Saturday, May 06, 2006

Goss Firing Creates Flurry Of Spin

It was announced early afternoon yesterday that Porter Goss "resigned" as CIA director.

Then the institutional spinning of the news began.

NBC's Tim Russert went on the air assuring his audience that the Goss "resignation" had been planned for weeks. Russert ventured no explanation of why the "resignation" was "effective immediately", why the administration--having had weeks to plan for a new CIA director--announced no immediate successor, and why Karl Rove would have allowed this news, if not absolutely urgent, to be released on the very same day that a Kennedy scandal was going to dominate the news coverage.

President Bush made the preposterous claim that Goss had led the CIA "ably." Bush issued a non-sequitur regarding his departing CIA chief as well: "he's helped this agency become integrated into . . . the intelligence community."

One would think that Bush--the son of a former head of the Agency--would be cognizant of the fact that the Central Intelligence Agency--was created in 1947 to be the central hub upon which all the other members of the intelligence community would rotate.

Later in the day, the administration realized that the first frosting on the cake was not holding up, and began leaking a different version of the "resignation."

Favored journalists were treated to the story that Goss' departure was due to a clash of personalities between Goss and John Negroponte, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), who had assumed the role of leading the broader intelligence community that had previously been handled by the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI)--one of the two hats that Goss had worn prior to the "moving the boxes around" of U.S. intelligence in the last year and a half.

In this vein, the following fact is worth noting:

Goss and Negroponte had been friends for years and were fraternity brothers at Yale, where they graduated in 1960.

A quite different--and probably much closer to the truth-- explanation for the sudden departure of Goss has been linked to events coming to light now involving, inter alia, Randy "Duke" Cunningham:

In Goss's first days in office, his appointment of Michael Kostiw as executive director ended after it became public that Kostiw had been forced to leave the CIA under a cloud 20 years earlier. The subsequent search at the agency to find who leaked the information about Kostiw's past led the top two officers in the agency's clandestine service to resign in protest.

Kostiw (pronounced "Koss-tee") left the CIA due to a blunder that some folks refer to with a joke. Q:"What's Michael Kostiw's favorite food? A: "A hot BLT."

Here's where the story gets good:

Kostiw's replacement, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, is the subject of a review by the CIA's inspector general. The agency is examining whether Foggo arranged for any contracts to be granted to companies associated with Brent R. Wilkes, a contractor and longtime friend of Foggo's who had connections to Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.)

Cunningham left Congress and was sentenced to more than eight years in prison for corruption. Foggo has said he has done nothing improper, and the agency has said the review is standard practice in such situations, not an indication of any wrongdoing. After Goss's announcement yesterday, Foggo told colleagues that he will resign next week. Last week, the agency confirmed that Foggo attended private poker games with Wilkes at a Washington hotel.

The word around the blogosphere for more than a week now is that these "private poker games" involved hookers of various sexes, and that Goss first became acquainted with Foggo at these very social events which had been conducted for 15 years or so.

The emerging paradigm of hookers, the Watergate hotel, contracting corruption involving "black" projects, etc., has all the necessary elements for a summertime Washington scandal.

Not to mention may explain the abrupt firing of Goss.

But, I think that this could easily be only the tip of the iceberg.

Yesterday's events most likely involve much deeper spookiness than generally understood even by the blogosphere.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

brilliant hyoothesis, well written. Maybe news was to be leaked regarding Goss' infamous spook past, also.

5/06/2006 10:45 AM  
Blogger Effwit said...



However, I have to disagree about this. Maybe news was to be leaked regarding Goss' infamous spook past, also.

His spook past--including Cuban exile skullduggery--involved AFAIK the usual shit that has already been fully digested by the American people.

He would have had to have been involved in the JFK assassination, and there would have to be a smoking gun, for his long ago CIA career to really matter.

I was thinking spookiness of a more recent vintage.

5/06/2006 12:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boy, Yale may never recover -- it seems to have graduated so many incompetent-psycho-babies...


5/06/2006 8:24 PM  
Blogger DrewL said...

Yes, the Yale connection does seem to have its talons sunk deep into the underbelly of American politics...and other things.

5/06/2006 9:01 PM  
Blogger Effwit said...


The entire first generation of CIA leadership was from Yale. Many were "Boodle Boys", i.e. from the secret society Skull and Bones.

They were not really incompetent, they (including Goss) were and are valuable for their willingness to ably serve the interests of their masters.

5/07/2006 9:06 AM  
Blogger Effwit said...


You are clearly hinting at the Yalies' prowess in spooky skullduggery.

5/07/2006 9:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, Mr. F., you're right. They aren't incompetent. They're just good corporate toadies and much bigger whores than any hardworking prostitute you could find on Jarvis (in Toronto)...

But still... I wonder if the likes of Yale can be tainted at all by all this... I mean will the rich the world over still want to send their children to the school that Bush I, Bush II and thier war-criminal-cronies went to?

(I hope you didn't go to Yale, Mr. F)


5/07/2006 6:21 PM  
Blogger Effwit said...


You are right about the essential nature of these particular Yalies. One would be better off doing business with the courtesans on the Jarvis Street stroll than with the "important people" from New Haven.

I understand now what you meant about Yale not recovering from the taint of some of their alumni. The effect on recruiting and fund-raising would be quite negative in a normal society. But, as I'm sure you realize, in the USA money is the final arbiter of success. Yale degrees and the connections one can make amidst the ivy covered halls make for a bright future.

Parents of children nearing college age will never lose sight of that fact, no matter how loathsome their little angels will likely end up after graduation. Chances are, with rich parents, the kids weren't too admirable to begin with.

5/07/2006 7:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

-- I was thinking of a post I read some time ago about how "legacy" kids are diluting the scholastic excellence at Ivy league schools and how GWB is a prime example of that...

As for kids with rich parents... they just have a different set of problems than kids with poor parents... Not less problems, just different ones.

Have a good week, Mr. F and thanks for pointing out some interesting articles and bringing us all your insights!


5/07/2006 9:21 PM  
Blogger Effwit said...


I am sure that you are right about the legacy kids and their "gentleman's Cs". That cannot possibly contribute to an academically rigorious environment for the truly brainy students.

And you have a good point about everyone having problems--however illusory some difficulties may be when viewed in context. Everyone's pain hurts them, and it is of no value to tell the person in pain that it is only a hangnail bothering them.

You have a good week, too. Thanks for the kind words.

5/07/2006 9:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home