E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., did little to tamp down speculation that he's under consideration to become the next CIA director, saying he could neither confirm nor deny conversations with the Obama administration about the vacant position.
Speaking Tuesday on WJR radio in Detroit, Rogers, a former FBI agent who's helmed the intelligence panel for the past two years, acknowledged that his name has been among those in public discussion to replace David Petraeus as leader of the CIA. But he said he hd "every expectation" he would continue to serve as Intelligence Committee chairman.
A New York Times report following Petraeus's resignation in an adultery scandal named Rogers — along with deputy CIA Director Michael Morrell, Obama counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan and former National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter — as potential picks to helm the CIA.
Recommended:Obama calls Egyptian president third time in 24 hours
Obama has shown a willingness during his first term to name Republicans to top security roles. For instance, he continued to involve Petraeus — a GOP favorite whose tenure begun under President George W. Bush — in security efforts, and kept Robert Gates as his defense secretary until mid-2011.
What follows is a lightly edited transcript of relevant portions of Rogers's conversation Tuesday with WJR host Paul W. Smith:
Paul W. Smith: If you don't want the job, you can say so here and now, but it seems like you'd be a perfect fit for that kind of position, with your background.
Rep. Mike Rogers (R): Certainly, that name has been bandied about. They're going through a process now for that position. I have every expectation I will be the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which is a great job, it's where I want to be, and it's the kind of worth that I think is important for the country.
[…]
Smith: Have you had any conversation that you can share with us, without getting into the details, regarding the position of director of the CIA with people who could be involved in that kind of decision-making process?
Rogers: I would not be able to confirm nor deny any discussions on the process they may be going through on the CIA director. I can tell you I have every expectation that I will be the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee in January.
[…]
Smith: Anything else, Mr. Director — I mean, congressman — that we need to talk about?
Rogers (laughing): It's going to be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, a role that I'm honored and proud to serve in. And there's just a ton of work we're going to have to do in the next year.
Smith: That doesn't mean you wouldn't accept the position, should it be offered.
Rogers: A) I doubt that's likely to happen, and B) I think it's important to have somebody that can walk in the office and sit down and have a level of trust.
Leave a Comment:
Just reading over the wazzerman shultzy lady and al sharpton and some other congress ladies statements about "them" going after Rice because she is black and a woman. Crazy rantings. I think people are going after her because she was in a highly responsible and very high level position and she went off to do Obamas bidding spreading lies and mistruths. Hey, this is not a physical thing... take the job... and everything you let come with it. Race... that nonsense divisive talk needs to stop... war on women thing was stupid enough.
FOX and Rush eroded your brain. Rice offered the info she had at the time.
Condoleesa did the same when she claimed that Iraq held WMD. She was a black female also. I heard no bitching from the
Rightwrong about that.oh once again... there they go.
the woman was in a very high level position of authority and responsibility. She went out and started rambling off information to not one but five scheduled television news shows, and also discussed the matter in depth... whatever, if they fed her bad information and told her to go out and defend it or if she knew it was bogus... doesn't matter. She refuses to speak, is now defended from having to speak by the president and by his media... and they are protecting her because she is a poor little black woman bit player who didn't know what she was doing. Now that seems insulting to both her and every other woman, black person, or black woman who has worked their way to the top in life. Objective racism, objective feminism... look em up. And get off that Rush and Fox crap. Its really old and simple minded.
So, let's have a big set of hearings about Cheney's no-bid contracts for Haliburton. Let's re-examine the Iran-Contra affair and the extension of the Iran-hostage crisis (also an American Embassy). Let's examine why Condoleesa Rice did not pursue the intelligence about attacks that were being planned against the U.S. in 2001. These cases involved a LOT more hostages, a LOT more deaths, a LOT more betrayal than Benghazi, which really was an intelligence oversight but not a malicious one. Where, oh where, was the money for more military around Embassies you ask... the funds were cut by the Republicans.
Your conspiracy about Libya has been dis-proven this week, keep up. The neocons in the CIA provided the talking points to Ambassador Rice for a good reason. People like you would sell out this country's secrets for political gain, something bordering on treason. Go back to Fox.
I dont know anything about the job, or the necessary qualifications. I do know one thing is for sure. The Republican standard is to provide NOTHING short of Ill-Will and hate to a GREAT President.
Hire him Mr President, but man oh man, dont be surprised when you end up with yet another knife in the back, adorned with a teabag.
What the hell are you talking about?
Love all the CAPS... very emotional. LOL.
We don't need anyone in the GOP involved with anything concerning national security. Petraeus is proof of that.
GOP and intelligence are mutually exclusive. Burger flipping may be a better fit for Mike Rogers.
he's a republican , that's a good reason '' NOT '' to place him in such a powerful position.
We elected you twice, Mr. President, with hard work and our hard earned dollars.
No Republicans (who represent the billionaire corporations that play world politics already). Neither the Cabinet nor any court Justices should be Republicans, not even centrists.
I'm not begging. I'm worn out by this election Mr. President. I live in Ohio, and I put up with everybody's hourly robo-calls, doorbells, "surveys," horrible TV ads, and I came to one conclusion. If, after all that, you still will not appoint people that have something to do with the platform and people who elected you, then I don't think that there is any reason at all to vote in the next elections, and certainly not to contribute any more money.
