‘The wrong person, the wrong place, at the wrong time’

May 8, 2006

Let’s see, who believes it’s a bad idea for Air Force Gen. [tag]Michael Hayden[/tag] to replace [tag]Porter Goss[/tag] as the [tag]CIA[/tag] director? Well, there are congressional [tag]Republicans[/tag]…

“I do believe he is the wrong person, the wrong place, at the wrong time,” Representative [tag]Peter Hoekstra[/tag], a Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said on “Fox News Sunday.” “We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time,” Mr. [tag]Hoekstra[/tag] said. […]

Senator [tag]Saxby Chambliss[/tag], a Georgia Republican and White House ally, said that even if General Hayden were to resign his military commission, he would still face problems being accepted at the spy agency. “Just resigning commission and moving on, putting on a pin-striped suit versus an Air Force uniform, I don’t think makes much difference,” Mr. Chambliss said on “This Week” on ABC.

Senator [Pat] [tag]Roberts[/tag], of Kansas, praised General Hayden’s background but acknowledged that there is “real concern” about a military officer leading the agency. “I’m not in a position to say that I am for General Hayden and will vote for him,” Mr. Roberts said on “Late Edition” on CNN.

…congressional [tag]Democrats[/tag]…

House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy [tag]Pelosi[/tag], D-California, said the questions surrounding the wiretapping program will “make it difficult for him to be the head of the CIA.”

…and CIA officials themselves.

These intelligence officials also said Gen. Hayden’s nomination would deprive the CIA of a leader with extensive experience in the discipline it needs most: intelligence collected by humans, not machines. They say the general has experience running spy satellites and phone taps, but little knowledge of running on-the-ground spies that have been the CIA’s bread and butter.

“The agency is really about one thing: human-source espionage, the collection of intelligence from human sources,” said a recently retired station chief in the CIA’s clandestine service. “This is something Michael Hayden never has done.”

This is, of course, just the way the White House likes it.

Rather than steer away from a Hayden nomination because of the controversy, the White House seems ready for a new fight over it, convinced that it has public support and that Democrats opposing Hayden’s confirmation would risk looking [tag]weak on terrorism[/tag]. Democrats yesterday began formulating a strategy built around grilling Hayden during hearings and then determining whether any refusal to answer questions provides enough justification to oppose his confirmation.

“By nominating him, they are looking for a confrontation and forcing the Congress to take sides, so I am troubled by this,” said Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, who has a close relationship with Hayden and considers him “very professional and dedicated.”

A senior White House official said Bush did not choose Hayden to pick a fight but would welcome one if it came. “We felt that we’re in a position on offense,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the nomination has not been announced.

It’s reassuring to know that so little has changed at the White House. Given the need to pick a new director of the CIA, the Bush gang is, as usual, concerned about the politics and staying “on offense.” Whether Hayden would actually make a good choice for the job seems to be relatively low on the list of priorities.

Regardless, is the White House strategy likely to work? I’m skeptical. Dems aren’t terribly afraid of Bush’s “soft on terror” smears when the president has a 32% approval rating, and Republicans, as of yesterday, seemed to genuinely concerned about Hayden’s qualifications and background.

The Bush gang is still playing by a 2002-2004 playbook. They might consider a different approach, but apparently, their playbook only has one page.

The idea that the White House is going to use Michael Hayden’s nomination to defend and “authorize” the domestic spying program is the worst aspect about this situation. I’m glad that politicans on both sides of the aisle are making Hayden’s military and technical spying background the issue, rather than let the White House try to force them to take a stand on domestic spying. Still, nothing proves just how un-constitutional the ideas of executive power these Bushites embrace than deliberately making a contraversial nomination in an attempt to further erode the checks and balances provided by the Congress and the Courts.

Still, if we do get Hayden, let us use this opportunity to point out just how ineffective his program is (thousands of tips given to the FBI, and every one that turned out evidence they were already pursuing based on other leads) and also point out this program was instituted because his NSA couldn’t translate Arabic language intercepts fast enough to discover and protect us against the 9/11 attack.

We might also try to use the hearings to explain to General Hayden just what the constitution says about reasonable searches.

  • Did anybody see Stephen Hadley, Assistant to the President for National Security, on NBC’s Today program this morning? Barry Bonds and Mary Matalin would have been proud. He was a “foreign policy geek” on “spin steroids.” Hadley said, in so many words, that Gen. Hayden was a great choice and that he was the president’s choice. Of course, Georgie Boy also chose Donald Rumsfeld and Michael Brown. At the 33% approval ratings that Bush has, what makes Karl Rove & Co. think that the American people believe that “the decider” has good judgement? Let’s smack’em down again (this White House enjoys being clubbed).

  • What exactly happens if Congress puts the brakes on Hayden? Does Bush sink lower? Do Congressional Republikans get a boost? Does the Republikan leadership twist arms and wait for Senator Spector’s spine to turn to jelly (again)? I agree that there is not a serious downside for Democrats in opposing Hayden. IF Republikans start crying soft on terror they can fire back saying that if finding the right person to lead the CIA is soft then they are soft. More of the same failed policies are not the way to go. So, how does this play out?

