Comments on: White House sources: Bush to name Hayden new DCIA

By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Hayden goes wobbly?

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Hayden goes wobbly? — Thu, 11 May 2006 03:50:47 +0000

[...] Tuned this story out after the Monday a.m. post but I’m tuning it back in now. Some commenters argued at the time that having NSA’s warrantless wiretaps program front and center at Hayden’s confirmation hearings would be a good thing, that it would rally the public to the GOP’s side. Oh really? Someone had better tell Hayden, then: Sen. Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said Hayden told him in a private meeting he was concerned when he set up the highly secretive program that approaching Congress could reveal tactics, techniques and procedures used by U.S. intelligence to track al Qaeda suspects. [...]

By: Liberty Call US

Liberty Call US — Tue, 09 May 2006 18:22:26 +0000

I see nothing wrong with having all intelligence agencies run by military people. In fact, I would prefer it. At least I have a reasonable amount of confidence in their abilities, more than I can say for a civilian political appointee. (That isn’t to say flag officer appointees aren’t political.)
What exactly is the purpose of the CIA? Obviously, to gather intelligence. But what is done with the intelligence? We use it to ensure or protect national security. The intelligence can be used by the diplomatic community to head off problems. But when that fails, the problem is handed off to — hold on to your hats here — the military.
One of the reasons the military has opposed the consolidation of intelligence gathering functions is that the military has a need for different day-to-day intelligence and information. The CIA has tended to look more for the information used by the diplomatic corps and ignore purely military intelligence.
Putting a general in charge of the CIA won’t necessarily change the focus of CIA intelligence efforts, but I think it will help ensure that the military will not get short-changed, especially in a time of war.
Liberty

By: chsw

chsw — Tue, 09 May 2006 13:56:49 +0000

The Jackass Party senators should be careful about the questions they ask, because Hayden also had intel experience during the Clinton Administration. Hayden’s answers might refer back to the way things were done under Clinton vs. Bush2, including “domestic spying.”

Hayden’s nomination may be sterling.

chsw

By: Wil

Wil — Tue, 09 May 2006 02:17:01 +0000

As usual the RINO’s (Specter, et. al) and the leftists want to discuss secrets in public. They will continue to badger Hayden about the Terroris monitoring program during trhe confirmation hearings.

I find it kind of funny that everyone agrees to shoot and bomb terrorists but God help us if we listen to their phone converations.

By: The False Dervish

The False Dervish — Tue, 09 May 2006 00:16:41 +0000

The OSS was created by Army Col (?) “Wild Bill” Donovan. The agents were given military type training to kick the totalitarian, dictatorial, evil asses of those who were our enemies at that time. And from the accounts I read, they did a flaming good job of it, too.

I am not an expert in the CIA, and OSS, but is it not true that the CIA and military cross train each other in various skills? Is it not true that some CIA agents can also be in the reserves, or on loan to the CIA (Green Berets, SEALS, UDT, and Air Commandos did CIA related missions during the Viet Nam War and during the Cold War,did they not)?

I heard some Senator on FNC state that according to law (provided that I heard correctly) at least one of the top 3 in the CIA has to be a military man. AT LEAST ONE OF THE TOP THREE. Seems pretty point blank and clear to me.

If I am wrong, then someone please correct me.

By: Cake or Death

Cake or Death — Mon, 08 May 2006 23:12:30 +0000

Gen. Michael Hayden named the new CIA Director…

And, go figure, Dubya is getting criticism for his pick to replace Porter Goss. The story first: The first criticism of Hayden is because of the Terrorist Surveillance Program Hayden helped Bush conduct as head of the NSA. I don’t even want to go ov….

By: Small Town Veteran

Small Town Veteran — Mon, 08 May 2006 22:34:23 +0000

Food fight!…

My wish came true. President Bush has decided to nominate General Michael Hayden to head the CIA. The confirmation hearings are going to be a real hoot, giving lots of people who don’t give a damn about national security an…

By: gary

gary — Mon, 08 May 2006 21:57:04 +0000

The CIA being a civilian only group is bunk. The CIA was first started as the OSS in WW II organized, occupied, and run by the military.

