So, why did [tag]Porter Goss[/tag] resign yesterday? As of this morning…
* The NYT said [tag]Goss[/tag]’ departure “was hastened because a recent inquiry by the [tag]President[/tag]’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board had found that current and former agency officers were sharply critical of Mr. Goss’s leadership.” It added that the resignation “occurs amid an investigation into the activities of the executive director of the agency, [tag]Kyle Foggo[/tag], a longtime agency official whom Mr. Goss elevated to the senior post.”
* The LAT said Goss was forced out by “Director of National Intelligence John D. [tag]Negroponte[/tag], whose growing disenchantment with the [tag]CIA[/tag] director was shared by members of President [tag]Bush[/tag]’s intelligence advisory board.”
* The WaPo reported that Bush “lost confidence in Goss…almost from the beginning and decided months ago to replace him.” “There has been an open conversation for a few weeks, through Negroponte, with the acknowledgment of the president” about replacing Goss, said a senior White House official who discussed the internal deliberations on the condition of anonymity. The Post added that Negroponte told Goss in April to prepare to leave by May.
* The Boston Globe said “theories swirled” to explain the sudden departure, but “people close to the intelligence community felt that the weight of bureaucratic infighting — within the agency and with Negroponte’s office — had finally prompted Goss to give up.”
* The Washington Times alluded to “[tag]hookergate[/tag],” but said it was unrelated to the resignation: “A senior administration official, who asked not to be named, said yesterday that Mr. Goss’ resignation was not linked in any way to the [tag]Foggo[/tag] or [tag]Cunningham[/tag] investigations. The official said the [tag]White House[/tag] did an extensive check and was assured that Mr. Goss is not under suspicion.”
* Similarly, Knight Ridder noted the prostitutes, but quoted CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano saying Goss’ resignation wasn’t linked to the scandal.
* The New York Daily News offered the most salacious lead, telling readers, “CIA Director Porter Goss abruptly resigned yesterday amid allegations that he and a top aide may have attended Watergate poker parties where bribes and prostitutes were provided to a corrupt congressman.”
Are all of these reports credible? Laura Rozen has some doubts.
So then he was forced out on very short notice? No notification to the House Intelligence committee? Not a single newspaper report in the past few months about the tension between Goss and Negroponte? (Indeed check out the recent coverage about Congressional raised eyebrows over the empire Negroponte is building, and his alleged visits to a fancy DC club for swim and cigar breaks). On the contrary, can anyone remember a single article about Goss fighting for his folks at the Agency?
I don’t. Much of the operative camp of the Agency perceived Goss as a political enforcer, someone who wasn’t just not looking out for them, but who almost leaned towards suspicion of them, someone who was rather passive and out of touch and who 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 or the Agency, and not seen a single article where anyone ever suggested that. 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?
As a rule, the Bush administration doesn’t move this fast in response to internal strife. If you get the feeling there’s a little more to this story than we’ve heard from today’s dailies, we’re on the same page.