Was It About Karl?

Posted on by

Something’s not adding up, Laura Rozen says.

So, the verdict is in. According to the WP, the NYT, the LAT, Time, etc. Goss was forced out yesterday after months of tension between him and John Negroponte over the CIA’s reduced turf, and that President Bush lost confidence in Goss “almost from the beginning” (WP).

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? …

… Negroponte has President Bush’s ear every single day when he delivers the President’s daily intel brief. If he had been lobbying to get rid of Goss, and the President was inclined to support that decision, there were a hundred ways to do it in a way that would project stability, confidence, normalcy. There was hardly a show of that yesterday. They could have named a successor. There could have been a leak to the press about Goss being tired (remember all the foreshadowing in the press about how tired Andy Card was after all those 20 hour days that preceded his departure?) and wanting to spend more time with his family, or that Bush was unhappy with him. There was none of that. It was a surprise move. What happened this week that Negroponte and Bush acted so swiftly?

Does the way it happened resemble the slo-mo, warm and fuzzy way Andy Card and Scott McClellan were retired? Or does it rather have more in common with the swiftly announced departures of Claude Allen and David Safavian from their posts, a few days before we hear of federal investigations?

Before we all get too excited over Hookergate … according to Larry Johnson, the rumor mill inside the CIA says Goss is probably not directly involved.

A former CIA buddy tells me that Porter’s main problem, however, is a key staffer who is linked to both Brent Wilkes and the CIA’s Executive Director, Dusty Foggo. My friend also said that it is highly likely that the Goss staffer did participate in the hooker extravaganza. Goss, politician that he is, probably recognized that even though he did not participate in the sexual escapades and poker games, his staffer’s participation created a huge problem for him that would be difficult to escape.

All we know for sure is that we don’t know for sure why Goss resigned. If the only reason for the resignation is Goss’s poor job performance — which is not usually a firing offense among the Bushies — why so abrupt?

The two reasons Bushies lose their jobs is (1) they’ve become — or are about to become — a political liability, or (2) they spoke out against the White House Official Version of Reality. We have to assume Goss was about to become a political liability and had to be bounced asap.

One other possibility is that Negroponte wants something from the CIA he wasn’t getting, And it’s something he wants right now. Time is of the essence. Here’s a wild card thought — could this something have to do with building a legal defense for Karl Rove’s role in Plamegate? Conventional wisdom says that if Rove’s going to be indicted, it’s going to happen within the next week or two. That’s just seat-of-the-pants speculation, of course. But Dick Cheney’s running battle with the CIA is at the heart of the Plame mess, and part of Goss’s mission was to bring the agency to heel.

NSA director General Michael Hayden is expected to be named as Goss’s replacement. Steve Soto writes that “Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld gain direct control of the CIA with Hayden’s ascension.” On the other hand, Hayden’s confirmation hearings will give Democrats lots of opportunity to grill Hayden over his creative application of the Fourth Amendment at the NSA.

Steve also touches on one of my favorite themes — Bush’s management “style.”

But in reading the Post’s accounts (one with Pincus, and one by Dana Priest) of the damage that Goss did to the Agency in a short period of time, one can see how awful of a manager Bush is. First, he selects and installs a man into the job who had no business there in the first place. Then, he finds that he isn’t happy with the guy he just selected. He then sits by while Goss and his former staff aides set about to destroy the Agency by running out or forcing into retirement many high-level and experienced staff. Instead of dealing with that problem, he installs another dark and immoral man as a buffer between him and Goss (Negroponte), instead of dealing with the problem itself. And then, after becoming unhappy with how Goss has made the Agency dysfunctional and handled several major problems, he uses Josh Bolten’s ascension as the cover to finally make a move, but again, by picking someone who will cause just as many problems because of his own inadequacies and ties to those who got Bush into this problem in the first place (Cheney and Rummy).

Bush is inept, and an incompetent manager, someone who would never have lasted in many major corporations or even in state government, let alone as leader of the free world.

36 thoughts on “Was It About Karl?”

  1. It never ceases to amaze me how little people understand about how human’s interact. Bush and Cheney think that by appointing Hayden they will gain ‘control’ over the CIA?

    Really?