By: bdfaith

bdfaith — Mon, 08 May 2006 21:10:55 +0000

The CIA’s broken and putting someone at the top who knows how to give orders is a step in the right direction. The coming “food fight” will present an excellent opporunity for the Dhimmicrats and RINOs to show their true colors in an election year. It’s too bad Specter’s not up for re-election this fall so he could be replaced with someone who’se on our side.

By: papundits

papundits — Mon, 08 May 2006 20:45:40 +0000

If everyone liked the idea of nominating Hayden, I’d be worried.

I take the fact that people don’t like him as “a good sign.”

By: Bryan

Bryan — Mon, 08 May 2006 20:40:24 +0000

Fwiw, the first two or three heads of the CIA, and the head of its predecessor the OSS, were all military. Anyone who opposes Hayden purely on the basis of his military career, which I think is a pretty bad reason to oppose him, should take the CIA’s history into account.

By: Iblis

Iblis — Mon, 08 May 2006 20:16:08 +0000

This problem all stems from Bush trying to be a nice guy, and not purging State, CIA and frankly the rest of government of libs when he had the chance.
If we see McCarthy criminally charged, and a few more to boot, then I’ll start to feel better about this

By: doingwhatican

doingwhatican — Mon, 08 May 2006 19:19:13 +0000

DougW, you’re absolutely right that there are vast differences in Stansfield Turner and Michael Hayden. I only mentioned Turner because he’s the only former “military guy” I could remember by name who served as CIA chief. Hayden will chew the dems up and spit them out and show them for the hypocrites they are.

Maybe Goss just smoked a few really good cigars.

By: Reality Check

Reality Check — Mon, 08 May 2006 18:58:09 +0000

Bush Cleans Up Jimi Carter’s Miss
MSM harping on the CIA appt. should be relatively minor. MSM is struggling for eyeballs, even cable news is losing to the net. MSM attempts at controlling the net are futile, and the suits think the only way to attract the eyeballs is to be to create (not quality content or real feedback) but doom/gloom/near panic teases. Global warming is a good long term promo subject, can’t be solved soon. So is Bush bashing with the next storm season approaching. No specific victim (or lawsuits) there folks.
Don’t expect too much in the way of real analysis concerning the CIA, it would require acknowledgement of an uncomfortable REALITY. (like targetting Khomeini while still in Paris would’ve pre-empted the current threat, but jimicarter couldn’t even entertain the thought of bad guys)

By: Lawrence

Lawrence — Mon, 08 May 2006 18:57:59 +0000

Selecting a military person sends a BIG message to qualified civilians that Pres. Bush has lost trust/faith in the civilian options. Just like the Katrina disaster response where Bush had to appoint a Military Officer to finally get anthing done.

By: DougW

DougW — Mon, 08 May 2006 18:57:59 +0000

Please don’t bring up Adm Stanfield Turner as a justification for General Hayden. Hayden did a great job at NSA and apparently a credible one as the DNI number two. But Turner was a Carter disaster while Hayden should be a Bush success.

Just hope that Goss doesn’t get too caught up in the Hookergate hubbub!

By: Super Fun Power Hour

Super Fun Power Hour — Mon, 08 May 2006 18:12:42 +0000

Michael Hayden – The right man at the right time…

President Bush has yet to name his pick for incoming CIA Director, though the rumor mill has him bringing in Gen. Michael Hayden. This pick naturally is upsetting Democrats who have thrived on the clash between the CIA and the President. Many critics …

By: dman

dman — Mon, 08 May 2006 17:53:54 +0000

Is there no civilian that can do this job? Why did Goss really step down: was it just because he didn’t want to be number 2, or is there more to it? I’d like to know more about the exact nature of the conflict with Negroponte. Can anyone (military or civilian) get this job done without correcting the root cause?

All of that said, it’s still the President’s call – he will take the heat for whatever happens. While I would prefer civlian control, I just don’t see the threat of a military takeover at this point. This is just more carping from the Dims and the RINOs.

By: Iowa Voice

Iowa Voice — Mon, 08 May 2006 16:28:29 +0000

What To Think Of Hayden Nomination?…

I’m not sure what to think of this yet:

President Bush will name Gen. Michael Hayden, deputy to national intelligence director John Negroponte, as the new CIA chief, national security adviser Stephen Hadley said on Monday.

