CIA’s Porter Goss Was Forced Out

More details are starting to trickle out on the surprise, abrupt announcement by President George Bush that CIA Director Porter Goss had submitted his resignation — and it had been accepted.

The rapidity with which this announcement took place, the lack of a full, public explanation about why Goss was exiting, and the fact that he submitted his resignation and it didn’t appear as if Bush spent much (if any) time trying to dissuade him seemed a mystery when the announcement was made yesterday. But now the Washington Post reports — in what you bet is merely the first in a series of stories that’ll appear in the news media explaining why Goss is leaving — says he was forced out. Here are some of the relevant passages:

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.

The likely successor to Goss is Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the former director of the National Security Agency and now deputy to Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte, senior administration officials said. He could be named as soon as Monday….

The Post notes that Hayden’s nomination could be a controversial one, since he’ll be grilled in Congress about his position on Bush’s warrantless wiretaps. MORE:

But senior administration officials said Bush had lost confidence in Goss, 67, almost from the beginning and decided months ago to replace him. In what was described as a difficult meeting in April with Negroponte, Goss was told to prepare to leave by May, according to several officials with knowledge of the conversation.

“There has been an open conversation for a few weeks, through Negroponte, with the acknowledgment of the president” about replacing Goss, said a senior White House official who discussed the internal deliberations on the condition of anonymity. Another senior White House official said Goss had always been viewed as a “transitional figure” who would leave by year’s end. His departure was accelerated when Bush shook up his White House staff in hopes of beginning a political turnaround.

The only problem here: there were NO INDICATIONS when he was appointed taht Goss was, in fact, considered simply a “transitional figure.” That’s the spin being put on it now because he has PROVEN to be a transitional figure — a fact underscored elsewhere in the Post’s report:

Negroponte replaced Goss in presiding over the president’s daily intelligence briefing, and he worked to bring CIA personnel and some of its analytical functions into his growing operations. Those steps quickly put him at odds with his friend. Privately, Goss’s associates said the two men clashed with increasing frequency in recent months, and they blamed Negroponte for hurting Goss’s reputation with the president.

But administration officials said Goss never forged a strong relationship with Bush. “It just didn’t click,” one official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. Goss’s reserved personality and inability to master details of intelligence activities dampened the atmosphere of the president’s morning intelligence briefing, which had been a central feature of the close relationship between Bush and Tenet. In one of his early interviews, Goss complained that he was spending hours preparing for the Oval Office sessions.

“Once Negroponte came in and Porter was no longer doing the president’s daily briefings, he lost the opportunity to build the kind of relationship with the president that other directors had,” said Mark Lowenthal, who was a senior adviser to Tenet and briefly to Goss before leaving the agency in March 2005.

Once again you come back to the importance of personal chemistry in the Bush administration: it can virtually determine a career. In that sense, Bush does operate as if he’s a corporate CEO.

The Post also details Goss’ problems in articulating a vision for the agency and his problem in shaking off the perception that he was a partisan politico. But the most damning part of the story is at the end — when it reports GOP reaction to his resignation:

Republicans joined Bush yesterday in thanking Goss but did not praise his tenure. Democrats said his leadership had been a failure.

“Regrettably, Porter Goss’s tenure as director of the CIA was a tumultuous one,” said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), ranking Democrat on the intelligence panel. “We must have a leader with strong credentials, a demonstrated track record of independence and objectivity, and the ability to bring much needed harmony within the ranks.”

The Bottom Line: the White House didn’t like the untideness of his operation or his chemistry with the President. GOPers wouldn’t walk on a bed of nails for him. Democrats felt he was lacking across the boards.

So he was forced out, if the Post is correct. There are of course other fascinating theories (so far based on conjecture) so some will argue that the Post story is just the “spin” to disguise the real cause why Goss is leaving. Fair enough. But if that is in fact true it will leak out eventually, confirmation and all, causing yet another crisis for the White House.

But here’s a FACT: in the end few were unhappy to see Porter Goss go.

UPDATE: Would Hayden be a worse replacement? Here’s one view. And here’s a good take on the various rumors swirling about the resignation.