The surprise resignation of Porter Goss

As you may have heard by now, CIA Director Porter Goss resigned today: "Porter J. Goss was forced to step down yesterday as CIA director, ending a turbulent 18-month tenure marked by an exodus of some of the agency's top talent and growing White House dissatisfaction with his leadership during a time of war."

Goss "gave no reason for the departure". However, The Washington Post (see link above) is reporting that he was essentially forced out: "[S]enior administration officials said Bush had lost confidence in Goss... almost from the beginning and decided months ago to replace him. In what was described as a difficult meeting in April with Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte, Goss was told to prepare to leave by May, according to several officials with knowledge of the conversation."

This may or may not be true -- I have no reason to doubt it -- but consider the positive White House spin: The Post quotes a "senior White House official" who claims (in the Post's words) that Goss's "departure was accelerated after Bush launched a shake-up of his White House staff in hopes of beginning a political turnaround". This spin emphasizes Bush's leadership (or, rather, his alleged leadership) and the Bolten-fueled misconception that this is a new, more responsive, more responsible White House. (Remember Bolten's five-point plan?) The Post treats this claim uncritically.

Fox News, Bush's Pravda, goes a step further and reports the spin right at the outset: "CIA chief Porter Goss resigned Friday to the surprise of many in Washington, although some sources say there have been rumblings of Goss' departure and that his move is just another part of the recent White House shake-up." The entire article lets Goss off the hook. It emphasizes Bush's prise of Goss, Bush's confidence in a smooth transition, and "the problem with leaks" (these leaks "may be, in part, what caused Goss to take his leave"). Conservative stalwart and Fox News regular Bill Kristol is quoted as saying that Bush in fact wasn't "dissatisfied" with Goss's performance. There is no further mention of the "White House shake-up". Was that placed in the opening paragraph just to throw us off the scent?

Speaking of Kristol, what the Fox News article conveniently omits is his assertion, on Fox News itself, that there's something else to the story. Think Progress has the video and transcript. Here's Kristol's key assertion: "I think there were either serious disputes or some internal problem at the agency or some scandal conceivably involving an associate of Goss’. Who knows? Something that popped this week and that caused this sudden event this Friday."

Ah, yes, the scandal. Here's Political Animal: "The news that CIA director Porter Goss has resigned after less than 20 months on the job — announced by the White House at prime news-burying time, Friday afternoon — may or may not be an indication that Goss will soon be enmeshed in the cigars-and-hookers scandal now swirling about Dusty Foggo, Goss's number 3 man at the agency."

But then what of the spin? There may have been tension between Goss and Negroponte and Bush may have been dissatisfied with Goss's performance. But surely this has nothing to do with Bolten's shake-up at the White House. After all, are we really to believe that the chief of staff has such authority over the intelligence community? It's one thing for Bolten to push out the White House press secretary, a lackey like Scott McClellan, quite another for him to force out the director of the CIA. And yet that's what Fox News would have you believe. It's even one of things a far more reputable outlet like the The Washington Post would have you believe.

My advice: Don't believe it.

**********

Around the blogosphere:

The Carpetbagger Report: "I think it's fair to say that Porter Goss' resignation is poised to be the next big disaster for Bush's presidency." (If it is a scandal, "why would the president sit alongside Goss — in the Oval Office — for the announcement?" Regardless, it's likely that "something awful has pushed Goss out".)

Daily Kos: "This isn't part of some White House shake-up. This is a scandal-plagued Bush appointee resigning just as an investigation into another Republican corruption scandal hits too close to home."

Taylor Marsh takes a look at Hookergate. So does Josh Marshall. And Jane Hamsher. And Democrats.com.

The Left Coaster looks at different possible reasons for Goss's sudden resignation. So does Political Animal.

Preemptive Karma: "The White House is going out of their way to spin this as Goss being in a 'transitional' head of the CIA... and that they knew all along his tenure would be short. Which is of course utter bullshit -- because they'd have sold his confirmation that way if it were true."

See also The Moderate Voice, The Mahablog, The Next Hurrah, War and Piece, Booman Tribune, Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, CorrenteWire, NewsHog, TBogg, and our co-blogger Creature at State of the Day.

I'll have more on this over the weekend.