Washington insiders were taken by surprise by Friday's sudden resignation of Porter Goss as head of the CIA. Some cited Goss's struggles to reform the agency as having taken a personal toll as the likely reason; others, his office's loss of influence with the reorganization of US intelligence operations.
Those may be.
But the buzz is all about a report of an FBI investigation of parties at the Watergate hotel involving congressmen and CIA agents that included poker, cigars and, perhaps, prostitutes.
If this story pans out, and if dots connect to Goss, it will reinforce a SWNID topos:
Say what you will about the two parties being the same, but the Rs deal with their sex scandals quickly and decisively.
4 comments:
The D's deal with their scandals quickily and decisively. They try to bury the evidence as quickly and deeply as possible.
When Goss was appointed the rumor was that Bush appointed Goss to clean house at the CIA. Bush never expected him to lead the CIA into a new era. He wanted Goss to get rid of the insubordinates, most of them Democrats unhappy with the President's policies.
In case you think I mean here that Goss himself was a political hack, let me just state that is the opposite of what I'm saying.
In the CIA, insubordinates are a national security risk. Republican CIA agents didn't sabotage Clinton policies or impede national security efforts during Clinton's administration. They cared more for the country than the partisan flavor of the White House.
The leaks of classified info coming out of the CIA have been designed to embarass the president and / or undercut his policies. These people need to be fired (and many need to be prosecuted). Political hacks can work at the IRS or Interior Dept. They can't be allowed to work at the CIA.
Having said all of that, the shock is in the timing. Nobody believes that Goss is finished cleaning up the mess (getting rid of the degenerates). Ostensibly, Goss was going to be the bad guy. He could clean house, and then step down and let a new leader come in and raise morale again and build an effective organization. Since Goss isn't finished, the new director is going to have a major challenge on his hands.
It's apparent with the nominee being an active general that answers to Rumsfeld that Bush wants more house cleaning. That's good because there is recent evidence of insubordination. It's bad because we need the CIA to be an effective organization sooner rather than later.
History again, Fiona:
When his scandal broke, Gingrich was gone in a New York minute, to borrow a phrase. Livingstone, his successor with his own scandal, was gone so fast he never even took the speaker's chair.
It was Republican senators who told Nixon that the game was over the day after the tapes implicating Nixon in the coverup were made public.
Delay was out of the Republican leadership the moment the ink was dry on his indictment. And now he's not running for reelection.
I recall that fateful evening when President Reagan told the country that he had traded arms for hostages. It was his chief of staff, Howard Baker, who insisted he do it. North and Poindexter were out of the White House months before.
I also recall that fateful evening with President Clinton "admitted" his lies to the country, under pressure from a Republican majority, not his own party. His own party closed ranks around him with the discipline of the Prussian Army.
You confuse my statement about dealing with scandals with the absence of scandals.
The public expects Republicans to have standards. The same cannot be said for the other side. And the republic is the worse for it.
Appedix for the essential Ms. F:
Re Taft and coingate:
1. Taft pled guilty really fast.
2. Taft & Co. are RINOs.
3. Taft & Co. lost miserably in the primary last week.
Contrast other states with corrupt one-party rule of the other party. Start in the People's Republic of Huey Long.
Post a Comment