The gloss over the loss of Goss

May 5, 2006

Just to follow up on the previous [tag]Goss[/tag]-related program activities, I think it’s fair to say that [tag]Porter Goss[/tag]’ [tag]resignation[/tag] is poised to be the next big disaster for [tag]Bush[/tag]’s presidency. Probably.

For one thing, watching the resignation announcement from the Oval Office, one thing is definitely missing: an explanation for Goss’ departure. No announcement about Goss’ replacement, no perfunctory reference to spending more time with his family, nothing. Just a resignation after only 17 months on the job and stock praise from Bush.

On a related note, we’ll reportedly hear the explanation in the morning.

“Dana Priest is on MSNBC right now saying we’ll have to wait for tomorrow’s paper to find out why he [tag]resigned[/tag]. The Post must have called him for comment on a story running tomorrow about his involvement with [tag]Brent Wilkes[/tag].”

Tim Russert was on the air suggesting that this kind of sudden departure is routine for the director of central intelligence, but Josh knows better.

We don’t know definitely why Goss pulled the plug yet. But the CIA Director doesn’t march over to the White House and resign, effective immediately, unless something very big is up.

Even Jonah Goldberg is willing to concede that this is bad news for a White House that can’t afford any more bad news.

Well, I’m here at CNN and I was supposed to tape a segment, but the Porter Goss news and the upcoming Kennedy press conference scrambled everything. The lefty blog buzz about the hooker probe can be heard here. Whatever the merits of that, I think this is very bad news for Bush.

It’s not just at CNN. The networks approached the [tag]hookergate[/tag] angle very gingerly, but once a few on-air talking heads, including Bob [tag]Barr[/tag], broached the subject, it became a common point of discussion.

I have one contrarian question, however. Let’s say something awful has pushed Goss out; given what we know, coupled by the timing, it seems like a safe assumption. Let’s also say that the White House accepted Goss’ resignation because the Bush gang is well aware of whatever it is that’s forcing Goss’ hand. If that’s the case, why would the [tag]president[/tag] sit alongside Goss — in the Oval Office — for the announcement? I don’t mean to spoil the fun, but it’s an odd media strategy if Goss is about to get caught up in a major sex/corruption scandal. Just a thought.

somebody must have found that blue dress he was looking for

  • Paradoxically, Bush appearing with Goss may provide him with a veneer of an excuse by making it appear as if Bush really, truly trusted Goss, and had absolutely no idea about those hookers…

  • He could be sitting there because none of his aides had the balls to tell him that it wouldnt be a good idea. You see, Bush wants its to look good, like it was planned, yeh, like “Josh told me to do it, yeh, that’s it.” He might have heard an inkling about the scandal, but it’s easier for him to believe he didnt pick someone for the office that is a screwup. You see, he’s still in a bubble and I think he’d like to remain there. It’s all image. The man is completely clueless and isn’t being served well most likely. With so many incompetent suckups around him, how can he at this point know what is best to do?

  • I think it’s always unwise to fire a man from arms length. It just looks bad. Bush appointed him, it is only right that he takes his “resignation”. I think it would look worse if he tried to duck it.

  • I am waiting with baited breath……

    I totally think Goss is leaving to try and head trouble off at the pass and/or because he may need more time to deal with personal ramifacations from all of this. No way is this just part of the WH shakeup. Of course he can only shield the administration so much……

  • Go read Laura Rozen – http://www.warandpiece.com/

    She is “hearing” that when Goss went to meet with Negroponte this morning, he had no idea he was going to be leaving the CIA.

    More and more fun!!!

  • Tom – I read that too. I think he was canned. And something tells me there won’t be a “Medal of Freedom” coming anytime soon.

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer fellow. 🙂

  • “If that’s the case, why would the president sit alongside Goss — in the Oval Office — for the announcement? I don’t mean to spoil the fun, but it’s an odd media strategy if Goss is about to get caught up in a major sex/corruption scandal.”

    C’mon. NOT sitting with Goss and instead, giving him the cold shoulder, would be a public admission that Bush appointed a corrupt buffoon. These are the people who gave the Congressional Medal of Honor to Tenet, even after Tenet had told them (incorrectly) that the case for WMDs was a “slam dunk”.

    It’s been said before, but it bears repeating: this Administration loves and rewards loyalty. That’s all the matters. Goss was loyal, so he gets the President’s kiss on the forehead.

    Besides, IF Goss really was banging hookers, it is not likely that he’s going to TELL the President. He probably just said, “Look, this Cunningham hooker thing is going to heat up, and my name is going to keep coming up, and even though I’m innocent, it will be a distraction to this Administration. So for the good of all, I better resign.”

  • the question remains to be asked: were the hookers goss was cavorting with girls or boys?

  • Does it matter? The fact is Goss IS connected to the prostitute scandal. This could put that story front-and-center. Even if they offer up another explanation, it ought to be met with skepticism because this administration lacks all credibility. Irregardless of why they say he left, Dems should continue to conjecture publicly that this is the real reason, and that there is more the administration are not telling us — which there most certainly is.

    What’s the worst that could happen? It turns out Goss is involved in something else unsavory as well, and shame on us for making a big deal about his other shennanigans? I’m fine with that…

  • Who should replace Goss? My thinking is, they’ll want a toady who is cosy with the Bush regime, who’ll happily prostitute himelf to further the Republican agenda, and who’s got extensive undercover experience. Clearly this points to James Guckert / Jeff Gannon.

