---

May 07, 2006

Rep. Hoekstra, Sens. Specter & Biden, Roundtable

Fox News Sunday

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: I'm Chris Wallace. More changes ahead for the CIA, next on "Fox News Sunday".

America's top CIA spy steps down. What does the shake-up mean for the war on terror? We'll ask Congressman Pete Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

The immigration debate hits the streets. Another possible showdown over judges. And a new plan to stabilize Iran. All key issues for Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator Joe Biden, the Democrats' point man on foreign policy.

Plus, it's been a tough week for members of Congress. We'll discuss the political fallout with our Sunday regulars, Brit Hume, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams. And our Power Player of the Week knows it takes a family to play ball, all right now on "Fox News Sunday".

And good morning again from Fox News in Washington. Let's get a quick check of the latest headlines. The Central Intelligence Agency could be getting a major overhaul under a new director.

According to a report in today's New York Times, the agency will be limited to fighting terrorism and stealing secrets abroad. A new CIA chief, expected to be General Michael Hayden, could be named as early as Monday.

A series of car bombs hit northern Baghdad today. At least 16 are dead with another 44 wounded. Iraqi security forces were the target in at least one attack.

And in Iran today, the parliament threatened to withdraw from the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iranian leaders want the U.S. and other nations to stop pressuring their country to halt uranium enrichment.

The apparently forced resignation of CIA chief Porter Goss on Friday shocked most of official Washington. So what's behind the move and what's next for the CIA? For answers, we turn to Pete Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

And, Congressman, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday".

REP. PETER HOEKSTRA (R), MICHIGAN: Thank you. Good to be here.

WALLACE: The big question today, of course, is who is going to be the new CIA chief, and the warehouse is putting out the word that the almost certain choice is going to be General Michael Hayden, the former head of the National Security Agency and the top deputy now to the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte.

One, do you think he'll get the job? And two, is he the right man?

HOEKSTRA: Well, we'll have to wait until the president makes an announcement. Obviously, that's his call. I've got a lot of respect for Mike Hayden. I think he's done a very good job in the positions that he's had. He's got a distinguished career.

Bottom line, I do believe he's the wrong person, the wrong place, at the wrong time. We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time.

WALLACE: Well, explain that, because there have been, I think, a half dozen military people leading the CIA over the years, I guess most recently, back in the Carter administration, Admiral Stansfield Turner. So this is not unprecedented.

HOEKSTRA: It's not unprecedented. It's a bad time. You know, there's been a tremendous amount of tension between the CIA, Department of Defense, the intelligence community over the last 18 months. It was highlighted in the fact that when we did intelligence reform, the biggest opponent to doing intelligence reform was the Department of Defense.

There's ongoing tensions between this premiere civilian intelligence agency and DOD as we speak. And I think putting a general in charge -- regardless of how good Mike is, putting a general in charge is going to send the wrong signal through the agency here in Washington, but also to our agents in the field around the world.

WALLACE: Well, is it your feeling that as an active general that General Hayden would be under the sway of Don Rumsfeld?

HOEKSTRA: I think that clearly will be the perception in the CIA both, again, here in Washington and at the CIA. I don't think you can underestimate the difficulty in rebuilding, reshaping and transforming the Central Intelligence Agency. This is the debate we don't need at this time.

WALLACE: What about the possibility that has been raised -- what if Mike Hayden were to resign his commission and step down as an active general?

HOEKSTRA: I think the perception is still going to be -- it's going to be the wrong kind of perception. There are talented folks out there that can take the agency where it needs to go, and they don't have to, and they shouldn't, come from a military background.

WALLACE: Let me ask you about another aspect of this. Mike Hayden, according to intelligence sources who I talked to yesterday, was one of the driving forces in getting Porter Goss out.

He was one of the lead men for Negroponte in trying to strip the CIA of some of its powers, particularly to take the analysis part of it out and put it in the Department of National Intelligence. If Hayden now takes over the CIA after having helped in this process of forcing Goss out, could that be perceived or could it, in fact, be a sense of the CIA being dangerously diminished?

HOEKSTRA: I think so. I mean, you brought up a number of issues there. Number one, moving the analytical function out of the CIA into the Office of the Director of National Intelligence -- that's not what we envision in intelligence reform.

The DNI was supposed to be coordinating and bringing these 16 agencies together, not becoming a doer of things. He was the chief executive officer, not an operating officer. I'm concerned about that direction.

And if General Hayden was an architect of that, he's going to be going into an agency where the people in the agency say he's not an advocate for us. He's the one that's, you know, potentially gutting what we believe are some of our core functions.

WALLACE: Now, I mean, explain to us, because a lot of this stuff, I'm sure, to a lot of people -- frankly, to me -- seems like a lot of sort of bureaucratic moving of chairs.

What's the danger if the Pentagon takes over a prominence in the intelligence community over the CIA? What's the danger if analysis is stripped out of the CIA?

