Former NSA Director Nominated to Head CIA

Originally posted by Muaddib
If you read what the original poster has said, she is claiming that "because this man is in the military" he must be a mindless robot",

Muaddib When you put something in quotes (" ") that means you are quoting exactly what a person said. You have grossly misquoted me and I'd appreciate it if you would stop it! I didn't say anything of the sort!

If the only way you can debate intelligently is to put words in other posters' mouths, I suggest you find something else to do.

Regarding Hayden't military affiliation, one of the great concepts of this country is that in any one area, the power and control is spread out over several groups with different interests, the purpose being to best serve the people instead of the needs and interests of one particular group. My concern is that the executive branch of this government has too much power and control right now. Not having a civilian intelligence agency led by an independent civilian director, to provide balance and a non-military point of view concerns me.

However, that's only one of my many concerns about his nomination. Others here have expressed them very well.

With his connection to the NSA domestic wiretapping program, and the way he looks, I get this eerie feeling he stepped out of a time machine from the early 1940s.

Anybody else think he looks kind of like Heinrich Himmler in a blue uniform?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Muaddib When you put something in quotes (" ") that means you are quoting exactly what a person said. You have grossly misquoted me and I'd appreciate it if you would stop it! I didn't say anything of the sort!

So i guess you never said this: "I think it's the goal of this administration to have the military control all the intelligence... And who's the Commander in Chief of the military? Why even have the CIA if it's going to be run by the military?" among some of the other things you said.

You are trying to postulate that "because this man is/was in the military" he will do anything and everything no matter how wrong it is, hence the "mindless robot" part. I just used a shorter sentence to describe what you were saying.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If the only way you can debate intelligently is to put words in other posters' mouths, I suggest you find something else to do.

No, that's the job for some other people around here.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
I just used a shorter sentence to describe what you were saying.

Then don't put it in QUOTES!

If you're going to describe what you think I mean in your own words, have at it, but don't misquote it as if I actually said it. The words "mindless robot" came out of your brain, not mine.

Originally posted by marg6043
Following blindly any leader without question undermine the same constitutional rights given to us and creates totalitarian leaders.

I am bound to my nation and to my nation I pledge to respect the constitution as a patriot I will support the constitution and I will fight for it.

That is what a patriot does.

marg, I totally agree with you. Excellent post!

As I have said before, if something I love is getting ruined, I don't just abandon it for a better one.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Anybody else think he looks kind of like Heinrich Himmler in a blue uniform?

Yes. And not so much how he looks, but how it all 'feels'.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yes. And not so much how he looks, but how it all 'feels'.

Oh, that’s just terrific, we are now deciding if someone is qualified for an important job by how it “feels”. :shk:

I have yet to see anything that shows me this man is not capable of running the CIA. He was the former director of the NSA, currently deputy director and has been in the intelligence community for decades. And people are complaining because he is in the military! This is getting ridiculous.

General Hayden entered active duty in 1969 after earning a bachelor's degree in history in 1967 and a master's degree in modern American history in 1969, both from Duquesne University. He is a distinguished graduate of the university's ROTC program. General Hayden has served as Commander of the Air Intelligence Agency and as Director of the Joint Command and Control Warfare Center. He has been assigned to senior staff positions at the Pentagon, Headquarters U.S. European Command, National Security Council and the U.S. Embassy in the People's Republic of Bulgaria. The general has also served as Deputy Chief of Staff, United Nations Command and U.S. Forces Korea, Yongsan Army Garrison, South Korea. Prior to his current assignment, General Hayden was Director, National Security Agency, and Chief, Central Security Service, Fort George G. Meade, Md.

Gen. Michael V. Hayden

Originally posted by marg6043
He is the perfect man in the administration group of Yes man.

He will do his job just like Mr. Bush wants and with no objection.

Hey "marg" still waiting to hear why you think Gen. Hayden is a "yes man". Or, do you just "feel" that he is

-- Boat

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Boatphone]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Oh, that’s just terrific, we are now deciding if someone is qualified for an important job by how it “feels”. :shk:

No. You're incorrect. I'm not deciding if he's qualified based on how it feels. In fact, his qualifications for the job seem quite impressive. If you'll read my statement in context... Oh, never mind. Think whatever you want.

This article expresses some of my distaste with this latest nominee to the Bush cabal.

Michael Hayden, the New CYA Director

Michael Hayden was the unofficial spokesperson for the administration when it became clear that they were breaking the FISA law and ignoring the Fourth Amendment. As the former head of the NSA, he went on a publicity tour touting the wonders of warrantless spying. What are the chances this guy puts the brakes on a program at the CIA that has gone overboard? None.

