QandO

It's hard to imagine that Karl Rove, at least, would have wanted this. The Senate confirmation hearings for a new director are going to turn into a fight over intelligence policy in general, something both Republicans and Democrats are mad about, and that doesn't bode well for Bush's numbers.

P.S. There are Senate confirmation hearings for CIA directors, right?

Posted by: Tom at June 3, 2004 10:23 AM

Tom: Yep. They go before the Select Committee on Intelligence and then a floor vote.

Posted by: James Joyner at June 3, 2004 10:35 AM

I'd go for the move Bill Hobbs suggests. And I wonder as well what Karl Rove feels about the resignation. Not so sure what effect hearings would have on Bush's poll numbers, however.

Posted by: sean at June 3, 2004 11:10 AM

Not to harp on point three, but I don't think it matters how much bi-partisan support any individual nominee for CIA director would have, the nomination proceedings are going to be about intelligence policy -- and that's going to be even crazier than the 9-11 commission, to the point of overshadowing whatever credibility a Tom Ridge could restore to the CIA or the Administration's handling of intel.

On point 1, some are saying the "looming story" is that the Plame investigation is about to blow up and point back hard at the White House. Who knows? Maybe we'll start seeing Instapundit and Mickey Kaus declare Bush an obviously weak candidate that the Republicans should never have nominated. And maybe we'll see that Kerry/McCain unity ticket, after all.

Posted by: Tom at June 3, 2004 11:19 AM

the nomination proceedings are going to be about intelligence policy -- and that's going to be even crazier than the 9-11 commission, to the point of overshadowing whatever credibility a Tom Ridge could restore to the CIA or the Administration's handling of intel.

If Bush plays this smart and makes the nomination within the context of "we're at war and we have to get this vital position filled as quickly as possible for our own good" - the Democrats will be the ones in the corner. Do they want to risk giving the Repubs a chance to show they're weak on National Security by playing politics with this conformation? It could very well go just that way. And what a box this puts Kerry in. He basically can't say anything negative regarding the nominee w/o it being looked on as politics. And if he endorses him, it sort of delivers a kick to the Kerry line about Bush being incompetent in the terror war, etc etc.

Interesting...

Posted by: shark at June 3, 2004 12:38 PM

Tenet’s resignation may have been prompted by the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on pre-war intelligence failures. ABCNews reports the findings in the not yet released report on pre-war intelligence failures are “devastating” for Tenet.

Posted by: Dan Spencer, California Yankee at June 3, 2004 12:51 PM

I see what you mean Shark, but I'm not convinced, mainly because criticism of intelligence is pretty much universal these days. Is there anyone (besides Bush) who's sad to see Tenet go? Hell, the White House itself has blamed the CIA (though somehow not Tenet) for the major failures. I have no doubt that plenty of people in politics and the press and blogosphere will adopt your stance, but it's pretty easy to make the inverse case that people who don't want to help scrutinize "devastating" intelligence failures are themselves weakening our national security. A food fight, yes, but if anyone's in a "box," it's Bush, who would rather the issue go away, when it clearly won't. Just today he called Tenet "super." Well, was he super or was he incompetent? And if he was incompentent, why didn't Bush fire him earlier? Kerry's reaction to the whole thing seems pretty secondary to me.

And FWIW, I bet the person who gets nominated is someone we've never heard of, to be sacrificed to the meat grinder. I feel sorry for him or her already.

Posted by: Tom at June 3, 2004 01:22 PM

Well Tom, I'm not saying it couldn't go either way, or some ways we're not thinking about. When the political wheels get spinning, hold tight.

Anyway, the criticism of intelligence may be universal, but I say remember the lesson of the 9/11 comission, which for all the media hoopla, people have seen right through for what it is. That's the real risk the Dems are going to be running. And lets be honest here- they have a terrible tendency to overplay their hands.

Anyway, Bush isn't in a box, unless he nominated a real bad candidate for the position. If anything, played right (a real problem for this admin I have to admit) his selection choice cam bolster him a bit, putting his opponents on the defense.