HOEKSTRA: The danger of having the military take over intelligence is that the military has a very different perspective on the world. They're worried about today and wars, you know, and threats to the United States in the short term and how we might respond militarily.

So they need information that helps them better prepare for fighting and winning future wars or winning the war that we are in today.

The CIA's job is to provide us as policymakers better information so that we can make informed policy decisions of which -- you know, war, and winning a war and the consequences of war are very, very different.

WALLACE: You are not just another congressman. You are -- I don't have to tell you -- the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Have you told the White House that this man who is on the front pages of the paper as basically being called the next CIA director -- have you told them you oppose this choice?

HOEKSTRA: I've been asked for input on some names. I've given them my feedback. I don't think anything that I've said to you this morning is news to the White House.

WALLACE: And obviously, it doesn't seem to have stopped them.

HOEKSTRA: I don't know. I mean, obviously, the president has not made a choice or has not announced a choice at this point. WALLACE: Now, as the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, if they go ahead and name General Hayden as the CIA director, is that going to make it difficult to operate in this environment?

HOEKSTRA: No. Mike and I have a very good personal relationship. We've worked together for three years, four years. You know, we both have to be focused on building a great intelligence community, transforming the community, and we'll have to work together. Like I said, I think he's the wrong person today.

WALLACE: Give me an idea of one or two names of who you think would be the right person.

HOEKSTRA: You know, I knew that was going to come up. I don't have names. I mean, the...

WALLACE: Well, you said you offered names to them.

HOEKSTRA: No, I said they have given me names, other names...

WALLACE: Oh, all right.

HOEKSTRA: ... other than Hayden we provided them feedback on, but I've not -- you know, I was caught by surprise on Friday, like many people. I was with Porter on Wednesday. I talked to him on Thursday. The guy can keep secrets. I had no idea this was coming, and then I talked to him again on Friday.

WALLACE: Well, all right. Now, let's talk about that part of the equation here. It's become clear that Porter Goss was forced out as CIA director. The White House -- officials there are saying he made too many enemies, created too many waves within the CIA.

Sources in the intelligence community tell me, as we just mentioned, that he fought decisions by Negroponte to strip the CIA of some of its powers. What do you believe is the real story of why Goss is out?

HOEKSTRA: I think some of that all may be true. I don't think it's all necessarily bad. I think cleaning house at the CIA needed to happen. I mean, it's not like we were saying wow, didn't we have great intelligence before 9/11, didn't we have great intelligence before we went into Iraq.

It became painfully evident that the CIA needed to be transformed. Porter Goss was leading that effort. And when you change an organization, you're going to make enemies, and you're going to let some people go.

In terms of being an advocate for the CIA, that's exactly what I want in that person at the CIA, somebody who can go toe to toe with the director of national intelligence -- same at NSA. You want strong leaders in these doing operations to make sure that you get the kind of results that we need.

You can't have "yes" people in these organizations. You need advocates fighting for them.

WALLACE: So do you think it was a mistake to force him out?

HOEKSTRA: Well, I mean, that -- you know, I think Porter in many ways was ready to go. You know, three years, four years ago he wanted to leave Congress. The speaker of the house asked him to stay for one more term. Then they asked him to become director of the CIA.

He made some important changes. I think he was ready to go, and so now it's important. Cut down this transition time. Get new leadership in there quickly and move forward.

WALLACE: Let me ask you, because we can't let this occasion pass without talking about the fact that there was a lot of criticism in this town of Porter Goss. He was, as we said, brought in in the CIA in 2004 because of all the intelligence failures after 9/11, the WMD in Iraq.

He was brought in because there had been a series of leaks within the agency that seemed to be against President Bush in the middle of the 2004 election campaign, but many professionals at the agency thought that he was too political.

Take a look at what Jane Harman, your counterpart on the House Intelligence Committee, said after Goss resigned. "In the last year and a half, more than 300 years of experience has either been pushed out or walked out the door in frustration. This has left the agency in free fall."

Mr. Chairman, you have to admit there has been something of a brain drain at the CIA under Porter Goss.

HOEKSTRA: Absolutely. He was brought in to make changes. If this was an agency that when he came in was functioning at a high level of efficiency and we'd say man, it's a great organization, I'd be concerned about those things.

I've managed, you know, in businesses and those types of things. This agency was in free fall when Porter Goss moved into this job, and he was attempting to bring in the right people to transform it. This thing needs to be rebuilt. It needs to be reshaped.

You know, it has to be an organization that can compete toe to toe with Al Qaida and radical Islam, 24/7, and they have to be able to whip them each and every day, and this organization is not in a position to do that today.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you about that, because I know when we talked a few weeks ago, you were very concerned that Negroponte and the director of national intelligence -- that instead of making the intelligence community leaner and more active in fighting Al Qaida, in fact that they were creating another level of bureaucracy.

