Saturday, May 06, 2006

On Goss(omer) wings....

I'm still trying to make sense out of the sudden resignation of Porter Goss as Director of the CIA and, if you read all the blogs, you'll have good reason to be confused.

Consider these entries:

From the trusted and reliable Talking Points Memo with Josh Marshall.


Also from the NYDN: ""It's all about the Duke Cunningham scandal," a senior law enforcement official told the Daily News in reference to Goss' resignation

The popular wisdom here and also with firedoglake


So, with varying degrees of emphasis, we learn that the WH spin on Goss being fired by John Negroponte because the President was too much of a weenie to do it himself "resignation" is that Goss and Negroponte clashed over power issues. See CNN, the WaPo and the WSJ for examples of this continuation of the Russert line.
Which explains the immediate, abrupt, surprise "resignation" (with a meeting pending with upper level Pentagon officials who had no idea their meeting was to be abruptly cancelled due to Goss…erm…"resigning" before the start of said meeting) with no successor immediately in place while we are fighting on two hot fronts abroad and dealing with a constantly hyped threat from Al Qaeda…how, exactly?
Something smells.


If you listen to CNN, MSNBC or (puke) FoxNews....the line is that Goss was involved in a power struggle with the Directorate of Intelligence, Richard Negroponte and Bush sided with Negroponte.....

There was a "heads-up" from Dana Priest of the Washington Post last night to watch for a "bombshell" in today's paper but it hasn't happened so far.

So what are we to believe....?

A poster on DU mentioned that what makes the "power struggle" and firing story so hard to believe is that "...the Republicans would have given a collective left nut" to keep Patrick Kennedy on the front page for a couple more news cycles..." If I believe nothing else about Republicans, I believe they know how to control and manipulate the news cycles. The Patrick Kennedy story was going so well for them that they were loathe to interrupt it with what appears to be another story of dissarray in the White House. So what does that mean? It means, I think, that they couldn't control the Goss story. Something is yet to come and they couldn't wait for the Patrick Kennedy story to play itself out in order for them to "get ahead" of whatever story about Goss breaks in the next few days.

Inter-agency fighting? I doubt it....I'm waiting for the scandal


LoLo said...

Then there is this on Daily Kos entitled "Goss Fired to Protect Bush's Ass" by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse at this link:

It claims that "Bush fired Goss as a quick fix to stop a spring storm of CIA leaks about Bush's cherry-picking campaign of prewar intelligence that for the first time links Bush to the cherry-picking."

Quite a provocative blog and a nice review of dates, times, and circumstances of selected leaks which occurred during the time Goss served.

Ed said...

Thanks for the link.....

I've been on and off the pc most of the day....distracted by ...ummmmmm....being forced to have an actual life?

getting ready to put the veggie garden in....

oh, yes, one more thing: I'm no longer anonymous in this city...lots of people stopping to talk to me..takes a lot longer to get out of a store these days...and my instincts seem to be right about this city...there is a slow, simmering, rage out's ready to boil over...all it needs is for somebody (coughcoughcough) to turn up the heat...

I'll check out the link