General Hayden can be trusted -- not necessarily by the American people, but more importantly, by the Bush team. If they need him to cover up, he can do that. If they need him to lie to Congress, he can make that happen. If they need him to carry out yet another program of questionable legality, no problem. He's their go to man in the CYA.

He may be a yes man, he may not, I don't really know. But I have serious doubts that if he disagreed with the Powers the Be, he'd be in the position very long. Bush is known for surrounding himself with yes men and women, and he's known for seeing what he wants to see instead of letting reality get in his way.

The real problem for Bush is that the State department and CIA are both filled with people who are not loyal to the president and are seeking to damage him, the whole admin, and the republican majority in congress.

People who cheer for Colin Powell ought to remember that he, as chair of the joint chiefs, tried to convince Bush 41 not to defend Kuwait in Gulf War I, telling time magazine it would be a bloodbath. This same Colin Powell, as Sec of State, told Bush that France said there were WMD's in Iraq, and that we SHOULD invade--he even told the UN the same thing. Then, as soon as we did, he talked about what a horrible thing we'd done.

The fact is, Madeline Albright revamped the state department in the second Clinton term, expelling life-long diplomats who happened to be republican. Bush refused to practice those sorts of tactics in what he sees as essentially a "civil service" branch of government. So he has allowed a democrat-controlled state department to circumvent his goals for the last 5 years.

The situation inside the CIA is even more grave. The CIA basically manufactured evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and got the Italians and French to help; then after the invasion, they furnished the French with info that it wasn't true. The whole "Plame Leak" episode was a setup from day one. Plame never had any secret clearance, and so couldn't be "outed" as an agent. She and her husband were career democrat-apparachniks, who, when ousted during a departmental house-cleaning, sought to do as much damage to Bush as possible by writing a piece for the New York Times. Hardly the actions of a pair of intel assets in deep cover!

The whole DCI program was another assault on the White House's sovriegnty within the executive branch: As Bush's underlings were beginning to clean house inside the CIA, the DEMOCRATS in Congress started demanding that the CIA be put under a larger umbrella. They did the same with Homeland Security.

I, for one, remember when and independent FEMA actually tried to help local governments, and had a cool website with useful information about responding to terror and natural disaster. But the people with actual ideas left for the private sector as congress demanded that FEMA be folded into HS.

At least part of the reason for Bush's manifold foreign policy debacles are due to the democratic controlled Intel organs that seem to work for anyone (including foreign govts) but the POTUS himself.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by dr_strangecraft]

HAAAAHHHHAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! That is so very funny. Bush has been in power almost 6 years and you are still trying to blame the democrats for his failed policies....oh that is rich that is so very rich. You ought to go on the comedy circuit Strangecraft. I will say one thing, you hard righters are masters of projection thats for sure. Whatever sins you guys are guilty of you blame on your opposition even when they haven't been in power for years. Oh that is so very funny.

Originally posted by grover
That is so very funny. Bush has been in power almost 6 years and you are still trying to blame the democrats for his failed policies....

Hardly refutes my interpretation.

Look at George Tenet, for example.

He was deputy director of CIA from 1995. Director from 1997 to 2004.

Clearly, this is an important instance of Bush trying to keep people in existing jobs if they were willing to stay, in the (mistaken) belief that this would prevent INTEL from becoming politicized.

Bush was in power as President from 2000. But the fact is, he hasn't asserted that authority yet, when it comes to either CIA or STATE dept.

.

marg, you say some things that are very true but then you turn around and say things like this:

This man already has shown that he will do what he is told and if that is to soil the constitution and the constitutional rights of American citizens he already has agree publicly to Bush illegal doings and corrupted secrecy.

A general that respect the constitution and what it stands for will step down and uphold the constitution rather than becoming a poppet to what the present administration has done to our constitutional rights.

The core of the military is that it is built upon discipline and following orders. Orders that may be questioned in the conference room, but are not and should not be brought to public debate as a general rule.

A man does not get to rise to a position as Hayden has by being a public loudmouth. And this applies to military org's worldwide, not just the USA.

For you to say that he would "soil the constitution and the constitutional rights of American citizens " if told to is totally disingenuous and nothing more than mean and a slur on his character. You have absolutely no proof that he would act in such a manner. Of course (occurs, to you) you have a perfect right to say so in the US. We do live by the rules such as the 1st Amendment.

The fact that you are allowed to say so does not make it true, however.

Not having a civilian intelligence agency led by an independent civilian director, to provide balance and a non-military point of view concerns me.

Nobody has yet convinced me of the advantage of having a civilian boss for the CIA. Our civilian leaders are politicians, and I don't think that fact alone makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

I'll take someone who has experience over someone who has no more than just a pedigree any day of the week.

