please see “Check the Voting Records of Your Senators and Representatives in Important Votes” (A Public Service of the Conservative Caucus), 1999 Edition.

[5] Chris Cox has proven ability to garner bipartisan support--both Republican and Democratic support for congressional legislation, as has been the case on numerous occasions in the past. And, at age 50, Cox is hardly a “retirement” material, naturally enough. Yet after 16 years of service in the US Congress, it is safe to assume that Rep. Cox is ready for new challenges.

[6] The sheer tedium of running perpetually for an office every 2 years - such as the US Congress - must be exceptionally exhausting and taxing even to someone with great political experience and savvy. It is also a shame that in a climate of perpetual campaign politicking, such talented people are not given sufficient time to contribute meaningfully to the nation’s political and social needs. Accordingly, and eventually, it comes as no surprise that such men and women must turn elsewhere to seek other avenues to contribute their talents and expertise - Chris Cox included.

[7] By and large, the rank-and-file US intelligence officers are men and women who are generally quite independent politically. They are career intelligence officers. Unlike the top leadership of an intelligence agency, the rank and file move-up the career ladder through the merit system and therefore their foremost loyalty lies primarily in topnotch intelligence operations. Which has certainly not been the case thus far with most (if not all) of the appointed heads of various US intelligence agencies. That is also another reason why we frequently hear of ongoing simmering resentment and dichotomy between the rank and file intelligence officers and the top leadership of the US intelligence agencies.

[8] The National Archives, located on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC, is the nation’s landmark that houses among other priceless documents the original Constitution document, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. It is the repository of some 25 million cubic feet of records--including presidential papers and it controls some 35 national archive sites nationwide - including, for example, the presidential libraries throughout the nation. The National Archives prides itself as the “nation’s record keeper.” Yet, as a historian, I find it entirely astonishing that prior to the Berger affair the Archival rooms of the main facility in Washington DC had no security cameras. For more tidbits on the Archives and Samuel Berger, please see the USA-TODAY report: “Berger drops out as Kerry foreign-policy Adviser” July 21, 2004.

See also the August 12, 2004, Voice of America story on National Archives’ effort to convert many documents to the digital system in a report titled: “US National Archives Aims to Create Permanent Digital Records” - which, by the way, are not as permanent as the paper documents. Moreover, the project is not expected to be completed until 2011 in which case one hopes that Berger-like incidents will never happen again.

[9] Berger is under the Justice Department investigation - namely the FBI -for having raided the National Archives of classified documents (some of which are still missing), under a pretext of doing research to prepare for his testimony in front of the 91/11 Commission - testimony on matters of national security and the formation and coordination of national policy to fight terrorism under presidency of Bill Clinton, whom he served in the capacity of the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs during Clinton’s first presidential term, and as National Security Advisor during president Clinton's second term.  Berger is also a longtime friend of Bill Clinton.

[10] See “Bush Selects Congressman to head CIA” Los Angeles Times, August 11, 2004.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Go here for further information on Congressman Porter J. Goss. Likewise, for further information on Congressman Chris Cox please go here.