« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
You remember former CIA official Jose Rodriguez. He's the guy at the center of the criminal investigation into the destruction of the CIA's torture tapes. The videotapes, you'll remember, documented interrogation techniques authorized by Justice Department lawyers and the White House on two detainees. CIA interrogators (and possibly contractors) waterboarded the two detainees and possibly exposed them to a range of other techniques, such as inducing hypothermia. The investigation is not focusing on the use of those techniques, though. The focus is the destruction of the tapes.
But back to Rodriguez. The line from White House and senior CIA officials has been that they repeatedly advised against destroying the tapes. Rodriguez (via his lawyer) says that advice was never unequivocal. The New York Times has a story today exploring that breach between Rodriguez, who ran the CIA's clandestine service, and the leadership.
The story goes something like this: Porter Goss, then the director of the CIA, was viewed as something of a buffoon by the career officers. They didn't like the crew he brought in (like his #3 Dusty Foggo, who was subsequently indicted for taking bribes from Brent Wilkes), and they didn't like the way he ran the place. So Rodriguez pretty much ran things the way he thought they ought to be run in his division. And when the issue of whether to destroy those tapes arose again in late 2005, he did what he thought was right. He saw the tapes as "a sort of time bomb that, if leaked, threatened irreparable damage to the United States’ image in the Muslim world, his friends say, and posed physical and legal risks to C.I.A. officers on them."
And Goss... did nothing. The Times reports that there is "no record of any reprimand or punishment" in Rodriguez's personnel file at the agency. Because:
People close to Mr. Goss, who knew from his Congressional years how explosive accusations of cover-up could be, insist he told Mr. Rodriguez the tapes should be preserved.But if Mr. Goss believed Mr. Rodriguez had disobeyed him, why did he not punish the clandestine service chief? One former C.I.A. official said White House officials had complained about the news media firestorm that accompanied the departure of [two CIA officials who'd resigned] a year earlier, and Mr. Goss felt he could not risk another blowup.
And of course the administration kept the whole thing quiet for more than two years until the Times blew the whistle. Too bad there's never a convenient time for "another blowup."













A coverup of a potential coverup? It sounds kind of like that story about the CIA watchdog getting a watchdog.
Perhaps the 'destruction' itself is a coverup for the existence of the tapes for administration to buy time until they escape?
It's only 10 am here and I already need some scotch, ugh.
February 20, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Classy. Rodriguez covers for Goss and then they blame him.
On the subject of "incompetence" let's remember that Goss did staff the higher echalons with questionable political cronies (not just Foggo) who became known as "Gosslings". They accompanied Goss not to improve the Agency, but to "settle scores."
Ken Silverstein at Harper's "Washington Babylon" Blog and Laura Rozen at "War and Piece" Blog have a few good articles about the Gosslings from a few years ago.
Some of those Gosslings:
Stephen Kappes
Jennifer Millerwise
Brent "Nine Fingers" Bassett
Jay Jakub
Patrick Murray
Dusty Foggo
Michael Kostiw
Google some of their names. A fine bunch indeed.
February 20, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
This blame game nonsense is nonsense... let us not get ourselves confused.... what we're talking about is a CIA under GWB... anything, ANYTHING, that happens is the responsibility of GWB...
February 20, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully they will keep on digging! Oh and fine bunch indeed!
February 20, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once Arlen Specter finishes the important matter of grilling the NFL over destroying the tapes of the Patriots videotaping the coaching signals of the Jets, I am sure he will get to this other piddling videotape destruction.
February 20, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see the contradiction between "cover-up" and "institutional dysfunction." You say that Rodriguez wanted the tapes destroyed because they were "a sort of time bomb that, if leaked, threatened irreparable damage to the United States’ image in the Muslim world, his friends say, and posed physical and legal risks to C.I.A. officers on them." So their destruction was obviously a cover-up. But the fact that he wasn't prevented from doing this by more responsible parties is part of the CIA's institutional dysfunction. So, not one or the other ... both!!
February 20, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully they will keep on digging! Oh and fine bunch indeed!
February 20, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Business as usual.
They all know they won't be held accountable by anyone other than impotent bloggers.
February 20, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's just take a little walk down TPM's memory lane, and reflect on the fine leadership Goss brought in when Bush directed him to 'clean up' the CIA.