Those big corporations (that the Democrats complained so much about) have a hand in every country in the world, and you want to "reach across the aisle" to put one of those people who are loyal to their multi-national corporations and not to the U.S. in charge of the organization that is supposed to monitor foreign activities? This is worse than a conflict of interest on their parts: it is a conflict of policy on your part if you do it. Last term, I thought that you were just trying to be nice. The Republicans didn't get it anyway, and they rammed through their policies wherever they could. We need somebody in charge of foreign intelligence who really cares about America as a nation, not as just a corporate pawn.
@ELIZABETH, I agree. After their "one term President" manure, and saying NO to everything, I wouldn't give them the time of day, let alone a cabinet position that important. You have never seen a GOP President give a D any cabinet position, have you? I sure don't remember any.
using GOP and intelligence in the same sentence is an oxymoron
McC, is that like saying Democrat and honesty ? Or the Obama administration and transparency? Whomever the Pres appoints for CIA Director will need to be honest and upfront about what information they have. Political party is 100% irrelevant
Oxymoron like 'Reagan's Memoirs'.
It appears then that even Mr. Obama knows the Republicans are pretty good and perhaps even better at running our national security. This would be GREAT news.
Now that was funny! Lol.
Oh, so he was the GOP Intelligence Officer....does that mean he knew in advance that Romney/Ryan would lose?!?
This guy could turn a bee sting into a conspiracy and cover up story. After listening to him on TV recently where he suggested the President tried to cover up the Benghazi story as well as the investigation of the General and that AG Holder might have told the President [before the Election] about the investigation, I would think that he would make a partisan mess of the CIA. He would be leaking information by innuendo all the time. I understand this President's desire to keep his enemies close but this would be a ridiculous choice and it would definitely not be in the country's best interests. We need a smart, educated, moral, discrete, OBJECTIVE minded person in that position.
The President should seek out the most qualified and capable people to serve, regardless of party. Bill cohen served in the Clinton Administration as Secretary of Defense and Gates did the same for President Obama.
The partisan divide is a very destructive thing if qualified people are not considered for such positoins because of their party affiliation. Rogers should get a fair look.
Excellent idea: all the corrupt government "leaders" that obtain U.S. foreign aid can get nervous about having that cash to redecorate the kitchens on their sailboats - oh my goodness we have to really spend some of this "on looking like innovation" for those miserable poor -------s in malvin norte.
troglodytes that's the word
No! No more neocons in the White House. They are the biggest bunch of screw-ups to come down the pike. From the Iraq war to Fast and Furious to the latest Libya episode, there is a neocon behind every mistake. No more.
I could understand picking him if there were no available Democrats who haven't said the things he has said and done the things he has done. But there are, and in the long run, although I do believe in reaching across the aisle, this is important and he needs to know the person in this position is trustworthy and not on an agenda that involves trying to drum up all kinds of nonsense.
Oxymoron. GOP and intelligence in the same sentence.
GOP and Intelligence is an oxymoron
GOP Intelligence Chairman.
That's like being the tallest guy at a dwarves convention.
This will NEVER HAPPEN...
This "trial balloon" from Rogers and the TOTALLY ABSURD LINE OF IGNORAMUSES that have put this bizarre line out there shows just how GULLIBLE the low information voter is.
Exactly WHO sourced this story and the material in it??? What a joke....
Law enforcement and national security are not partisan issues. People should not campaign to be appointed director of the CIA.
NOOOOOOOOOOOO! That is the one position that must not be a Republican.
OMG, just using intelligence and GOP in the same sentence................. hilarious. ROFL!
The republicans are looking for the reason they've lost to president obama ??? let me help you guys , first thing , drop MORONI , and turn back to JESUS CHRIST !!! drop the GREED , drop the LYING , drop the HIPOCRICY , drop the SELFISHNESS , drop the SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS , drop the WELFARE ENTITLEMENT FOR THE RICH , drop the ARROGANCE , drop the OFFSHORE TAX DODGING , drop the OBSTUCTIONIST. IN OTHER WORDS , '' DROP THE TEA PARTY '' , AND IT WILL GIVE YA'LL A FIGHTING CHANCE !!!!!!!
At CIA, Petraeus taking up top spy post ...Sept. 6, 2011
General James Jones, should have been his first choice and still remains.
Perhaps a woman would be a good choice - hardly ever do you find women flirting or jumping into bed wth men who flatter and fawn over them!
You do realize who the Generals had affairs with...
haha -
My meaning was women in high level jobs, i.e., Hilliary Clinton, Condi Rice, etc. hardly ever fall for the same stuff as the Generals fell for (fawning and flattering of young women).
Please don't turn a personal character flaw of individuals into a gross over-generalization about an entire group.
I don't believe it's a generalization of men - but do think it's gross that so many men think with what's in their pants not with their brains. Unlike most women.
Nice discussing with you! I'll try not to generalize ;-)
Then from your post I can conclude that most women don't understand what a sweeping generalization is!