  • Harriet Miers redux?

    The decider has decided and no one will get in the way of the princeling.

    I wonder when this one goes down in flames, how big of a tantrum wil the Decider throw?

    At this point, I’m just waiting for the Decider to lose it and throw that 10.2 on the Richter Scale hissy fit. Although I’d prefer it when they cart his dumb ass away. Would seem a fitting end to the Reign of Turdblossom the first.

  • “Does the Republikan leadership twist arms and wait for Senator Spector’s spine to turn to jelly (again)?” – MNProgressive

    It’s Pat Roberts this time. Spector heads Judicary, not Intelligence.

    “Harriet Miers redux?” – Dan

    Hayden is going to be on the wrong side of a different crowd. The Theocratic Reactionaries rejected Miers. One supposes the Libertarians and Competant Government Conservatives (are there any?) will oppose Hayden.

    In some ways, I expect that Hayden’s nomination, pushed by his boss John Negraponte, is an attempted payback for Congress taking up all his time in hearings and denying him the funds and authorization to build a powerful staff. It will be interesting to see how Congress pushes back. Sadly, all the spine seems to be in the House, and only the Senate gets to vote on the confirmation.

  • I doubt this will be similar to Miers. Hayden’s not a dottering old work-wife buddy with no experience. He’s a general, and I think most people do not see a distinction between military and intelligence. Hayden’s nomination will not garner as much press or animosity from the American public. Granted, most will oppose, but not vehemently. For the average person, this probably isn’t as important as a Supreme Court nomination.

  • I don’t think Haydon is like Miers in terms of person and skills (and probably had been more clear about that), but I see them being equal in terms of the resulting palace revolts that their nominations ignite considering he violated his own oath of service because he set up the domestic NSA wiretapping.

    A lot of GOPers are already saying nyet to Haydon at least to their press buddies. A less controversial choice (sarcasm) would have been General “My god is greater than your god” Boykin.

  • Well, Boy George II went and did it. Hayden is his nominee for Director of Central Intelligence.

    Let’s see now how many Senators still have a spine.

  • The Regal Moron seems determined to ride his Party directly into the ground. Ruining the GOP would be consistent with everything else he’s done in his sorry excuse for a personal and professional life.

  • “Boykin’s being groomed for FBI Director” – 2Manchu

    DON’T SAY THINGS LIKE THAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ARRGH!

    That is about the scariest thing I’ve read all day.

  • Eeyore,
    I’ll take that. I think I have hsitory on my side, though.

    Lance,
    Sorry, up all night with the toddler.

    Okay, I was really playing Call of Duty.

  • I think doubtful (#7) has it right. Most people (ie voters) won’t get the significance of Hayden or be outraged. Hell, most people didn’t even care about the Supreme Court nominations. But I’d take it a step further–with the media all over this “controversy” there will be less room on the front page for Whoregate and Rove In Cuffs etc etc etc. Keep the stories coming and people won’t even know where to look. Scandal fatigue. That’s just the way things are. The Bush Administration is moronic, arrogant…and crazy like a fox.

  • “Okay, I was really playing Call of Duty.” – 2

    I can’t handle first person shoot-them-ups. Turn-based strategy games for me. I’ll stay up playing Civ III Conquests any old time. Mongols are my favorite. I love the exploration and getting a jump on the competition ;-), then getting the Keshiks and rolling into my neighbors taking their wonders.

    “Most people (ie voters) won’t get the significance of Hayden or be outraged.” – Frak

    As long as the Senators do. Hayden’s nomination is a battle in the war over the Unitary and Dominant Executive theory, fought over the issue of 4th amendment protections against unilateral decisions on searches and seizures. Hayden may be a nice enough guy, and he may lose in the end because he (they say) is a military officer being put in charge of a civilian agency and he is a techno-spy being put in charge of the HUMINT specialists, but the fact is, HE came up with the warrantless domestic spying program for the sole purpose of covering his and the NSA’s BUTT after failing to protect American from the 9/11 plot. And the program is SO BAD at actually getting any real actionable intelligence, has such a low success rate (less than one percent) that the FISA court won’t even consider approving warrants for the searches.

  • I was going to add a short comment about how I think Hayden will probably end up like Harriet Myers after this much early balking from the GOP. The difference between Myers and all of Bush’s other (successful) appointments is that they’ve had the support of the GOP, regardless of how badly they were viewed by the rest of us. Hayden is in the same boat as Myers, where a significant portion of Bush’s own party is revolting on him.

    But I have to stay and add my favorite style game is the open-ended RPG, I am hooked on Oblivion like crack right now, (worse than crack,) and others like GTA similarly, in spite of what Hillary may think of it. And I love the other “sneaker” games, like Thief, where the object is to remain undetected rather than target practice. Civilization I love but I always burn out on it quickly, then drop for several months, then come back to and repeat.

    • Comments are closed.