Laura Rozen: Official Story about Goss's departure reeks of mendacity

[BurtWorm]

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004100.html

The story line until today has been far different: that much of the operative camp of the Agency perceived Goss as a political enforcer, someone who wasn't seen to be looking out for them, and was sometimes highly suspicious of them; that Goss was rather passive and out of touch and overly delegated day to day affairs to his staff, "the Gosslings," led by the fiercely partisan Patrick Murray. I don't believe I have ever heard from people in that world a sense that Goss was looking out for them. The newspaper coverage has suggested rather that a lot of the experienced bench strength cadre at the Agency had left in fights with Goss and his staff during his rocky tenure, and that the Agency had never been more demoralized. So all that time, during all those departures, Goss was covertly fighting for his folks against the new intel reorganization? He was a misunderstood champion of the Agency?

Does something about this story line that Goss suddenly left because of his long-standing tension with Negroponte, his fraternity brother from Yale, over Goss fighting to hold CIA turf seem a bit canned to you?

Think back to yesterday morning. The top news after the Patrick Kennedy crash was that Bush's poll numbers were at an all time low, and that he was starting to see a real erosion of support from conservatives. Gas prices and immigration and Iraq. So Bush gets briefed by his staff that day, and decides: hey, let's fire Porter Goss. He's killing morale at the Agency. He's just seen as far too political. And John Negroponte is threatening to quit if he stays. He's given me an absolute ultimatum. Let's get this out today.

Come on. That's just not how this White House has responded to these sorts of tensions in the past. They never move fast. They withstand criticism of appointments for months. They resist criticisms of unpopular agency heads for weeks (Michael "heckuva job" Brown), months (Snow), years (Rumsfeld). Think how much speculation there was in the press before Card's and McClellan's announced retirements, and how warm and friendly were those departures. It's hard not to believe that something moved very quickly on the radar this week that prompted an unusually quick decision. One that took a lot of people who would normally have been advised by surprise. (It's my understanding that the heads of Congressional intel committees were not informed in advance).

[MADem]

1. ....seem a bit canned to you?

Why YES, it does!!!!

But, hey, pictures of CIA types in the company of HOOKERS...now, there's a reason to move FAST!!!!

[0007]

2. Ahyes, don't we all love a good cup of coffee over deceptiveness?

[vickitulsa]

3. "... in the company of HOOKERS" paid for by defense contractors!

Defense contractors utilizing outright bribery to land juicy no-bid contracts with the government!

Yep, these mendacity adepts are rolling out their products right and left these days. But guess what? It ain't workin'!

[BurtWorm]

4. Drum: Lexis search turns up no story on "turf war" twixt Goss and 'Ponte

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_05/008751.php


Well, who knows? Sometimes long-running feuds really can come to a head unexpectedly, and maybe that's what happened this time.

But, yeah, it doesn't seem very likely, does it? After all, as Laura points out, the press seems to have rather suddenly discovered this turf war. In fact, I just checked Nexis, and here's what I found: in the week before Friday's announcement, not one single reporter even mentioned the names Porter Goss and John Negroponte in the same story. In the month prior, there was only one piece that mentioned the phrase "turf war," and it wasn't being used to describe problems between Goss and Negroponte. On Thursday, a mere 24 hours before the Goss announcement, the Washington Post's Dana Priest did a one-hour online Q&A and never alluded to tension between Goss and Negroponte, even though she had several chances to do so.

So what's the deal? For the past several months, the consensus word on Goss has been that he's loyally protecting George Bush by aggressively tracking down the leakers who are undermining his ability to torture prisoners in Eastern European prisons and firing all the CIA's closet Democrats. That seems like sterling service. But now, out of the blue, we're supposed to believe that Bush woke up Friday morning and suddenly decided that some previously unreported bureaucratic turf war finally needed to be stopped? Who exactly is the source for this theory? Whoever it is, he seems to have been a busy boy on Friday.

[MADem]

5. If you have known someone for almost fifty years

Wouldn't you say that it's a pretty safe bet that you know their character? You know their work habits? You have an idea how they will perform in an assigned task?

Take a look at this picture. It's the YALE fencing club, featuring many Class of 60 members.

That's Bush's UNCLE sitting next to Porter. And we see Mr. Negroponte in the back row.



Now, don't tell me that JN didn't know exactly how Porter would perform. They were all on the same sheet of music...it's just that Hookers are gettin' in the way, and SOON.

Porter needed to go before that story breaks, and as a bonus, the administration can spin this to blame Porter for all the woes at the CIA--even though those orders causing those woes came down from on high.

[BurtWorm]

6. And make pretend Goss was deadwood Bolten was throwing over

These guys are masters of making lemonade out of lemons.

[BurtWorm]

7. Don't miss this, folks

Lots of blogs are linking to Laura's ruminations. Definitely food for thought.

[troubleinwinter]

8. A K&R for this!

[BurtWorm]

9. kick