Although I'm concerned about Porter Goss, I have to add my voice to those who think Senate Democrats were right not to oppose his confirmation.
Here's the rub. Despite Porter Goss's hardcore partisanship and discredited friends, he has a long resume and the professional skills to be an excellent spy chief. He has hitched himself to Bush's wagon, true, and his very endorsement of Bush is a frightening red flag regarding his talent. He can't possibly think Bush has contributed to America's security or Iraq's -- so I wonder what his priorities are. But he has also devoted much of his life to becoming pretty good at what he does.
Will Porter Goss's first priority as director of the CIA be to undermine the Kerry administration? I think not. I think his first priority will be to attack the many drastic challenges which currently face our intelligence community. Presidents come and go more frequently than CIA directors. Unlike Bush, Porter Goss's future will depend quite heavily on his job performance.
Does this mean he's my choice? No. Does this mean I think he's off the hook for his past partisanship? No, I won't trust him for a long time, and neither will a lot of Democrats. But word is that he's not viewed badly from within the CIA -- that the actual guys who do the actual work are not upset by his selection.
And there are concerns beyond partisanship. I wouldn't call the CIA the most blameless agency in the world for the current state of affairs. And Porter Goss is a reputed to be a big fan of expanding CIA "wetwork." But, all things considered, we need a strong CIA to help clean up the foul mess Bush left in Iraq.
When Kerry is elected in November, he could probably ask for a better spy chief than Porter Goss, but he could also ask for worse. Also, Kerry may well create a post above Goss, which, again, may or may not be a good thing. I'm postponing judgment on Goss until I know more. And I invite the community to teach me more. Go for it!