Is what's happened this week, with Goss out and if we get Michael Hayden in -- isn't this your worst fears being realized? HOEKSTRA: I'm not sure it's my worst fear. But I mean, obviously, we're going to have to go back and push on it. You know, does this make it more entrepreneurial or more bureaucratic? Does this flatten the organization or does it make it more hierarchical? Does it make decision making quicker or slower?

We're going to push on all of those things. And if we're moving more authority and more control and more doing -- you know, more activity management -- to the DNI, yes, I'm concerned.

WALLACE: We're going to have to leave it there, Chairman Hoekstra. Thank you so much for coming in. And whether you got the White House's attention before, I suspect you did this morning. Thanks so much for joining us and discussing this breaking story.

HOEKSTRA: Great. Thank you.

WALLACE: Up next, two of the Senate's wise men on intelligence, immigration, judges and Iraq. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: Joining us now to discuss the CIA shake-up and other hot topics from immigration to judges are two key senators, Republican Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Joe Biden, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. Both come to us from their home states.

And, Senators, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday".

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Thank you.

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), DELAWARE: Thanks for having us.

WALLACE: First of all, I'd like to get your reactions to the resignation of CIA director Goss and the apparent nomination of General Michael Hayden.

Senator Biden, why don't you start?

BIDEN: Well, think -- I was surprised by Porter's resignation. It's not surprising that there's a lot of turmoil at CIA. He was not the most popular figure there. I won't comment on whether it was justified or not, but I was surprised.

And I think the chairman of the House Committee made a pretty strong statement about the concerns of the agency and whether or not they're about to be, quite frankly, just gobbled up by the Defense Department, and whether Hayden would, in fact, be that agent or not remains to be seen, but the fact is that's the concern.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you about another element of this story, Senator Biden. There are some reports this morning that White House officials wouldn't mind a fight over the NSA warrantless wiretap program, which General Hayden ran when he used to be head of NSA, because they think it would show Democrats as being soft on terrorism. Your reaction to that.

BIDEN: Well, I think it's ludicrous, but I think that -- I will obviously not speak for Senator Specter, but Senator Specter and I, with his lead, have been trying to figure out what Hayden has actually been doing in those wiretaps, and it may give us an opportunity to figure out what the program actually is.

WALLACE: Let me bring you in on that subject, Senator Specter. Given your clear concerns about the NSA wiretap program, you even have talked about -- not supported, but talked about -- the possibility of cutting off funding until Congress is fully briefed.

Do you have concerns about General Hayden taking over the CIA?

SPECTER: I believe that his nomination will give us an opportunity to try to find out about what the program is. Chris, Congress has relatively limited leverage on the White House on exercising our constitutional authority for oversight. We have confirmations, and we have the budget.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it's my responsibility, our committee's responsibility, to oversee, to see that what is going on is constitutional. And we haven't been able to do that.

The president claims Article II powers. He may have them, but that's a balancing act as to the nature of the program. Listen, there's no doubt there's an enormous threat from terrorism. But the president does not have a blank check.

Now, with General Hayden up for confirmation, this will give us an opportunity to try to find out. If the Senate has a mind to assert its constitutional prerogatives here, then we could use this for leverage to find out, and I think people do want to know what's going on to protect civil liberties.

WALLACE: Well, I just want to ask you, when you say the word "leverage," are you suggesting that if he is nominated that you will move to hold up his nomination until the administration provides more information on the NSA program?

SPECTER: I'm not making any predictions. I've got a lot of questions. And if General Hayden is the nominee, he'll be making courtesy calls. It's going to be up to the Intelligence Committee to have the hearings. I wish it were Judiciary, but it's not.

But I have some very pointed questions. I want to know what the program is. We cannot judge its constitutionality without knowing what the program is. And I'm going to see what he has to say and how it goes. I'm not going to take any -- I'm not going to draw any lines in the sand until I see how the facts evolve.

WALLACE: All right.

Senator Biden, Democrats blocked a vote recently on comprehensive immigration reform because of concern that the compromise would be watered down, would be changed, either by amendment in the Senate or in conference with the House.

Are Democrats now ready to allow a vote up or down on immigration reform in the Senate?

BIDEN: Well, I think we are. What we want to know is -- we've been stiffed by the House many times where they go over in a conference, and there ends up a conference that the very thing that the Senate passed, that the Democrats signed on to, ends up being shelved but we didn't get a say in it. But I have a lot more confidence now because of Arlen Specter. Arlen Specter has been the lead horse in this compromise. It's referred to as the McCain-Kennedy bill that I support, but it really came out of Arlen's committee. And Arlen led the fight.

The administration didn't think we'd get a bill out. I, quite frankly, think the leadership didn't want a bill, and Arlen got it out. And so I have confidence in Arlen's leadership. And I'm not laying this all on Arlen. I mean that sincerely.