Military does this intelligence work every day of the week. Why would you want to disqualify them as candidates because of that?

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I get this eerie feeling
:
Anybody else think he looks kind of like Heinrich Himmler in a blue uniform?

Here we go with the "feelings" again.

And the SS reference was cheap and sophomoric.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This article expresses some of my distaste with this latest nominee to the Bush cabal.

Michael Hayden, the New CYA Director

Michael Hayden was the unofficial spokesperson for the administration when it became clear that they were breaking the FISA law and ignoring the Fourth Amendment. As the former head of the NSA, he went on a publicity tour touting the wonders of warrantless spying.

Warrantless wiretapping of terrorsits is a good policy. I'm unsure why you think it somehow wrong.

-- Boat

Without any references to the SS, I do think that the desire to appoint an active duty officer to the CIA is just one more instance of a trend in today's government to centralize power.

You're quite right when you say that the CIA and other intell branches have been run by military men. More and more of them are on active duty when they do it. Fewer are willing to take the cosmetic step of retiring.

While I do think the CIA will benefit from Hayden's experience, I'm worried that he'll be under-cutting what little independence they have left. Negopronte, through the DNI< seems to want ever yagency on a very short leash.

In the long run, this tight-fisted control will turn these agencies in to brainless bureaucracies that merely process what they are told to go and find, while reaching certain desired conclusions which are beneficial to the people in charge.

That's why the appointment of Gen. Hayden bothers me.

I still say he looks like Himmler and I feel like the fascist takeover of our federal government is in progress.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But I have serious doubts that if he disagreed with the Powers the Be, he'd be in the position very long.

Well let me try to relieve your fears.

Rumsfeld did acknowledge that he and Hayden had taken different positions on at least one issue - whether to move the National Security Agency from the Defense Department's control to National Intelligence Director John Negroponte's control. Hayden thought it should be moved, and Rumsfeld said he did not. Bush ultimately decided not to move it.

Link

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Bush is known for surrounding himself with yes men and women, and he's known for seeing what he wants to see instead of letting reality get in his way.

Also, Bush “is known for surrounding himself with yes men and women”? Funny, I didn't know this, is this one of those Anti-Bush factoids that everyone else is unaware of?

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I still say he looks like Himmler and I feel like the fascist takeover of our federal government is in progress.

You can feel however you want, but when you use it to object Hayden’s appointment then it become ridicules.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
You're quite right when you say that the CIA and other intell branches have been run by military men. More and more of them are on active duty when they do it. Fewer are willing to take the cosmetic step of retiring.

For someone who has dedicated his life to a particular discipline, retirement is more than a cosmetic step.

But to General Hayden's credit, he has offered to "take off the uniform", if required.

While I do think the CIA will benefit from Hayden's experience, I'm worried that he'll be under-cutting what little independence they have left. Negopronte, through the DNI< seems to want ever yagency on a very short leash.

When you say "independence", are you referring to their budget? The main knock against a military leader of the CIA has been that it may forfeit even more budget control to the DoD. However, imo, it all comes out of the same checkbook at the end of the day.

In the long run, this tight-fisted control will turn these agencies in to brainless bureaucracies that merely process what they are told to go and find, while reaching certain desired conclusions which are beneficial to the people in charge.

I would really be interested in why you feel that is so. In the intel world, either you are a provider or a consumer of intelligence. We have lost our edge in being a great provider of certain types of info. Our nation suffered greatly from the sharing of this info during the Clinton years (I am not trying to start a partisan fight here, ok?). The wall that Jamie Gorelick built between the FBI and CIA caused our nation great harm. That and the policy of using sat, etc., vs humint. Humint takes years to build and become effective and is invaluable.

That and the policy of using sat, etc., vs humint. Humint takes years to build and become effective and is invaluable.

Hayden knows a little something about that. He's said it's important, and I believe he believes that. The problem is his area of expertise, electronic surveillance. If the CIA is looking to revive its human intelligence capabilities, hiring NSA guys is a funny way of going about it.

The CIA failed to protect us because it was prevented from working for us; it was co-opted. I've seen no indication that Hayden will be any different in that regard. I'm sure there are worse people for the job, but I'm also pretty sure there are better candidates - many of them within the CIA (well there were, until fairly recently). Unfortunately, the purge at the CIA makes hiring from within a lot harder.

This administration is more concerned (like most administrations are) with protecting its own interests than in protecting the interests of the American people.

All the really good agents refused to play politics and beat feet. Now they're somebody else's assets, and we get stuck with the cronies. :shk: