Another CIA-Instigated Coup
When Porter Goss quit Congress a year and a half ago to become President Bush's Director of Central Intelligence, the consensus thought was that this was Dubya's attempt to rein in what Jed Babbin calls the "CIA Praetorian Guard" that had been waging open political war against his presidency ever since 9/11. Certainly the feather-ruffling that had been taking place in Langley since gave the impression that Goss was laying down the law, kicking ass, and taking names - a number of whom resigned in protest, which was novel only in the sense that they could no longer leak like a sieve from behind "cover" doubtless as dubious as that of the famous (and infamous) Valerie Wilson.
Thus, when I read Friday that Goss had resigned, it didn't come across like a good omen of things to come.
And brother, did Bill Kristol echo that premonition yesterday - at the top of his lungs:
But the bombshell in Kristol's comments is that Goss didn't really quit but was ousted. I've read about the intra-intelligence "community" turf war being waged by National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and how Goss' nuts were a casualty of that campaign. It came across to me like the now ex-CIA Director saw the handwriting on the wall and decided not to stick around to fight a bureaucratic struggle he was doomed to lose. But if the President, who hired Goss to do exactly what he was doing, rewarded those loyal efforts by stabbing him in the back - or doing so on Negroponte's behalf - well, let's just say that doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence in GDub's martial resolve.
Neither does this:
Here's a fresh example of why we have Gitmo. I think we can take it for granted that Zacarias Moussaoui would have done the same thing to everybody in his courtroom, including his own defense counsel, if he'd had the slightest opportunity. If even George W. Bush has forgotten the true animalistic, dare I say demonic, nature of this enemy....bleep, I really don't want to go there.
Whether or not Goss was fired or quit, as NRO points out today, there's no question about the perception of what has happened:
In all frank honesty, I don't know how it can be interpreted any other way, "spin" notwithstanding. Porter Goss was hired to purge the President's enemies out of the CIA; now, whatever the details, Goss himself has been purged instead. Even if the Bushophobes at Langley didn't bring down their former boss themselves, they're certainly the primary beneficiaries of his professional demise.
One might hope that the President's "controversial" choice as Goss' replacement - Air Force General Michael Hayden - would, as NRO put it, "make [it] clear from day one that, while Goss is gone, the CIA purge is far from over." Certainly Hugh Hewitt, ever the sunny optimist, is sold on this angle:
Of course, who can really say what Bush's commitment to the terrorist surveillance program is if he's beginning to cave on keeping Gitmo in business? In much the same way that General Hayden will have to be looking over his shoulder wondering when he will meet Porter Goss' fate. And that's assuming that the White House doesn't accordian to the inevitable demagoguery the impeachment crowd will spew during Hayden's confirmation hearings (BTW, tell me which party controls Congress again?).
And THAT is assuming that General Hayden even picks up Goss' mission where he left off. The aforementioned Jed Babbin isn't even sold on that much:
"Independent from Bush and Rumsfeld" means "rabidly hostile to...", BTW. Just think about that for another minute - the President's enemies at CIA expect his own CIA director, who works for and is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the President, to be "independent" of him. Care to guess whether they'd apply that same standard to Secretary Rumsfeld's replacement? So now Bush is obligated to appoint political and ideological enemies to key posts in his own Administration? That's a level of hauteur and arrogance that makes me want to see the Pentagon fire multiple volleys of Tomahawk cruise missiles in Langley's direction. Well, maybe not "want to see" - I'd settle for bulldozers. Though come to think of it, perhaps hijacked airliners would be more poetic.
But what else can you expect from a rogue Praetorian Guard when your champion, sent to do battle with them, ends up with his metaphorical head on a stake by your own hand?
I wonder if General Hayden knows what he's getting himself into - and whether he can live without his career or his personal honor. Because he'll sure as the devil not retain them both.
UPDATE: Here's a nugget I forgot to mention:
My oh my. Think Yellowcake Joe will perjure himself for the cause be repeating the baldfaced lies he's been spouting for the past three years?
Don't hold your breath:
The Praetorians may have scored a bang last Friday, but this is one whimper they won't be celebrating.
UPDATE: On the other hand, Jack Kelly thinks that General Hayden will finish the job Porter Goss started by a little bureaucratic jiu jitsu - namely, moving every part of the CIA that is "still worth a damn" over to Don Rumsfeld's Pentagon and leaving the Bushophobic trash behind to "moulder."