But I have confidence in his leadership and I have more confidence that if he were, in fact, one of the conferrees, that we would not get rolled by the House that really doesn't want to do anything constructive, in my view, in this area.

WALLACE: Senator Specter, when are Republicans going to bring up immigration reform again, bring it to the floor for a vote? And what assurances can you give Senator Biden and other Democrats that they're not going to get stiffed, as he put it, by the House?

SPECTER: Well, I expect the bill to come up, Chris, a week from tomorrow. I've talked to the majority leader, Senator Frist, and I expect to be on the conference committee. I'm the chairman of the committee.

By the way, I also expect Senator Biden to be on the conference committee. And when Joe Biden's on a conference, you have a very, very strong voice. We're not going to be stiffed. We're going to try to work it out.

Here again, I don't think it's useful to draw any lines in the sand. We worked with Chairman Sensenbrenner on the Patriot Act and on other matters, and we have a bicameral system. We have to go to conference with the House, and we'll get it worked out.

The speaker has said he's for a guest worker program. That's what the president wants. We've got 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country. We're not going to grant amnesty. They're going to have to pay a fine. They're going to have to pay back taxes. They're going to have to learn English. They're going to have to work for six years. And then they go to the end of the line. And we're going to get it worked out.

WALLACE: Let's turn, gentlemen, if we can, to judges, which are becoming a hot issue again. Your Judiciary Committee is going to hold a hearing Tuesday on the long-delayed nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Court of Appeals, and the appointment of Terrence Boyle is also being pushed.

Senator Biden, are Democrats prepared to filibuster either of these nominations?

BIDEN: Well, on Kavanaugh, this is the second hearing we pushed for. The chairman has agreed to have a second hearing. And I'm holding my judgment, to use Arlen's phrase. I have no line in the sand with Kavanaugh. I want to know more. I haven't made my judgment whether I'm for or against him, and I don't think we'd be part of a filibuster there.

With regard to Boyle, Boyle is universally -- this is one of the rare guys who the first responders, the cops, my strongest advocates, and the firefighters are universally opposed to him because of his rulings, where he has been reversed over -- I think it's 165 times, twice as much as anyone else in this conference, and where there's now been serious questions about conflict of interest where he bought stock in companies in cases before him and then ruled in favor of those companies.

There's a lot more to know about that. I am unalterably opposed to Boyle because of the first responders, and I think Boyle will not go forward, and I would consider joining an effort to prevent his vote.

WALLACE: When you say "join an effort to prevent his vote," do you mean a filibuster?

BIDEN: Well, I mean a filibuster. A filibuster. I would consider that. It depends on the facts as they roll out. But I am unalterably opposed to Boyle. He should not, should not, should not be confirmed in this (inaudible)...

WALLACE: Senator Specter, what do you feel about these two nominations, especially the Boyle nomination? And is the Senate headed for another showdown over the so-called nuclear option to change the rules on filibusters?

SPECTER: Chris, my job is to get these men out of committee and to the Senate floor so they can have an up or down vote. The Senate came very, very close to a violent train wreck last year with the Democrats filibustering on one side and the Republicans threatening the constitution or nuclear option on the other side.

And I agreed to a second hearing for Mr. Kavanaugh because I want to eliminate any excuse or any reason for the Democrats to filibuster. I want to defuse the situation. And if it takes another hearing for a few hours and a few more days' delay, that's what I want to get accomplished.

And we did work through two Supreme Court nominations over some very rough terrain to avoid controversy and conflict and have a dignified, professional hearing. And I think we can accomplish that with Kavanaugh.

Now, as to Judge Boyle, I think as to his rulings, I wouldn't agree with Senator Biden. I think that's the president's choice. And I think on his rulings, he's within the ambit.

But Joe raises a serious issue which has already been in the media about potential conflict of interest. And that's something I'm studying very, very closely. And if those issues on conflict of interest materialize and are dominant, then there may be a line in the sand which would be justified by the Democrats. But that's a big if. And we haven't found that out yet. WALLACE: At this point, though, you're not willing to say -- I guess the term of art is extraordinary circumstances that the gang of 14 set up for allowing a filibuster of a judicial nomination.

Are you willing to say at this point whether you think that Judge Boyle approaches extraordinary circumstances?

SPECTER: Well, extraordinary circumstances really goes to an amalgam of a lot of factors, really, on judicial approach. I think if you have a conflict of interest on ruling on cases where you have a financial interest, it's a disqualifier. I don't think that really gets involved in extraordinary circumstances. And that's what we're looking at.

I think as to Kavanaugh, I don't think there's any realistic chance of extraordinary circumstances, but I don't want to -- I don't want to run the risk of having another confrontation which could undermine a very important institutional prerogative of the Senate, which is the filibuster.

WALLACE: Senator Biden, finally -- we've got a couple of minutes left, and I want to talk to you about quite a stir you caused here in Washington, and perhaps around the world, with a plan that you announced this week for Iraq.

You're calling for a weaker central government and free autonomous regions for the Sunnis, the Kurds and the Shiites. Critics have raised several concerns.

First of all, both the White House and some of the politicians in Iraq say -- and some Democratic leaders, in fact, in Congress say that it shouldn't be the position of the U.S. or anyone in the U.S. to dictate a solution that Iraqi politicians have shown little appetite for.

BIDEN: Well, we have dictated so far, Chris. As you know, on your program, you had the secretary of state and secretary of defense going over to Iraq and saying Jaafari has to go. That's what I call dictation.

This is not dictation. This is called for within their present constitution. Any of the 18 governing provinces can get together and form a province. That's already in their constitution.

Number two, what has happened since the December 15th election, Chris, is the sectarian genie is out of the bottle. Speaking with General Casey, the greatest concern now is sectarian violence leading to a civil war.

The vote on December 15th was straight along sectarian lines. Ninety percent of the people who voted, voted for a sectarian candidate. So the question is how do you hold this country together.

And it seems to me you've got to give each of these groups some breathing room in terms of their local autonomy with a central government controlling all the revenue and controlling all the revenue, and controlling all the foreign policy and controlling the borders.

That's what we did in Dayton. That's what we did back over 200 years ago in the United States with the Article of Confederation leading to a Philadelphia moment. And so that's the bottom line here. How do you keep this country together?

WALLACE: Senator...

BIDEN: And by the way, we surveyed...

WALLACE: Senator, we've got about 30 seconds left, and I want to slip in one other question, because there's another major criticism, and that is that in the Sunni region, that if the insurgents, if the dead-enders, were able to take over in that autonomous region, that you could end up with a mini terrorist state.

BIDEN: Well, they won't be able to take over, number one. We're going to keep 30,000 troops there over the horizon. We're going to keep most of these troops there until 2008.

And in addition to that, when the Sunni leadership has access to revenues which I'm proposing under their constitution, then you'll see them turn on the dead-enders. They have an investment. They have an investment in the outcome.

And here's the parting question I'd ask, Chris. Who has another plan? Who offers a plan? A lot of people support this plan. Everyone from Kissinger says it should be looked at closely, to Broder's column, to a number of generals. So I think you're going to see a lot more discussion here. But the question is who has an alternative plan.

WALLACE: Senator Biden, I want to thank you for your answers and for your questions.

BIDEN: Thank you.

WALLACE: Senator Specter, always a pleasure to talk with you.

SPECTER: Thanks very much, Chris.

WALLACE: Gentlemen, both of you, please come back.

SPECTER: Thank you.

BIDEN: Thank you very much.

WALLACE: Next up, our Sunday regulars on what the CIA shake-up means for U.S. intelligence in the war on terror. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We've helped this agency become integrated into the intelligence community, and that was a tough job, and he's led ably.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PORTER GOSS, DIRECTOR, CIA: I'd like to report back to you that I believe the agency is on a very even keel, sailing well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was President Bush and Porter Goss announcing the CIA director's resignation in the Oval Office.

And it's time now for our Sunday gang, Brit Hume, Washington managing editor of Fox News, and Fox News contributors Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, and Juan Williams, also from National Public Radio.

Well, in a town where no one likes to admit they were surprised, my guess is all of us around the table were by the surprise announcement of the apparently forced resignation of Porter Goss on Friday as CIA director.

Brit, what does all of this tell us about the state of the intelligence community right now?

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS WASHINGTON MANAGING EDITOR: It's a regular mess, and he was out there in part to do a couple of things, and it wasn't an easy job. He was trying to bring an agency which has been kind of a rogue agency as far as the administration is concerned, and some of the administration's policies are concerned, into line, and at the same time kind of restore the morale of an agency which had had several devastating failures, as you pointed out on the program.

He may have made some headway, but it's not clear that he was succeeding. And all the problems out there still remained, and I think the feeling was he'd gone about as far as he could go with it and he wasn't going to go any farther.

WALLACE: Mara, what do you make of, you know, where we are now with this controversial director of national intelligence and his whole apparatus, the CIA, the Pentagon? Is it, as Brit says, a regular miss?

MARA LIASSON, NPR: I think it is a regular mess. And you know, Brit talked about the two really conflicting jobs Porter Goss had to do. One is raise morale, and also do a kind of wholesale reform.

Well, those things are almost not possible to do at the same time, because if the vision of this administration is to move some of the analysis functions out of the CIA, which, of course, the CIA felt should be its rightful functions, and move them elsewhere, focus more on spying and fighting terrorism, that's a painful process.

And people didn't like the changes he was making. Apparently, we hear that the president had lost confidence in him quite a long time ago. Now, that is also an extraordinary fact. I mean, for months and months and months and months he had somebody in that job who he didn't think was doing a good job.

And you saw that quite painful resignation photo op where the president couldn't say I accept his resignation with regret.