    What total, absolute idiocy. The CIA is in the act of toppling his government and he thnks one guy is gonna save his ass. No one man can make the thousands who work for the CIA love, like or even stop their efforts to make him pay for the Plame affair. Hell, Hayden won’t even slow them down. He’s a marked man. Does he drink? Like girls? Like boys? Do dope? Gamble? Ever embezzle any money? Perhaps he’s ‘helped out’ on some government contracts?

    Whatever…if I was him I’d have someone else start my car in the morning. This is the end game of theCIA vs. Bush: Civil War and the gloves are about to come off.

  2. This morning John at Americablog is asking the question of whether these were not just prostitutes but gay male prostitutes… Could be. This would help explain why the MSM is so reluctant to touch that aspect of the story. As we all remember from the Jeff Gannon episode, they seem to have trouble dealing with anything gay, much less the gay prostitute thing. If it involved women prostitutes though, Fox News would be all over it. Maybe even feature them on Neil Cavuto’s show. Good for ratings, you know.

  3. I was puzzled to understand why Porter Goss included the word “honestly” to qualify his belief that the CIA was on an even keel and sailing smoothly. I sensed by body langauge and general demeanor that all was not well between Bush and Goss and that Goss’s decision to leave was not of his own free will, meaning that the wasn’t trying to outpace an upcoming scandal. The potential of possibilites is endless,but I think at the core lies the question…who gets the blame for the invasion of Iraq when America gets it’s accountibilty moment…It will be either Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice, or the CIA.

  4. Speculation about the timing and “whys” of Goss’ resignation is fun and all that, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    I hope Gen. Hayden gets the nod as Goss’ replacement; a career intelligence officer without a political background would be a good thing for the CIA.

  5. Buck- Ha HA!

    Do you remember Groucho Marx? He used to say that you can enjoy a cigar, but you have to know when to take it out!

  7. Maha: Buck must be a comedian.

    Nah. Jes tryin’ to lighten things up a lil bit. You guys are so serious!

  8. Oh, and yeah, Britwit, I DO remember Groucho. I used to watch You Bet Your Life semi-religiously. “Say the secret word and win a hunnerd dollahs!” and all that. Now that I’ve given away my age you Young Turks won’t take anything I say seriously.

    Not that you would, anyway. 😉

  10. Hey Buck! Who the heck are you callin’ Young Turks? Many of us are your age I’ll bet. And besides, you’re in the wrong place if you’re expecting to see “Young Turks.” I’d look in the White House and on Capitol Hill right now, if I were you.

    The Young Turks had their origins in secret societies of progressive university students [skull and crossbones?] Like their European forerunners, such as the carbonari of the Italian Risorgimento, they typically formed cells [cabals?] Although the European public and many scholars commonly labeled the Young Turks as liberals and constitutionalists, these traits were never aspects of the Young Turk philosophy. A detailed analysis of their ideas reveals that the Young Turks did not adopt liberal ideas and they devalued parliaments as hazardous bodies [that goes for Constitutions as well?] Young Turks began to work at developing claims that Islam [Christianity] itself was materialism [capitalism]?

    Just havin’ fun with ya, Buck. Didn’t want you to think we have no sense of humor over here. 🙂

  11. Well…Aren’t we all just Jovial?

    What you can bet your bottom dollar on…Is that whatever the Busheviks are saying is a pack o’ lies…

    There’s an awful lot of pissed-off Lifetimne Republicans working at the CIA who don’t at all appreciate being used as scapegoats and potential fuel for the Great Bushevik Witch Hunt Bonfire of the Washington Vanities…

    Have at ’em folks…What was it Bush said about “Bring ’em on”?

  12. Good bits, Sam! But I was thinking more along the lines of…

    “The Young Turks followed the principle of developing an intellectual elite [e.g., Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Bill Keller, Katrina vanden Heuvel, and their designated hitters] to govern the Empire, never envisioning participation of the masses [that would be me and my neighbors in the trailer park; “fly-over country”] in policy-making or administration.” “Another guiding principle for the Young Turks was the transformation of their society into one in which religion played no consequential role [Bertrand Russell, the ACLU, People for the American Way]. In this materialistic structure, science was to replace religion. However Young Turks soon recognized the difficulty of spreading this idea…[Q.E.D.]”
    This IS fun! 🙂