That would be the sweetest revenge.
Thus, when I read Friday that Goss had resigned, it didn't come across like a good omen of things to come.
And brother, did Bill Kristol echo that premonition yesterday - at the top of his lungs:
Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said Sunday that the White House's decision to fire CIA Director Porter Goss on Friday is an outrage, especially since Goss was actually implementing Bush's anti-leaks agenda at the agency.Actually, I had the impression that CIA has been a "mini-State Department" for some time now. Like, fifteen years at least, probably going back to when Bill Casey, Ronald Reagan's chief spook, went to his secret lair in the sky. Goss' departure just more or less confirms it.
"I think it's an outrage," Kristol said on Fox News Sunday.
"It's a terrible signal to conservatives anywhere in the State Department, Defense Department, CIA, anywhere in the federal government who are trying to carry out the president's agenda against the bureaucracy, that, unfortunately, the White House is not going to stand behind them."
Kristol said Goss "took a lot of heat from the permanent bureaucracy at the agency. He fired someone two weeks ago for leaking, which the President wanted."
"And his reward was to be fired," he added.
The influential conservative predicted that the CIA will now become "a mini State Department."
But the bombshell in Kristol's comments is that Goss didn't really quit but was ousted. I've read about the intra-intelligence "community" turf war being waged by National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and how Goss' nuts were a casualty of that campaign. It came across to me like the now ex-CIA Director saw the handwriting on the wall and decided not to stick around to fight a bureaucratic struggle he was doomed to lose. But if the President, who hired Goss to do exactly what he was doing, rewarded those loyal efforts by stabbing him in the back - or doing so on Negroponte's behalf - well, let's just say that doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence in GDub's martial resolve.
Neither does this:
President George W. Bush said on Sunday he would like to close the U.S.-run prison at Guantanamo Bay - a step urged by several foreign leaders - but was awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on where suspects held there might be tried. ...So much for jihadis being illegal combatants. So much for hanging tough against the 9/10 crowd for the past five years. So much for the war. Dubya might as well have uttered the above comments in French. It certainly puts the ouster of Porter Goss into a more complete, and utterly disheartening, context.
Bush was asked by the German public television station ARD how the United States could restore its human-rights image following reports of prisoner abuse.
"Of course Guantanamo is a delicate issue for people. I would like to close the camp and put the prisoners on trial," Bush said in comments to be broadcast on Sunday night.
"Our top court must still rule on whether they should go before a civil or military court. They will get their day in court. One can't say that of the people that they killed. They didn't give these people the opportunity for a fair trial." [emphases added]
Here's a fresh example of why we have Gitmo. I think we can take it for granted that Zacarias Moussaoui would have done the same thing to everybody in his courtroom, including his own defense counsel, if he'd had the slightest opportunity. If even George W. Bush has forgotten the true animalistic, dare I say demonic, nature of this enemy....bleep, I really don't want to go there.
Whether or not Goss was fired or quit, as NRO points out today, there's no question about the perception of what has happened:
The reasons for Porter Goss’s abrupt departure as CIA director are shrouded in mystery. But its effect is not. It gives the impression that there has been a coup by the CIA insiders who have waged a covert policy war against the Bush Administration for five years. The White House must act quickly to correct the impression that the renegades have won....
Goss’s sudden ouster is, at best, ill timed. He had merely scratched the problem’s surface. Further, the lack of a clear explanation for his departure is extremely harmful. It is certain to be spun as a coup by the insurgents. Such a perception will only embolden them, laying the groundwork for more leaks — and more damage to national security.
In all frank honesty, I don't know how it can be interpreted any other way, "spin" notwithstanding. Porter Goss was hired to purge the President's enemies out of the CIA; now, whatever the details, Goss himself has been purged instead. Even if the Bushophobes at Langley didn't bring down their former boss themselves, they're certainly the primary beneficiaries of his professional demise.
