Tuesday, June 22, 2004

Should Bush Find a Permanent CIA Director Before November?

The NYT writes that the Bush administration is actively pondering that question right now (I know what you're thinking. I didn't think that the Bush administration could actively ponder either. But I guess we were wrong.)

Oh where is David when you need him for his witty and pragmatic political analysis?

On a (somewhat) related note and discussed in that same NYT story (and also at this CSM story), a new book is about to be released by a "senior intelligence official" that was apparently vetted by the CIA. Who is this mystery author?

1 comment:

David said...

I would say that that decision depends on three factors: 1. How painful will the confirmation proceedings be (and can they be made to be painful from the Dems?); 2. How likely is there to be a successful terrorist attack between now and the election?; and 3. How will the impact of such an attack be different depending on whether we have a confirmed CIA director or not.

My personal feeling was that it would be better for the country for someone to be appointed, but worse for Bushco. I think the possibility of a successful attack is no better than 50/50, and I think there will be some rally around the flag effect then anyway (although a non-appointment would be good evidence of the Bush-has-done-nothing-in-three-years-to-stop-this-stuff argument). On the other hand, a confirmation hearing (of anyone) is likely to be a high profile affair in which the administration's dirty laundry is again aired and Bush gets another week of bad press.