Admiral Stansfield Turner- Live Online

The Washington Post's Live Online has a discussion this morning about the appointment of Porter Goss to be CIA director with somebody who should know- former CIA director Stansfield Turner.  He makes it very clear in his first paragraph what he thinks of the idea:  

This is Stansfield Turner. Let me lay out my basic thoughts on the nomination of Porter Goss to be Diecdtor of Central Intelligence:

1. This is an irresponsile lact on the part of the President because it is motivated by partisan politcal, electoral purposes. We cannot afford to play partisan poliotics with our intelligence apparatus.

2. Porter Goss has many qualifactions for being DCI. n He has one overriding disqualification. That is that he is a very partisan, political person. We must keep politics and intelligence enirely separate.

3. This administration has already jeopardized the public's view of the credibility of our intelligence by its misues of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We cannot afford to make the public even more skeptical of the reliability of our intelligence by having a political figure as its head.

4. This is a terrible time to nominate anyone to be DCI. By gthe time Goss is confirfmed, if he is, it will be mid-September, six weeks before the election. No one at the CIA will take the new director seriously until after the election, but John McLaughlin will no longer e in charge. No one will. If Kerry is elected he almost certainly would replace Goss, confusing the situation even more. We should leave McLaughlin there until after the election.
   

The interview isn't over yet (as I'm typing this), so there's still a chance to submit a question if you like.  A couple of posters have been hammering the Admiral for speaking up (how typical).  Anyway, he brings up lots of reasons why A) this shouldn't be done now and B) it shouldn't be Porter Goss.