  13. Hey, Buck! You’re back!
    See? We liberals have lots of fun. We’re a pretty happy bunch, too. (I don’t know if you’ve been over here on our side long enough to discover this.)
    However, we’re not all Chomsky followers. (I notice you cite only the extreme left). Some of us are moderates, just like some Republicans are moderates. Many Republicans do not like this huge deficit, or government interference in our private lives. (Reagan didn’t, I do believe). Most Democrats don’t either. But to get back to the Young Turks analogy…
    “The Young Turks followed the principle of developing an intellectual elite [Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and their designated hitters] to govern the Empire, never envisioning participation of the masses [that would be me and other moderate and liberal blogger citizens who are sick of the corruption, incompetence, secrecy…oops, sorry. Getting off the track here] in policy-making or administration.” “Another guiding principle for the Young Turks was the transformation of their society into one in which religion (Islam) played no consequential role [contrary to what this administration does, which is its opposite. Namely, inserting religion where it does not belong in opposition to what many of our moderate and liberal citizens believe to be the sensible example set by Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, et all.] In this overtly religious structure, religion was to replace science [creationism versus scientifically grounded theories such as evolution]. However, the current administration will not drag us back to the 19th century if we moderates and liberals have anything to do with it!
    (I’m still having fun! Hope you are, too.)

  14. Buck,
    If you’re coming back, may I ask you a question that’s baffled me for some time now? I don’t know if you can speak for them but, when Clinton was in the White House, redneck, survivalist types thought the evil government was going to infiltrate our privacy and do any number of secret, nasty stuff to its citizenry. Why is there no outcry from them against this administration? Now that we have the likes of Gonzales and Cheney? Is it because of 9/11? Is it because we are at “war with terrorism”? If so, do you think there will ever come a time when we will not be “at war” with terrorists? If not, does this mean that our citizenry must give up its rights “for the good of the country”? Isn’t this a rather Cowardly New World? I’d really like the Right’s perspective on this if you are willing.

  15. Please, please, please let Dubya appoint Michael Hayden as Goss’s replacement – just one more nail in the coffin. Hayden is one of many in this administration that carries around the abridged copy of the Constitution. Hayden’s copy doesn’t include the “probable cause” provision of the Fourth Amendment.

    But you know the expression “be careful what you ask for”. He probably will be appointed and I’ll probably be the recipient of Hayden’s interpretation of the constitution simply because I posted this. There would be no probable cause – but he would find it reasonable!

  16. I am still bothered by the abruptness of the departure. Larry Johnson’s contention that Goss is not directly involved in Hookergate does not explain Goss’s olympic gold medal winning sprint out of Washington.

    Here’s my take on the whole affair so far. The other shoe to drop will be huge.

  17. Sam sez: I don’t know if you can speak for them but, when Clinton was in the White House, redneck, survivalist types… Why is there no outcry from them against this administration?

    I can’t speak for them. I don’t know any folks like that.

    If so, do you think there will ever come a time when we will not be “at war” with terrorists? If not, does this mean that our citizenry must give up its rights “for the good of the country”? Isn’t this a rather Cowardly New World?

    I think it’s gonna be a long war, and I don’t think I’ll see the end of it, due to my age. I hope my children see the end of it.

    I don’t know about you, Sam, but I haven’t given up any of my rights since 9/11. I’m still free to go where I want to go, speak with whom I want to speak, say what I want, read what I want, even congregate in large numbers and demonstrate against the war (if I were of that persuasion), etc., etc. There are no black helicopters over my place, no one is tapping my phone, no one is reading my mail. YMMV.

    Oh, wait. I forgot. I can’t carry my Swiss Army pen knife on airplanes any longer. You’re right, this does piss me off!

  18. Sam sez: We liberals have lots of fun. We’re a pretty happy bunch, too. (I don’t know if you’ve been over here on our side long enough to discover this.)

    I used to be a liberal. Got the McCarthy, McGovern, and Johnson tee shirts but replaced them with Reagan shirts, back in the day. There may even be an old back issue of Mother Jones laying around here somewhere. As for liberals being a pretty happy bunch, I’ll respectfully disagree. All y’all seem to be constantly upset about something! Not for nothing are all y’all known as “The Perpetually Offended” in some circles. Still, I suppose one can take offense and still be happy. 😉

  19. I used to be a liberal.

    Sure you were.

    All y’all seem to be constantly upset about something!

    If you aren’t upset, you aren’t paying attention.