“Nine Fingers” and the Third Man
DEPARTMENT Washington Babylon BY Ken Silverstein PUBLISHED May 9, 2006
Justin Rood at TPM Muckraker posted an interesting story yesterday, explaining why the Bush Administration’s explanation for Porter Goss’s sudden departure from the CIA looks increasingly lame. Here’s another piece of evidence suggesting that the CIA chief’s dismissal was wholly unexpected: one of Goss’s top aides traveled to Iraq just days before his boss was let go and had absolutely no idea of what was coming down the pike. “The turf-battle line is purely a cover story,” said a former CIA official I spoke with. “The reason they had to act now was because they were scared about what’s going to come out about [the Cunningham scandal].”
Goss has no direct role in the Cunningham affair, at least nothing that has been definitively reported, but several key people close to him do.
They include Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, whom Goss had picked to fill the number-three slot at the CIA and who resigned yesterday, and Brant Bassett (nickname “Nine Fingers”), previously a CIA official and senior staffer on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence when Goss was chairman.
Foggo is closely tied to Brent Wilkes, the San Diego defense contractor who is alleged to have bribed Cunningham and provided him with prostitutes. Foggo has admitted he was at some of Wilkes’s now-infamous parties at Washington hotels—though he denies any knowledge of the prostitutes—and the CIA and law enforcement authorities are carefully examining his relationship with the defense contractor. Newsweek has reported that Foggo, Cunningham, and Bassett/“Nine Fingers” attended a Wilkes poker party at the Westin Grand Hotel.
I’ve learned that Bassett’s role in the broader story may be more involved than that. Two former CIA officers told me that Foggo, Bassett, and a third man—a CIA official close to Goss, whose name I learned but am withholding because he remains undercover—have been friends for years and worked together overseas. According to these two sources, Bassett and the undercover officer (whom Goss brought up to the 7th Floor at Langley when he took over the CIA) positioned Foggo to be picked by Goss for the number-three slot.
Perhaps more importantly, I’m told that Bassett, like Foggo, has connections to Wilkes. Bassett was born in 1949 and raised in the San Diego area (home turf to Wilkes, Foggo, and several other players in the Cunningham affair), where he attended Escondido High School. According to two sources, Bassett and Wilkes know each other and have ties that go beyond the merely social. Bassett has been deployed by the CIA to various overseas assignments and has seen duty in Mexico and Germany, among other places; he previously used State Department and United States Information Agency cover.
Foggo, said my sources, is considered a competent administrator, if not a shining star. “He’s a great logistics guy,” one former intelligence official told me. “He makes the trains run on time. If you need something delivered to Afghanistan, he can make it happen.” But Foggo has apparently gotten into personal trouble at the agency on a few occasions (see Jason Vest’s April 28 post at the POGO blog, which refers to those matters), and one important, not-yet-answered question is: why would Goss name Foggo, a man whom he knew to have a checkered past, to such a high position at the CIA?
So now two of Goss’s close associates, Foggo and Bassett, have a lot of explaining to do about their relationship with Brent Wilkes—”the pivotal figure in the Cunningham affair. And just today, TPMMuckracker pointed out that Gen. Michael V. Hayden, President George W. Bush’s nominee to replace Goss, once hired the services of MZM, the firm owned by Mitchell Wade; Wade has admitted to bribing Randy “Duke” Cunningham. Maybe a coincidence, but definitely an odd one.
* * *
Update, 5:47 PM: TPM Muckraker has now reported that Bassett received a $5,000 consulting fee from Brent Wilkes; I had heard of this and have just obtained documentation on the fee. See page 2 of this financial disclosure form (PDF) filed by Bassett when he was on the Hill.
**************************************
This leads back to Goss/Cheney. All this went down during the heady days of 'hookergate' when you got money for nothing & chicks for free. This is a story that "went away" - I suspect because powerful congressmen in both parties were getting it on in those hospitality suites:
***************************************************
From Harpers 5/9/06 http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/05/sb-ninefingers-and-third-2308948203
Goss has no direct role in the Cunningham affair, at least nothing that has been definitively reported, but several key people close to him do. They include Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, whom Goss had picked to fill the number-three slot at the CIA and who resigned yesterday, and Brant Bassett (nickname “Nine Fingers”), previously a CIA official and senior staffer on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence when Goss was chairman.