WALLACE: Bill, I mean, what does it say if these two distinguished panelists here say that it's a regular mess? We're talking 4.5-plus years after 9/11.

BILL KRISTOL, WEEKLY STANDARD: I think Porter Goss was doing what he had to do. I think he was trying to carry out the president's agenda. He took a lot of heat from the permanent bureaucracy at the agency. He fired someone two weeks ago for leaking, which the president wanted, and his reward was to be fired.

And I think it's an outrage, and I think it's a terrible signal to conservatives anywhere in the State Department, Defense Department, CIA, anywhere in the federal government who are trying to carry out the president's agenda against the bureaucracy, that, unfortunately, the White House is not going to stand behind them.

Now we have...

WALLACE: Well, why do you think he was fired?

KRISTOL: Well, because I think Negroponte wanted him gone, and John Negroponte is a nice man, a former ambassador, foreign service officer, didn't approve of Porter Goss's aggressive attempt to get the CIA much more engaged in covert operations and spying.

I think the CIA will now become a mini State Department. Everyone will be happy. They will replicate the career bureaucrats who are in charge, and anyone who believes in aggressively carrying out President Bush's foreign policy is going to be worried now that he'll stick his head out.

The New York Times won't like it. Other people within the bureaucracy won't like it. And you won't get backed up by the White House.

JUAN WILLIAMS, NPR: You know, I don't see the politics of this at all. I mean, CIA people are overwhelmingly sort of suburban white Republicans. I don't think they're anti-Bush, if that's what you're asking.

KRISTOL: I think the one he fired was a donor to John Kerry and to the Democratic National Committee.

WILLIAMS: But overwhelmingly, this is not an anti-Bush agency. The problem when Porter Goss went over there from Congress as a former agent was that the White House did feel that they were at war with the CIA and the idea was to get them back in order.

But the use of firing people, reassigning people, polygraphing people has demoralized the CIA at this moment, which is a terrible thing to do. And then in combination with the rise of John Negroponte as the man who was doing the briefing for the president, as opposed to the CIA director, I think, you know, pushed Porter Goss down a little bit, and Porter Goss didn't like it.

A lot of the functions were now going over into Negroponte's shop. That created turf wars. As a result, I think what you need here is you need somebody over there who comes in without the war that General Hayden is likely to bring that we just heard the congressman refer to as, you know, a likely controversial nomination. That's the wrong move.

HUME: Chris, I think Bill has raised the essential question here, and that is who really won here. Did the softies who tend to be against the administration policy -- and there were plenty of them at the CIA. They leak like mad. Does the ouster of Goss represent a victory for them, or does it represent a victory for the real tough guy here, who may be Negroponte?

Bill's suggestion is, I think, that Negroponte represents sort of State Department thinking -- he, after all, was a career diplomat -- and that the real tough guy got kicked out, and the soft hearts won. I'm not at all sure that's true.

My sense is that Goss was trying to do the right things and that he simply ultimately wasn't able to. And I think it's an interesting question. If the administration was trying to install there the kind of thinking that you've gotten out of the State Department regarding the war on terror over the years, you wouldn't be looking toward Michael Hayden.

And you heard what Pete Hoekstra said about Hayden, that Hayden would be a guy who would signify the further triumph of the hard- liners, Rumsfeld, et al. in this. So I think it's way too early to conclude who won and who lost.

WALLACE: But let me ask you, Mara, about -- because let's move it forward to the question of who's going to succeed. And it appears a White House that often likes to keep secrets is making it absolutely clear they intend to nominate Michael Hayden. What do you make, first of all, of Pete Hoekstra, the chairman of the committee, saying, you know, I'm against him? You hear Arlen Specter saying I'm going to basically hold up this nomination, use it as leverage until we get more about the NSA. And more importantly, is Hayden the right guy to run the CIA?

LIASSON: Well, first of all, I don't know if Hayden is the right guy to run the CIA. But when you have two leading Republicans, one who's the chairman -- as you reminded everyone, the chairman of the committee in the House saying he's not the right guy, not -- and those are -- Specter and Hoekstra have two quite different problems with him.

These hearings are going to be tough. These hearings are going to be very tough. Once again, the White House has a problem with its own party on Capitol Hill. The fact that it can't even expect smooth sailing for a nominee to head the CIA is quite extraordinary.

KRISTOL: I mean, it's very (inaudible) and it's hard for an outsider to judge sometimes how much of these fights are ideological and substantive, how much of them are turf battles, how much of it's sometimes just about competence.

But I would simply say this. Mike Hayden is a career military guy, a fine man, made by President Clinton head of the National Security Agency, now John Negroponte's deputy. I think Chairman Hoekstra was using the military thing as a bit of a polite way of saying that he doesn't really want Hayden there because Hayden has been a loyal deputy to Negroponte and a career type who is not going to really take on the agency.