    Now, do you have anything substantive to say before I dump your ass in the twit filter? You’re wasting bandwidth.

  20. Sam,

    “no one is tapping my phone, no one is reading my mail”

    Really? You sure about that? If so, exactly how are you sure about that?

    -me

  21. um…

    I meant,

    Sam,

    I’m gonna talk to Buck for a bit, so, Buck,

    Sure I did.

    -me

  22. Oh, and while I’m at it,

    “As for liberals being a pretty happy bunch, I’ll respectfully disagree.”

    Well, I dunno about other people ’round here, but I spend about a half hour or so on this site just about every day. That’s 1/48th of my life. Do you, as an observant ex-liberal (when will people stop using this particular rhetorical device??? On atheist boards “I used to be an atheist,” on evolution boards “I used to be an evolutionist,” on abortion boards “I used to be a pro-choicer,”… It gets real old after a while… But I digress…) .. um, do you, as an ex-liberal, have any idea how I spend the other 47/48ths of my life? By extension, of course, any idea how any of the other readers and commenters around here or on other liberal blogs spend the vast majority of their lives?How, exactly, would you know whether we’re a happy bunch or not?

    -me

  23. Buck- – comment 8

    I do remember Groucho and “You bet your life”. I used to watch in junior high or before. That’s why I brought up the cigar.

    Groucho had a woman had the show who have a large number of children and may have even been pregnant when on his show. Groucho commented that he liked his cigar, but knew when to take it out.

  24. General Michael Hayden-

    I saw a photo of him on TV yesterday. I’m glad that I saw the photo because I drew a blank on the name as far as a face.

    Talk about looking like a Nazi! Mr. Spy Guy!

    Does anyone remember the show from the 60’s or 70’s that starred an actor named Crane? (he was murdered in Phoenix in 70’s). I think it was either Stephen or Robert Crane.

    Anyway, the setting was a jail or prison and there were Germans in the show.

    I recall a character named Colonel Klink.

    Hayden looks like Colonel Klink.

    Hayden = The Spy Guy aka General Klink!

  25. In answer to the subject, Yes, I think this could be connected to Karl Rove – Mr Chubby!

  28. Ian –

    Comment #21: You gave me a good giggle this morning. I love self-deprecating humor. Thanks! 🙂
    Britwit, you’re good at that, too. Shows maturity and being okay in one’s skin, I’ve always thought.

  29. maha- you are correct — it was “Hogan’s Heros” your comments 26 and 27 and my 27.

    What about Colonel/General Klink connection?

  30. 22: I based my comment on personal experience, Ian. I find my Lefty friends and acquaintances tend to be less satisfied with life, self-proclaimed. But perhaps that’s coz they’re still working, most ’em. But, that siad, it turns out Conservatives really are happier:

    “A survey by the Pew Research Center shows that conservatives are happier than liberals — in all income groups. While 34 percent of all Americans call themselves “very happy,” only 28 percent of liberal Democrats (and 31 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats) do, compared with 47 percent of conservative Republicans. This finding is niftily self-reinforcing: It depresses liberals.

    Another interesting thing, Ian (maha, too), re: your mini-rant (ex-this, former that). All y’all find it impossible to take someone at their word, especially if that someone isn’t one of the tribe. Sorry I don’t have a pic of the ol’ ’69 station wagon with the McGovern sticker on it to scan for you.

    maha: I supposed I have wasted about 763 bytes of your bandwidth. Sorry. If you want to delete me, well, it’s your blog. Liberals apparently aren’t all that interested in an exchange of views. All y’all that do feel like chatting can feel free to drop by my place anytime.

    Sam: Gosh, I think I got under Buck’s skin a bit. He didn’t seem to be having fun anymore. Buck has never met any survival types before? Amazing. (Where did they all go?)

    Nope…it takes a bit to get under my skin, Sam, but I’m not that easy. Last I heard, the survival types were mostly up in Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho and Montana; we’re mostly farmers and military in eastern New Mexico. BTW, I hear Cheney has a special subsidy for the Wyoming boys. Someone should look into that.

  31. Hiya Buck –

    I’m glad I didn’t get under your skin. You seemed a little “hot” last time you wrote. Probably just blog enthusiasm. Easy to misread it.