Foggo is closely tied to Brent Wilkes, the San Diego defense contractor who is alleged to have bribed Cunningham and provided him with prostitutes. Foggo has admitted he was at some of Wilkes’s now-infamous parties at Washington hotels—though he denies any knowledge of the prostitutes—and the CIA and law enforcement authorities are carefully examining his relationship with the defense contractor. Newsweek has reported that Foggo, Cunningham, and Bassett/“Nine Fingers” attended a Wilkes poker party at the Westin Grand Hotel.
I’ve learned that Bassett’s role in the broader story may be more involved than that. Two former CIA officers told me that Foggo, Bassett, and a third man—a CIA official close to Goss, whose name I learned but am withholding because he remains undercover—have been friends for years and worked together overseas. According to these two sources, Bassett and the undercover officer (whom Goss brought up to the 7th Floor at Langley when he took over the CIA) positioned Foggo to be picked by Goss for the number-three slot.
From TPM 5/10/06 http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000606.php
Time: Nine Fingers Was a Tour Guide
By Paul Kiel - May 10, 2006, 1:20PM
More on Nine Fingers.
Yesterday, we reported that Brent Wilkes had paid Brant "Nine Fingers" Bassett $5,000 while Bassett was a staffer with the House Intelligence Committee under Porter Goss.
Well, now we know what it was for. Bassett had been Wilkes' tour guide:
The $5,000 Bassett accepted from Wilkes was for helping him with a business trip to a part of Europe where Bassett knew "the lay of the land from before" -- presumably a reference to Bassett's earlier work for the CIA, said the person speaking for Bassett. Bassett "was not an employee of [ADCS]. It was a one-off consulting deal" this person said on Bassett's behalf. Wilkes' Washington attorney, Nancy Luque, said Wilkes has done nothing wrong and that Bassett was hired as a consultant "for his knowledge of the area they were working in and facility with the languages spoken there."
And there is another choice detail. Bassett didn't just work under Goss at the House Intelligence Committee. When Goss rose to CIA director, he tapped Bassett for "a second stint at the agency as a consultant in the directorate of operations." Brent Wilkes did indeed have some friends there.
One of them, his close acquaintance Kyle "Dusty" Foggo is finally communicating with the media, albeit through his lawyer:
Bill Hundley, an attorney for Foggo, who told colleagues this week that he will step down from the agency's number three position as Goss leaves, says Foggo denies wrongdoing and is "really more of a victim here." Hundley added that he has not had any inquiries from either the Justice Department or the CIA inspector general, who is investigating whether Wilkes' business received any special treatment from Foggo.
"To him this guy was his friend and he obviously knew he was in the defense contracting business," Hundley says of the relationship between Wilkes and Foggo. But Foggo "is just shocked, really, that he would -- if he did -- have given that amount of money to Cunningham." Hundley added that Foggo may have attended widely reported poker parties that Wilkes threw in a hospitality suite in Washington, "but there was no hanky panky" at these events, he said.
February 20, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks AL75. You gave a nice rundown of some of the rogues I mentioned above.
We still don't know why Porter Goss left the CIA in such a hurry after such a short tenure.
Was it because of the hookers?
Was it because of the embarrassing staff he collected?
Did he get "his work" er, "done?" (if so, how)
Nope, it's still undisclosed.
"...However, Mr Goss said the reason for his departure would stay a "mystery". Speaking on Saturday (5/6/06), Mr Goss declined to comment on his departure, telling CNN that "it's one of those mysteries..."
February 20, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The nagging subtext here for me is that the career
professional re Mr Roderiguez were apparently being set up to take the fall from any "blowback" from the illegal torture ordered up by Addington & Yoo at he behest of Darth Cheney . The part that nags me is that the VEEP's shop was unable to complete the investigation into the destruction of the tape & then hang the CIA 's professionals with at the very least the destruction of the tape -if not the actual torture itself . What do the Career CIA Professional have in "reserve " that has kept the VEEP 's mininons from shutting down this ongoing controversy .What might that "reserve " be -is it the same item that made DIA Goss abruptly resign .It might be the same "reserve" that is leaving fOGGO twisting in the wind. It might be the same "reserve" that CIA field agents -evidently , apparently -are sharing with investigators in Europe looking into war crimes that ultimately might wind up being referred to the Hague .