He'll let defense do more and more of the technical stuff. Hayden has no experience in covert operations and human intelligence. Maybe he'll try to reinvigorate that, as Porter Goss did.

The only thing I know -- if you look from the outside, the one thing we know is that Porter Goss was in bitter fights with a bunch of anti-Bush types at the agency and elsewhere, and Porter Goss is gone, and very unceremoniously gone.

WILLIAMS: But it goes beyond simply being involved in fights with anti-Bush people, is what I'm trying to say.

You've got to understand that the divide between the vision of saying the CIA goes from being the center of all intelligence activity in the United States and analyzing that to being the center of fighting terrorism, which is what I think Congressman Pete Hoekstra was trying to say this morning -- that's what it's got to be, and that's what it's not prepared to be at this moment, even after 18 months of Porter Goss.

That's a failure. And so what you've got to look forward to then if you bring in a guy who's a general, who has a military background, is more of that intelligence analysis and actually more of the operations going over to people like Negroponte and over to defense, where defense increasingly is operating without any sort of controls. So I think you might instead look at people such as Fran Townsend, who is over at the White House, or you might look at Mary Margaret Graham, who's gone from CIA over to Negroponte's shop, or some of these people who have been pushed out. Look for a different center instead of going to someone who's a deputy of Negroponte, who's already in conflict with the agents at CIA.

WALLACE: All right. We have to take a break here. But coming up, congressmen behaving badly. Which party has the edge now in the battle over ethics? Our panel weighs in when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: On this day in 1945, the Germans surrendered to allied forces in a ceremony in France. The celebration of the defeat of Nazi Germany, known as Victory in Europe day, is commemorated on May 8th.

Stay tuned for more panel and our Power Player of the Week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

U.S. REP. PATRICK KENNEDY (D-RI): I am deeply concerned about my reaction to the medication and my lack of knowledge of the accident that evening. But I do know enough that I know that I need help.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy on Friday talking about his car accident on Capitol Hill and his decision to seek medical treatment for an addiction to prescription painkillers.

And we're back with Brit, Mara, Bill and Juan. While the House passed an ethics reform bill this week -- and we'll get into that in a moment, there have been a number of cases recently of congressmen getting in trouble, and the one that certainly got the most attention and was certainly the saddest was Congressman Kennedy crashing his car and then going back into rehab.

Brit, what do you make of this, and especially the way the Capitol Hill police handled the car accident?

HUME: Well, it looks like they went back to the mode that they've been known for over the long years, which is that they would cover for members of Congress who misbehave. They would provide security at the capitol, but their job was to protect those people and not to arrest them. And I think that's what we saw here.

It was a real effort to protect young Kennedy from his own problems. And you know, it makes a deepening scandal. It's got people talking about, you know, Chappaquiddick without anybody hurt and so on. So it's an unattractive episode.

It doesn't really quite fit the pattern of scandal that we've seen throughout the year in which Republican Duke Cunningham is sort of the gold standard. And it certainly isn't the kind of thing that gave rise to the claim of a culture of corruption in other party, although, of course, that's been said by Democrats of the Republicans.

Democrats, however, have had some serious problems. When you have the top Democrat on the House Ethics Committee having to step down because of his own ethical issues, it's...

WALLACE: Yes, let's put them up on the screen here. We have a number of other Democrats who have had other problems, if we can put it up on the screen. There you go.

Congressman Alan Mollohan, who stepped down as the to Democrat on the House Ethics Committee after allegations that he steered federal funds to people he's associated with. And a businessman pleaded guilty this week to bribing Congressman William Jefferson. He, Jefferson, denies it.

Mara, Democrats, as Brit points out, have been making a big deal so far this year about republicans and the culture of corruption. Do Democrats now have their own glass house?

LIASSON: Yes. Well, look. I think that voters think there is a culture of corruption. They just don't think it's a Republican culture of corruption yet. And I think that every time you hear another one of these kind of bipartisan scandal stories, where it's Democrats, not just Republicans, taking money from Abramoff, it underlines a feeling that people tell pollsters over and over again, which is that everybody does it, that there's not really much difference.

Now, of course, in terms of the lobbying scandals and the money- related scandals, there are more Republicans involved. They're the majority party. But I think that the way this is playing out politically is that if you are an individual congressman involved in something like this, you're going to have some trouble in November unless you're in a super safe seat.

It might add to a general feeling of anger at incumbents, just the fact that there's more stuff that people don't like in Washington and that adds to the anti-incumbent view. But I think to make a big partisan indictment, which is what the Democrats are trying to do, to say this is a Republican culture of corruption, I think makes it a lot harder.

KRISTOL: I had trouble following these scandals this year because they're money-related, as Mara said, and it just kind of gets -- you know, it's so hard to figure out who paid whom what. The sexist thing of the whole Abramoff-DeLay stuff was a golf trip to St. Andrews, you know. Isn't that very Republican? Like the most exciting thing is playing golf on a really good course.