    We all read the Pew report some time ago. Nothing new to us but, like you say, “I base my comment on personal experience.” Well, so do we! Maybe you’ve been hanging around a particularly unhappy bunch of liberals? My friends and those in our community are a jolly bunch. It’s the conservatives who are the sour apples- always complaining that the illegal aliens are taking over and that America is going to heck. They spend an awful lot of time writing cranky letters to the editor around here, too. Maybe we’re just a bunch of American pots calling each other black, I don’t know. Also, the report does not say all convervatives are happier. Just 47%. And the report is far from depressing to liberals. Liberals don’t think that way. At least the ones I know. They’re too busy analysing it to be depressed. (Actually, analyzing is fun.)
    In the meantime, we do have some serious concerns. Don’t you agree? Do you worry about the world and where it’s going? I’d think we’d all have that in common, too.

    Interesting what you say about the survivalists being out there in the mountain states. I’ve lived in Wyoming, but probably not in the regions they are in. I had met a few here in California, though. Haven’t seen them in awhile and I certainly haven’t heard from them since Bush came to office. Just wondered if you had any theories about my question since you lean to the right.

    I’d continue our conversation on your side of the fence, but your blog wouldn’t let me in for some reason. Let me know what I’m doing wrong about getting in so I won’t take up Maha’s time. She’s one devoted, intelligent and astute blogger. You may not agree with her, but I’ve been learning a ton of things that make sense to me. It’s that feeling of aha! that you get when things fall into place. I’ve perused many conservative blogs and I simply cannot relate to them . Sorry, I don’t mean to offend. I’m sure you’re a decent guy. Just telling you where I’m at. I’m not personally averse to exchanging views, but this blog belongs to Maha and she’s doing a fantastic job with it without my causing it to veer off topic.

  32. Sam: In the meantime, we do have some serious concerns. Don’t you agree? Do you worry about the world and where it’s going? I’d think we’d all have that in common, too.

    Yes, I do have concerns, and we probably agree on a lot of things. We’ll probably disagree on the ways and means to address those concerns.

    I’d continue our conversation on your side of the fence, but your blog wouldn’t let me in for some reason. Let me know what I’m doing wrong about getting in so I won’t take up Maha’s time. She’s one devoted, intelligent and astute blogger. You may not agree with her, but I’ve been learning a ton of things that make sense to me.

    Agree, re: maha. I’ve only been reading her for a month or two, and appreciate the fact she’s pretty moderate. (Usually.) 😉

    I don’t know why you couldn’t comment over at my blog, unless it’s Blogger screwing up, again. Blogger is noted for crashing, having native comment capability go south and other sundry glitches.

    My last comment, thanks for playing! I hope you try again over at my place, Sam.

  33. maha – I didn’t really watch Hogan’s Heroes from start to finish. My Dad watched and I was in the same room reading. I would look up from time to time.

    Thanks for coming up with the name of the series.

  34. Re the Pew Research Center happiness poll — It tells us that righties are more likely to SAY they are happy, but I think righties on the whole are less introspective and less in touch with their own emotions than liberals are. They’re more likely to tell a pollster what they think they are supposed to say than to dig around inside themselves and make an honest assessment of their interior lives.

    Lots of us who have observed the rightie species in its native habitat notice that their base motivation is fear. And on top of the fear is hate and rage. These are not happy emotions.

  35. Good point, maha! It goes with what I’ve observed myself. Until they come up with a more scientific method of measuring of happiness – like brain scans, or something – I think I’ll withhold my acceptance of this finding.

    Hogan’s Heroes was one of my little brother’s favorite shows, Britwit. He really loved the characters, especially the chubby Sergeant Schultz who would frequently murmur, “I see nothhhing. I know nothhing.” (Hmm. The kind of behavior that essentially kindhearted people might display when caught up in an unhumane bureacracy. Or to flip it around, the behavior that many otherwise decent folks exhibit when something fishy is going on.)
    Richard Dawson (Family Feud) played the the modest “brains” of the group.

  36. Comment no 30 –

    Pew Research Center doesn’t mean a darn thing to me, Buck. Is it pew as in church pew?

    I think someone misspelled and it refers more to a foul smell.

    One can pay anyone to come up with the results that you want to prove or disprove.

    Buck, do you remember the song from the 60’s called, “The Name Game”.

    Banana Nana Foe Fanna

    Buck, Buck, Bo Buck

    Banana Fana Fo Fuck

    BUCK!

Comments are closed.