  • “Goss-related program activities” – man, that was my big laugh for the day. Good times, good times . . .

  • I think of what the new kids, Tony and Josh, must be thinking..

    Possible Rove indictment
    Abramoff visits made public
    and now ….Porter-Gate

    They must be considering personal exit stragegies from the quagmire, even before they get started.

  • I have one contrarian question, however. Let’s say something awful has pushed Goss out; given what we know, coupled by the timing, it seems like a safe assumption. Let’s also say that the White House accepted Goss’ resignation because the Bush gang is well aware of whatever it is that’s forcing Goss’ hand. If that’s the case, why would the president sit alongside Goss — in the Oval Office — for the announcement? I don’t mean to spoil the fun, but it’s an odd media strategy if Goss is about to get caught up in a major sex/corruption scandal.

    I think there’s a bomb about to go off. Why else the sudden departure with no interim successor? Typically, you’d think Bush would make his announcement alongside Goss’ replacement. “I have accepted Porter Goss’ resignation and am appointing so and so as an interim blablabla.”
    This tells me it’s big, bad and going to break any minute. Goss had to go so urgently, that it didn’t matter if there even was a head of CIA – Doesn’t that just give you warm fuzzies of homeland security?

    So assuming all that, how else do they announce it? A press release from CIA? The media is already abuzz with how strange it is. They needed to have some appearance of decorum. That fact they did it this way speaks to their desperation.
    Of course, it’s also possible that the rumored photos from the Duke hooker parties will knock this footage from the newscycle completely.

  • Yes, it’s probably big, bad and imminent–the latest Bush snafu. But I think he sat alongside Goss for two reasons, aside from the obvious that he’s clueless and never makes mistakes, so Goss couldn’t have been a mistake.
    One, the guy is CIA and, no doubt, has important info that, if released, could embarrass (or do worse) to this criminal administration. And two, when Rethugs are caught screwing someone other than a spouse (or, natch, the country) or taking drugs etc,. it’s always forgiven and considered “a youthful indiscretion”. “Youthful” incidently has no time limit. Rethugs are forever young.

  • “Rethugs are forever young.” – Frak

    That’s because they never grow up 😉

  • Why would Bush sit alongside Goss? The same reason he stood by the thief Claude Allen and called him a “trusted advisor” with “years of principled and dedicated service to our country” who deserved “my deep respect and my gratitude”.

  • Here is a scenario which would explain Bush appearing with Goss. Goss was told to do something by Negreponte that even he could not do. He went to the White House to plead his case and found that Bush sided with Negreponte and Goss resigned effective immediately. Under such a circumstance Bush would want to minimize blow back by appearing with Goss to announce his resignation.

    Such things have been known to happen in organizations. When I was a graduate student my department head went into a meeting one day with the dean. After the dean berated him over something, the department head said, fine do you want my resignation. The dean said yes. The next week there was an acting department head.

    I am not say that it wasn’t about hookers, but there are other possibilities. If it is about hookers we will know soon enough. If it wasn’t about hookers we may never know. The second possibility is far worse in my mind.

  • The very thought that there could be something on the table that even Goss would object to is too awful to contemplate.

    I’m betting on hookers. Male hookers. With photos. Someone at the CIA showed them to Negroponte this morning.

  • Hookers!!!!!!!! (God, I love the G.O.P. Nothing like Santimonious people being taken down a notch…)

  • “I think N.Wells (#12) nailed it: Guckert/Gannon.” – Ed Stephan

    Nope, it’s lots worse. It’s going to be the guy who lead the agency that failed to translate all the chatter right before 9/11 and when presented with his agency’s failures, came up with the idea to spy on communications in to and out of the United States using a program that produces thousands of tips that the FBI has to waste manpower tracking down and which success rate is less than one percent, so bad in fact that the FISA court wouldn’t even agree to give warrants to collect the material.

    In short, it seems the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency is going to be LtGen Micheal Hayden, currently deputy director of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

    Unless someone comes to their senses.

  • Remember that old say, “Be careful what you wish for; you might get it?” Well, wishing Goss out might have led to something worse than Goss.

    I’m hearing the same as Lance—Lt. General Hayden, by the way, was part of the founding team for this irresponsibly illegal “warrantless wiretapping” thing. He helped create it; he helped administer it; he’s a voracious front-runner in defending it. Putting Hayden—a Negoponte lackey if there ever was one, to be sure—at CIA would very much in line with the modus operandi of this current administration.

    Another thing about Kid George and Co. is that they’ll exploit any problems with Goss as a veil to hide whatever they’re brewing at CIA now. If Goss is dirty, then they’ll parade out the “We’ve-found-the-problem!” line—and if Goss turns out to be clean (even partially so), they’ll have a pretty hefty trump-card to play back at the electorate come November. It’ll be something that they might even play up against the bloggers as a prerequisite to closing them down—at least for the run-up period in the election cycle—and THAT wouldn’t be beyond the thinking of this current administration, either….

  • Yes, it looks like as with Rice replacing Powell or Gonzales replacing Ashcroft, we’re going from bad to worse.

  • As long as Bush is doing the choosing, things will always get worse. Why would anyone expect anything else?

    • Comments are closed.