As for Tenet, I've always had this feeling that besides the failures (and we can argue the blame and reasons for those failures goes back to before his tenure and rests in many different places and people) he's also had some successes that we may not have heard about, and was kept on. Based on nothing, just a personal hunch is all.

Posted by: shark at June 3, 2004 01:50 PM

The New Republic has a good article up about this already.
article

I'd question whether people "saw through" the 9/11 commission "for what it is." Bush's terrorism numbers dropped hard during and after those weeks. No question, anything can happen. But I think we can agree that if this summer is spent dwelling on intel failures that ocurred during the past 4 years, that that would be more of a problem for Bush than an opportunity, overplayed hands or not.

Posted by: Tom at June 3, 2004 02:06 PM

But I think we can agree that if this summer is spent dwelling on intel failures that ocurred during the past 4 years, that that would be more of a problem for Bush than an opportunity, overplayed hands or not.

Not necessairily. Depends on the way the national conversation develops. I don't think the conversation would be limited to the past 4 years though...the problems go back much farther than that.

And for all the pummeling Bush's numbers have taken, he still has a decisive advantage over Kerry on the issue, according to polls. What else can they use against him at this point we haven't already heard?

Posted by: shark at June 3, 2004 02:39 PM

You're right, the problems do go back further than four years. But all these arguments should have also applied to the 9/11 hearings, which definitely seem to have had an effect on his ratings. Here, we're still mainly talking about Iraq intelligence, especially in the context of acting on it, which places it in the Bush purview; and 9/11 intelligence, which happened on Bush's watch. And while Bush has the advantage on terrorism, it's pretty much the only issue he's got left. At best, this round of congressional inquiry stands to cost him relatively less than the 9/11 commision, I'll grant, but I wonder how many points he'd need to lose on the terrorism question to put him into the 30% approval dead zone?
Here
and here are some relatively recent surveys that go issue by issue.

As far as stuff we haven't heard, we'll just have to wait and see.

Posted by: Tom at June 3, 2004 03:11 PM

But all these arguments should have also applied to the 9/11 hearings, which definitely seem to have had an effect on his ratings

Actually, if I recall- the 9/11 hearings didn't bring his ratings down. Fallujah and Sadr did that one. After Rice testified, the polls were basically a wash.

Here, we're still mainly talking about Iraq intelligence, especially in the context of acting on it, which places it in the Bush purview; and 9/11 intelligence, which happened on Bush's watch.

First part, fair enough. 2nd part- not quite. Those 9/11 problems happened on the watches of the previous 2 Presidents much more to a degree than the current one.

And while Bush has the advantage on terrorism, it's pretty much the only issue he's got left

What, the improving economy isn't going to work in his favor?

At best, this round of congressional inquiry stands to cost him relatively less than the 9/11 commision, I'll grant, but I wonder how many points he'd need to lose on the terrorism question to put him into the 30% approval dead zone

Won't happen. His base is a solid 40% at least, and trends in Iraq and the economy (at this point) are playing into his favor. All Kerry and his Dems (and their fellow travelers in the media) can keep doing is what they are doing to the president, and it just isn't going to work. People know a pile-on job when they see one.

Posted by: shark at June 3, 2004 04:14 PM

By the way, I advise you not to take that CBS poll for any sort of real evidence. That poll was pretty nastily flawed in its' sampling, and it's been fisked pretty well in a few places...

Posted by: shark at June 3, 2004 04:16 PM

Echoing shark a bit, I don't think it was the 9/11 hearings that brought down Bush's poll numbers. Rather, it was the uprisings that shark cited, plus Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib is near the end of its news cycle, and will be a distant memory come November. The uprisings are slowing: a lot fewer soldiers died in May than in April, and June has been (so far) very quiet on that front.

Posted by: Steverino at June 4, 2004 12:00 AM

I wouldn't expect Bush to seek to nominate a replacement before the election. The DDI will be the acting Director until early next year, probably.

Posted by: bob at June 4, 2004 02:59 PM