One might hope that the President's "controversial" choice as Goss' replacement - Air Force General Michael Hayden - would, as NRO put it, "make [it] clear from day one that, while Goss is gone, the CIA purge is far from over." Certainly Hugh Hewitt, ever the sunny optimist, is sold on this angle:
A very good choice by President Bush, and not just because of General Hayden's obvious competence, but also because the selection again proudly asserts that the NSA program to conduct surveillance of al Qaeda abroad contacting its operatives in this country was not only the right thing to do, it was completely within the law. President Bush is not afraid of this debate. He welcomes it, and he should.
Of course, who can really say what Bush's commitment to the terrorist surveillance program is if he's beginning to cave on keeping Gitmo in business? In much the same way that General Hayden will have to be looking over his shoulder wondering when he will meet Porter Goss' fate. And that's assuming that the White House doesn't accordian to the inevitable demagoguery the impeachment crowd will spew during Hayden's confirmation hearings (BTW, tell me which party controls Congress again?).
And THAT is assuming that General Hayden even picks up Goss' mission where he left off. The aforementioned Jed Babbin isn't even sold on that much:
The entrenched CIA Praetorian Guard has announced its plan for Hayden's tenure. In two Sunday Washington Post stories (here and here), another in the New York imes and a Times editorial, CIA sources got their media pals to argue that the greatest concern for the future of our primary intelligence agency is how General Hayden will conduct their turf war against the Defense Department. In the two WaPo stories, the CIA's turf battle against Donald Rumsfeld is mentioned five times. The NYT story is relatively mild in mentioning it only once, but the editorial makes up for that by making the attack on Rumsfeld's partial control of intelligence its central theme. The CIA sources who pushed these stories care only about their power and privileges. The essential transformation of the intelligence agencies to make America safer is not on their minds. The CIA Praetorians prepare for Hayden's arrival by questioning his ability, in the words of one Post story, "to be independent from Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld." Which means that the CIA leaker brigade will attack Hayden as a failure unless he allows the CIA bureaucrats to control what he does. If that is Hayden's future at CIA, it would be better just to appoint one of the Praetorians to the job or to make Valerie Plame Wilson, their consort, the CIA chief.Dunno if it would be better, but it would be a whole lot more honest.
"Independent from Bush and Rumsfeld" means "rabidly hostile to...", BTW. Just think about that for another minute - the President's enemies at CIA expect his own CIA director, who works for and is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the President, to be "independent" of him. Care to guess whether they'd apply that same standard to Secretary Rumsfeld's replacement? So now Bush is obligated to appoint political and ideological enemies to key posts in his own Administration? That's a level of hauteur and arrogance that makes me want to see the Pentagon fire multiple volleys of Tomahawk cruise missiles in Langley's direction. Well, maybe not "want to see" - I'd settle for bulldozers. Though come to think of it, perhaps hijacked airliners would be more poetic.
But what else can you expect from a rogue Praetorian Guard when your champion, sent to do battle with them, ends up with his metaphorical head on a stake by your own hand?
I wonder if General Hayden knows what he's getting himself into - and whether he can live without his career or his personal honor. Because he'll sure as the devil not retain them both.
UPDATE: Here's a nugget I forgot to mention:
In a development that got no media play over the weekend, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby's defense lawyer announced on Friday that he has located five witnesses who will testify that Joe Wilson outed his wife Valerie Plame as a CIA employee before Robert Novak did so in his July 2003 column.Oh, but it gets better:
According to the NationalReviewOnline's Byron York, Libby's lawyer Ted Wells told the court that his witnesses "will say under oath that Mr. Wilson told them his wife worked for the CIA."
Wells said that he expects Leakgate Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to call Wilson to testify in a bid to salvage his case.
My oh my. Think Yellowcake Joe will perjure himself for the cause be repeating the baldfaced lies he's been spouting for the past three years?
Don't hold your breath:
Reacting to the news on Friday, Wilson declined to deny the allegation, suggesting instead that it no longer mattered who first outed his wife.Well gloryosky, J.P. I thought who first "outed" Mrs. Wilson was the whole point.
The Praetorians may have scored a bang last Friday, but this is one whimper they won't be celebrating.
UPDATE: On the other hand, Jack Kelly thinks that General Hayden will finish the job Porter Goss started by a little bureaucratic jiu jitsu - namely, moving every part of the CIA that is "still worth a damn" over to Don Rumsfeld's Pentagon and leaving the Bushophobic trash behind to "moulder."
That would be the sweetest revenge.
posted by JASmius at 5:06 PM
<<< Home