Nagging Details

The narrative that emerged yesterday regarding Porter Goss's resignation as Director of the CIA is that he had a "turbulent" relationship with the career employees, many of whom resigned. I was stunned to see the Post's Dana Priest on MSNBC actually say that the career folks just couldn't understand why the staffers Goss brought over from the Hill couldn't seem to trust them.

Gee, can't imagine.

Whether you think those who've been leaking from inside the CIA are heroic whistleblowers or traitors, the fact of those leaks does seem to me to be a central element of the context here, whether we're talking about evidence of the dissatisfaction of the employees, or something the President might have wanted Goss to get under control. Yet I never heard MSNBC, the outlet with the relationship to the Post, even mention the recent firing of a CIA employee in its coverage during the time I watched.

The Post's coverage this morning never mentions the leaks either. This is stunning -- look at the way the stories that were produced by the leaks come up, without the leaks themselves being mentioned.

Members of Congress privately predicted that Hayden, who once enjoyed tremendous support on the Hill, would face a contentious confirmation process over the Bush administration's domestic spying program. Other sensitive issues, such as the existence of secret prisons abroad for terrorism suspects, also are likely to arise.

The New York Times, in contrast, puts the leaks in the final paragraphs. but at least they're there:

The agency was widely viewed as being at odds with the administration over the Iraq war, and the White House gave Mr. Goss marching orders to end what it saw as a campaign of leaks to the news media by agency insiders who opposed administration policies.

Yet the leaks have continued, and in recent months Mr. Goss began an intense effort to find out who was responsible for news reports that disclosed details about highly classified programs.

The crackdown, which included rare "single issue" polygraph tests of senior officials, led to the firing last month of Mary O. McCarthy, a veteran who was working in the inspector general's office at the agency.

Well that at least strikes me as handling the issue in an honest way.

Update: In Dana Priest's piece, the issue of partisan warfare is raised -- concerning Goss's people. But no mention of leaks. Doesn't the question at least need to be raised in order to be dismissed?

Comments

[Exguru]

I never thought Porter Goss was the right guy for that job in the first place. Any Congressman is in the habit of being too nice to everyone, and what is needed to run such a serious business is authority. Actually, I think they should disband the CIA completely and start a new one with 35 or 45 people. The current CIA offices might come in handy for the people who privatize social security.

[Wayne]

To me, the leaks indicate something different. You need a certain kind of person to be a "spook" (to use the profession's own slang term) and someone who goes running to the press because they feel that Subpart A of Statute 115721-c is not being followed to the letter certainly ain't it.

Spooks should not be figuring out how to use the law as a reason for not doing their jobs, they should be figuring out to get around the law in order to do their jobs better.

If they go running to the press about anything it should be how the stupid bureaucracy is stopping them from doing their jobs.

In short, we need Jack Bauer of "24", John McClane of "Die Hard" and Jack Ryan of the Tom Clancy novels. Instead, it looks like we have Ally McBeal.