If confirm…

By: RightWinged

RightWinged — Mon, 08 May 2006 16:20:54 +0000

(((Speculation Warning)))
I think Bush should just reveal the WMDs (that I assume we really did capture) already… That would destroy the Democrats once and for all. I subscribe to the theory that we’re not coming out and revealing the evidence that Russia helped move the stuff to Syria, and that the administration thinks they need Russia on our side to deal with Iran so they won’t expose them right now.

Anyway, I’ve thought for a long time that we may be rounding stuff up covertly, and have plenty of WMD proof right now… I hope so can just find it impossible to believe that Saddam didn’t have anything… that’s just ridiculous.

But back to the political side, and what made me comment… In reading the post, I got to the part about Repubs eating their own, and you’re right… There is far to much of that lately, and I fear poor voter turnout handing the midterms to the Dems. But I think whipping out some WMDs and say, “oh look what we found!” Would flip everything around. Other than the Russia thing, I can’t see why they wouldn’t bring the evidence for it if they have it… but we also don’t know a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes, nor should we. But you can be sure that finding WMDs wouldn’t stop violence in Iraq, so if it were to come out at a politically opportune time, no one could argue that keeping it hidden harmed anything other than relations with people who were so quick to call the Prez a liar… and screw them anyway.

Anyway, I realize this is off the topic of Hayden, but my mind just sort of raced to a thought I’ve had for a number of years now, and particularly lately after I read the comments about the dividing (I won’t say “divided” yet) party.

Another quick comment about voting in the midterm elections. A lot of us are not pleased with the President and GOP on immigration and I’ve seen a lot of threats to stay home. Please don’t. Do you have any idea how much harm that would do? We would endure (more) years of nothing getting done, and we’d just have investigation after investigation, calls for impeachment, etc. etc. The Democrats are already ruining everything and undermining the war when they aren’t in power, can you imagine how this vicious group would be if they took either house?

Maybe I’m just tired..

By: Stop The ACLU

Stop The ACLU — Mon, 08 May 2006 15:56:35 +0000

Bush Nominates Gen. Hayden…

Via Washington Post
President Bush on Monday chose Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to lead the embattled Central Intelligence Agency, re-igniting a debate over the domestic surveillance program that the onetime head of the National Security Agency once…

By: The Sandbox

The Sandbox — Mon, 08 May 2006 15:36:48 +0000

Hayden Chosen to Lead CIA…

Bush officially named General Michael Hayden (of my beloved Air Force) to succeed Porter Goss as head of the CIA. It was widely reported this weekend that he was at the top of the list, so this is no surprise….

By: Bryan

Bryan — Mon, 08 May 2006 15:29:57 +0000

I guess I’m going to have to take a contrarian view to our diety in residence too. Hayden has done exactly what the next CIA chief needs to do–he has led a successful intelligence agency, quietly. Can we name another living American who has done as much? Can we name another intel agency that functions as well as NSA? From what I’m seeing at this point, Hoekstra’s and Chambliss’ objections amount to objecting to the uniform and the notion that Hayden running CIA gives control of all our intel agencies to the Pentagon. I don’t buy that. They appear to be trying the tired trick of getting to the Democrats’ left on a war-related issue, which is a sure-fire loser.

I have yet to see a substantive argument against Hayden’s nomination. So far, it’s all about appearances imho, style instead of substance. One thing we all will see, again, is just how dumb it was to leave Arlen Specter in a position of power in the Senate. He’ll grandstand on Hayden and probably wring more details out about the NSA data-gathering program and damage it further during the hearings–and then Hayden gets through anyway.

By: Marvin

Marvin — Mon, 08 May 2006 15:09:49 +0000

The Republican leadership is raising a concern over civilian control..
This gives them a little distance for the mid-terms.

But I agree – another debate over the NSA program of listening to terrorists will only help Republicans.

By: doingwhatican

doingwhatican — Mon, 08 May 2006 14:37:10 +0000

I’m all for a military man as the chief of the CIA. A former military man, Stanfield Turner, served in this same position in the past. We need more cooperation between the CIA, Department of Defense and the FBI. And we NEED the NSA program.

Civilians have served in this position in the past and have failed miserably.

Once again, the dems and some RINO’s “disdain for the military” slip is showing.