If I was a employee of the VEEP's shop -who had first hand knowledge of whatever that "reserve " might be all this would probably be nagging at me too - (BTW - whatever happened to Kirakou ? )
February 20, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jose Rodriguez might have acted pragmatic. Just to be the devils advocate, imagine the lurid circumstance where there were tapes from WWII where an interogation of a Japanese or for that fact, an American was discovered?
The value of releasing the tape?
In as much as intelligence is politics, as evident by Chalabi and curveball, or the rantings of Rumsfeld and Brenner about Sunni dead enders, and now? There is an effort to build a political coalition in Iraq.
Maybe at face value the destruction was that, he saw the tapes as "a sort of time bomb that, if leaked, threatened irreparable damage to the United States’ image in the Muslim world, his friends say, and posed physical and legal risks to C.I.A. officers on them."
To look back and say now that it was a stretch, the rationale for war in Iraq, is 20-20 hindsight, but consider some saw things pretty correctly, Michael Scheuer for example didn't drink the Koolaid, etc. etc.
The ABU GHRAIB incident also had an incident were tapes and pictures were destroyed or kept from becoming public due to: damage to the United States’ image in the Muslim world and legal risks to personnel on them. In fact there was a trashcan setup and there was a request for any electronic media of ABU GHRAIB to be deposited in it, with an offer of immunity with the act, "yes folks this is true."
Of the people that participated in the activities and drank the koolaid, who committed abuses, who just went on an intellectual holiday and joined the emotional mass movement, well that is either just politics or lessons learned.
So what we are still grappling with is the US image in the muslim world, politics, and the attempts to manage the issue with Gitmo trials, torture statements from candidates, and arguments offered as to how decisions and responsibility is accrued.
My take on it was that some of the acts were as rational as the Salem Witch Trial. My take on it is that the decision to initially pomote this torture policy was directed at the American public and not the Islamic radical. And that the tradeoff between taking the heat for destroying the tapes is less than having them viewed.
I guess I can close by saying that the dumb fvcking idea of this policy initially, despite all the pig lipstick, still stinks, still causes damage to the US image in the muslim world, and was positively one of the worst PsyOps ideas ever orchestrated and did much more harm to the nation than actionable intel that it could have created.
This was a politicians wet dream, an idealouge contruct of the "crazies in the basement" who did far more damage to this nation with their absurd and incompetent handling of the nations security and intelligence assets than the initial 911 attacks.
I don't think we will ever grasp the "crazies in the basement" incompetence until sufficient time has elapsed so that materials can be evaluated sufficiently and conclusions drawn.
But really the jawboning of the torture, the jawboning of the threats, jawboning before the war, all political.. and when you stop and simply consider how time decay affects actionable intel, the use of torture a poor tool in winning a conflict.
You could have pulled McCains thumbnails, and he could have told you the location of the carrier at takeoff, and hour later that location or intel was decaying, two hours later, a day later, a week later, the aircraft carrier on the basis of time decay had moved and pulling thumb nails was political theatre designed to control vietnam soldiers and politics, and had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with intel.
Put in the same damn spot I would have destroyed the tapes, maybe with the exception of one copy, and have handled it exactly like Jose Rodriguez did, offering to speak with immunity, knowing damn well that national security and US image doesn't want the truth.
CIA had their hands in creating the mess, Jose Rodriguez is just tasked with cleaning some of it up.
I'm disappointed in McCain for him pandering to the far right and that 14% that votes in primaries and perpetuating the notion that it is positive for American interests and image to suggest that torture is acceptable while we occupy Islamic countries as we do now.
Peter Pace disagreed with Rumsfeld, saying "It is the absolute responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it".
I be Peter Pace asked if a US service member came accross stupid fvcking video that had been authorized by crazies had an obligation to intervene and spare the US loss of image abroad, he would say yes!
The reverbeations still are thundering over this dumb fvcking psyops stunt and will continue to do so for quite some time.. call it the "worst" of the neocons bloopers..
You should take the explanation at face value and recall that it was cambone and rumsfeld who took interogations to the point that the CIA IG said, heh folks we're oughta here in respect to ABU GHRAIB.
Ockham's razor suggests you take the tapes were destroyed as they were an embarrasment at face value.
February 20, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom Selleck destroyed secret interrogation tapes? Why, Magnum? P why?
April 17, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink