Last week, Ken Silverstein of the Harper’s blog reported that the Wilkes/Wade/Cunningham/Watergate/Shirlington Limo /corruption/ prostitution scandal included “former lawmakers on Defense and Intelligence committees—including one person who now holds a powerful intelligence post.”
Today, Porter Goss, former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, resigned as CIA Director.
No connection, of course.
All the big papers and TV stations I’ve seen so far (except for Norah O’Donnell on MS-NBC) are playing this straight, without even a hint about hookers. Bill Kristol comes closest with a vague remark about “some scandal conceivably involving an associate of Goss’s.”
Well, I’ve heard that particular organ called lots of things, but never an “associate.” If Al d’Amato had called Chuck Schumer an “associate head,” he’d probably still be in the Senate.
It doesn’t sound too bad, does it? “Bill Clinton had an associate problem.” “Whatever you do, keep your associate off the payroll.” “He thinks he’s a big, swinging associate.”
Footnote I don’t much like the -gate ending convention for naming scandals, but a scandal involving prostitutes at the Watergate Hotel must inevitably be Hookergate.
I’m pushing for “Watergate-gate”.
Fornigate!
I keep hearing this Warren Zevon Lyric whenever I read about this scandal:
I had a little friend named Mister Johnson
Who always tried to be like me
He rose to the heights of this profession
He was hard on his friends and family
[Warren Zevon, "Lord Byron's Luggage"]
Just a little bug in the ear, but in addition to the good reasons mentioned by all and sundry, isn’t there the slightest possibility that this is partly about Iran?
Think about it. Goss has so thoroughly purged the CIA of anyone who knows anything, and has so thoroughly pissed off whoever’s left who knows anything, that he can’t provide the admin with needed fakery to sell us on Iranian nukes.
This would be likely a trap sprung by Negroponte, the third man at this afternoon’s little resignation party, the one stage left who didn’t show up on the network clips. Goss does the job bush gave him, and Negroponte has figured out a way to whack him for it.
Another little straw tending to confirm this is what Blair did today in Britain– he canned his foreign secretary, Jack Straw, mostly because Straw kept saying that attacking Iran would be inconceivable and bonkers. Blair got nasty calls from Washington and doesn’t want another Robin Cook moment.
That moment for Jack Straw would have come when the attack on Iran happens. If anything could more clearly signal that it’s a go, I can’t conceive what that might be.
In part, then, Goss was forced out because the CIA under his direction could no longer offer up phony evidence convincingly enough to support the commitment to attack Iran.
But Negroponte can take care of that, you bet. He’s got sources.
Is General Hayden eligible to be CIA director as an active duty officer? He’s already been confirmed by the Senate as Deputy DNI but the relevant US Code makes me question the validity of that action.
US Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Ch. 49 (see link):
§ 973 Duties: officers on active duty; performance of civil functions restricted
(a) No officer of an armed force on active duty may accept employment if that employment requires him to be separated from his organization, branch, or unit, or interferes with the performance of his military duties.
(b)
(1) This subsection applies —(A) to a regular officer of an armed force on the active-duty list (and a regular officer of the Coast Guard on the active duty promotion list);
(2)
(A) Except as otherwise authorized by law, an officer to whom this subsection applies may not hold, or exercise the functions of, a civil office in the Government of the United States—
(i) that is an elective office;
(ii) that requires an appointment by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; or
(iii) that is a position in the Executive Schedule under sections 5312 through 5317 of title 5.
DIA and CIA offer separate views to the DNI. How can an active duty officer who reports to the SecDef be the CIA director without conflict?
Joe raises a good question, to which this administration’s likely answer would be that the president is the unitary boss of the unitary executive branch and everybody in or out of uniform reports to him anyway. That it appears to be clearly forbidden under A. ii. here, and (I assume) under the UCMJ or other laws governing uniformed officers, would not matter in the least. bush would just issue an “appointing statement.”