Democrats pushing back against ex-Rep. Porter Goss’s accusations

Some House Democrats are pushing back after enduring a week of GOP questions over whether Democrats had objected to Bush interrogation policies.

Reps. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) and Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) are blasting ex-CIA Director and -Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) for attacking Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) assertions about what she knew about the Bush administration’s interrogation of al Qaeda suspects.

{mosads}McDermott and Woolsey argue that Goss, a co-chairman of the newly created Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), should not be getting involved in such high-profile political fights while sitting on the ethics board.

“It bodes very badly for the [OCE] when you’ve got one of the GOP-appointed chairmen taking cheap shots at the Speaker,” McDermott said.

Woolsey called Goss’s recent charge that Democrats have “amnesia” about detailed CIA briefings about the agency’s interrogation methods and policies “pretty inappropriate,” considering his role as OCE co-chairman.

“We need people that we can look to and trust to be fair and impartial” on that board, she said.

McDermott also objected to Goss’s appointment to the OCE board in the first place.

“I served on the ethics committee with Porter Goss for six years,” he said. “I know Porter Goss, and he is never nonpartisan.”

Despite tough opposition within the Democratic Caucus and from Republicans, Pelosi pushed legislation creating the OCE through the House last year. The review board was created in response to widespread criticism that the ethics committee was not living up to its mandate to police members’ conduct. The board is composed of private citizens, as well as former members, to allow an independent body to weigh in on House ethics matters and make recommendations for action or dismissal to the full committee.

Goss is one of three panel members Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) appointed in July. Pelosi named three others, including the chairman, former Rep. David Skaggs (D-Colo.).

Pelosi and Democrats have been playing defense in the wake of President Obama’s decision to release Bush administration memos in support of “enhanced interrogation methods” that Democrats consider torture, which is illegal.

Republicans have hammered Pelosi and Democrats for demanding investigations into Bush administration interrogation polices after failing to raise objections seven years ago, when they were first briefed about the policies.

Goss, who was CIA director during part of the Bush administration, had remained silent since his OCE appointment, but over the weekend he penned a scathing editorial that ran in The Washington Post. In it, he accused Democrats of trying to use Bush’s controversial interrogation policies to gain political advantage even though they were fully briefed about them in the wake of the September attacks and did not object to them at the time.

In fact, Goss claimed that Democrats not only knew about the interrogation procedures and practices but funded the efforts and repeatedly asked if the CIA needed more support to carry out its mission against al Qaeda.

“Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as ‘waterboarding’ were never mentioned,” he wrote.

Other Democrats, such as Rep. Michael Capuano (Mass.), who led the task force that created the OCE, said they saw no problem with Goss jumping into the political fray on the interrogation issue because the new ethics body cannot consider any ethics matters that occurred before its creation. It cannot, for instance, weigh in on a report that the National Security Agency caught Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) allegedly accepting a deal from an Israeli agent to help her win the Intelligence chairmanship if she agreed to intercede in a Justice Department investigation of two American Israel Public Affairs Committee officials.

“Every one of these members [appointed to the board] have had some involvement in the political process,” Capuano said. “As long as they recuse themselves on issues where there’s a conflict of interest, I don’t see a problem with speaking out.”

Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog that played a role in creating the OCE, also said Goss should be allowed to speak out as long as he agrees to recuse himself from any related matter if it comes before the review board.

“That’s part of the package,” McGehee said, referring to former members’ service on the board. “Porter Goss is very thoughtful and well-respected, but he also has strong opinions.”

Goss did not respond to a request for comment, and an OCE staffer declined to comment.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking member of the Intelligence panel, has slammed Democrats in recent weeks for claiming ignorance about detainees being waterboarded and other controversial interrogation procedures.

Hoekstra also defended Goss as a “dedicated, honest man who is just reciting the facts as he knows them.”

“People need to look at what Nancy Pelosi said and not try to find someone else to attack just as a way to distract from the facts at hand,” he said.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said Goss’s decision to wade into the interrogation debate should be viewed as a positive attribute for his OCE role.

“Former Rep. Goss’s decision to tell the truth about the briefings on enhanced interrogation is more evidence of the high standards of honesty and character that make him perfect for his role on the Office of Congressional Ethics board,” Steel said.