WALLACE: Well, it's turning out that maybe in the Duke Cunningham case...

KRISTOL: Well, that's what cheered -- this week, I must admit, I got interested when there was talk about poker games at the Watergate Hotel and procuring of prostitutes from a dubious car service here in Arlington.

And then Mara told me this morning that it's a well-known rule in Washington...

LIASSON: No, I heard that from someone else.

KRISTOL: ... she heard this from someone else.

LIASSON: I have no idea...

KRISTOL: ... that over coffee this morning she told me that it's well known that you don't just procure prostitutes for one congressman.

LIASSON: That's what somebody said.

KRISTOL: You don't just procure prostitutes for one congressman. I wasn't aware of this...

LIASSON: I have no idea.

KRISTOL: ... rule of thumb.

WALLACE: House rule.

KRISTOL: Apparently, so I'm looking forward to getting some more sex into the scandal. You need sex and money for a really good scandal.

WILLIAMS: Well, I'm amazed that anybody would say it's somehow analogous to look at poor Patrick Kennedy's problem with drugs or Ambien -- he says he's...

LIASSON: No, people aren't saying that's part of it.

WILLIAMS: Well, but that's not -- I mean, why are we even...

HUME: Juan, didn't I just say that it didn't fit the pattern? That's what I said, that it did not fit that pattern.

WILLIAMS: I'm glad you said it, Brit, but then we go right into somehow saying well, here are the Democrats who have a problem, Jefferson, Mollohan, and of course, we led with Patrick Kennedy. I think that's crazy.

Patrick Kennedy -- the poor man has some kind of problem with either Ambien or prescription drugs, and he's off to rehab. To say that that's somehow parallel to a systemic culture of corruption...

LIASSON: I don't think anybody's saying that.

WILLIAMS: ... in which you have Jack Abramoff -- you know, Senator Tom Coburn, a Republican of Oklahoma, said he believes six -- I repeat, six -- that's five congressmen and one senator -- are going to go to jail in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

How that's tied in to -- I mean, what you see here is Republicans at all ends to try to say oh, there is equal problems for the Democrats, equal problems for the Republicans, and to convince the American voters that there's no culture of corruption.

WALLACE: So, Juan, what do you make of William Jefferson and the fact that somebody pleaded guilty to bribing?

WILLIAMS: I think he's in bad trouble.

WALLACE: And what do you make of Alan Mollohan, who was the ranking Democrat on the House Ethics Committee, who had to step down because of his ethical problems?

WILLIAMS: In a word, reprehensible and not to be tolerated. And you've seen that Nancy Pelosi has recommended that the Ethics Committee deal with it.

But what did we see this week from the Republicans? The Republicans in terms of ethics passed legislation that allows them to continue flying on private jets, to continue taking trips at someone else's expense and say that's reform. Come on. I mean, they're in charge. Republicans have been in charge for 10 years. So why don't we have real ethics reform in this town? Why isn't there a real response to a real scandal, Jack Abramoff?

HUME: Well, arguably, at least in political terms, there is. That bill, which has been denounced as being so feeble, actually has some teeth in it, particularly on the area of disclosure.

More importantly, politically, I think, is it gives Republicans something to talk about. And you know, when somebody recites the particulars in the bill, it can sound pretty impressive. So they're not -- this is one of these measures that was passed to give them political cover, and I think it may well succeed in doing that.

And I think that the fact that there are enough of these Democrats who are sufficiently prominent that are having problems of their own probably neutralizes the issue to some extent. But I think at the end of the day, if there's a perception that there's corruption in Washington, the party in power is most likely to be affected by it.

WALLACE: Mara, we've got less than a minute left, but there's certainly no question that the Republicans in the House scaled back on ethics reform.

LIASSON: Oh, no doubt.

WALLACE: At the beginning of the year, at the height of Abramoff and Tom DeLay, they were...

LIASSON: Oh, they were talking about...

WALLACE: ... talking about bans on gifts...

LIASSON: ... much deeper reform, yes.

WALLACE: ... bans on travel. They scaled back to much more disclosure of what they're getting.

LIASSON: Disclosure is fine. I mean, I don't think that there's anything in here that's going to make the matter worse. It's just that the things they were talking about originally when they thought this problem was a bigger political problem for them than...

HUME: Right.

LIASSON: ... they do now, they were talking about going much further.

HUME: And they changed their mind because they all went home and found nobody was talking about it.

WALLACE: Well, I was going to say, do you think that they are making a mistake or they're smart in deciding they can scale back on ethics reform?

LIASSON: Well, you know what? They're gambling. Let's see how many people get indicted in September and October. If there are a lot of Republicans, maybe they made a mistake.

WALLACE: All right. We're going to have to leave it there. Thank you all, panel. That's it for today. See you next week.

---

Sponsored Links

About Us | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy         © RealClearPolitics 2006