Hayden hews hearings by hiding news

[tag]Michael Hayden[/tag]’s confirmation [tag]hearing[/tag]s to become the director head of the CIA are the political story of the day — but there’s just not much to say about it. As Knight Ridder’s Daniel Rubin put it, “If the job of [tag]CIA[/tag] director requires the ability to answer hours of sharp questions and not actually say much, [tag]Hayden[/tag] passed a critical test.”

It was mildly interesting that Hayden subtly criticized the Bush administration’s approach to pre-war Iraqi intelligence, and it was a little unusual to hear Hayden dismiss the Porter Goss years at the CIA as “amateur hour” and blast Doug Feith, but on the whole, Hayden’s hearings hid the good stuff for the closed-door Q&A that the public couldn’t see.

Is the NSA eavesdropping program that President Bush confirmed the entire program? “I’m not at liberty to talk about that in open session,” Hayden said.

Can detainees be held in secret for decades? “Let me give it to you in the closed session.”

Is “waterboarding” an acceptable interrogation technique? “Again, let me defer that to closed session.”

What does he think of forecasts that Iran is years away from nuclear capability? “I would be happy to give additional detail in closed session.”

Sen. [tag]Orrin Hatch[/tag] (R-Utah) posed as Hayden’s lawyer. “Sounds to me like you’ve made a real effort to try and help members of Congress to be aware of what was going on,” he told Hayden.

Intelligence Committee Chairman [tag]Pat Roberts[/tag] (R-Kan.) announced, “I can say without hesitation, I believe that the NSA terrorist surveillance program is legal, it is necessary, and without it the American people would be less safe.” He then congratulated himself, telling committee Dems, “I asked very tough questions.”

When Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) had the nerve to tell Hayden, “The Congress was never really consulted or informed in a manner that we could truly perform our oversight role as co-equal branches of government,” Hatch “fiddled with his BlackBerry,” while Roberts “opened his cellphone.”

The hearings were a chance for Hayden to largely repeat insights we’ve already heard, for Republicans to put softballs on a carefully-placed tee, and for Dems to ask reasonable questions that Hayden wouldn’t respond to publicly.

The NYT noted that “it seems certain that General Hayden will be confirmed.” If Bush had simply replaced the [tag]Republican[/tag] [tag]Congress[/tag] with a [tag]rubber stamp[/tag] six years ago, the government would at least be more efficient.

Why don’t they just declare the Regal Moron “Dictator for Life”, impose martial law, and spare us the agony of phony “hearings” like these? I’ve given up expecting the Democrats to ACT like the minority they are (and deserve to be).

The Republicans and their media minions do the best to keep the Democrats invisible, and when it might just get embarrassing for their highnesses, they go into closed session. And the Democrats act as though they’re grateful for the opportunity to be ignored. Arrggh.

  • “If Bush had simply replaced the Republican Congress with a rubber stamp six years ago, the government would at least be more efficient.” – CB

    That is assuming that Bushites could operate a rubber stamp. Considering their other proven incompetencies, that might be a reach.

    I wish I could have watched more of the Hayden hearing. From what I could see, no one tagged him for blowing his responsibility to translate the pre-9/11 intercepts in time, nor questioned his claims that his new programs would have been more effective that having the translations available before 9/11.

  • It was mildly interesting that Hayden subtly criticized the Bush administration’s approach to pre-war Iraqi intelligence, and it was a little unusual to hear Hayden dismiss the Porter Goss years at the CIA as “amateur hour” and blast Doug Feith, but on the whole, Hayden’s hearings hid the good stuff for the closed-door Q&A that the public couldn’t see.

    The agreed upon script on Hayden is that he is independent. These comments, which have no significance with respect to how he will care out his duties, help to reinforce the script and therefore will be widely praised. The fact that he has been a toady with regard to the BushCo.’s “Domestic Spying Program”, which contradicts the script, will be downplayed. This comes out McCain’s “straight talk” playbook.

    Hayden is an outspoken team player just like McCain.

  • “The fact that he has been a toady with regard to the BushCo.’s “Domestic Spying Program…” – rege

    I believe that is backwards. I think Hayden came up with the Domestic Spying Program because his agency had fallen down on their part of protecting us from 9/11. I think the phone call database is more of the same. If he had put the resources and attention on getting the Arabic language intercepts translated, 3000+ Americans might be alive today.

    Not holding him accountable for that is the modus operandi of this administration.

  • Lance, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the official version of events is correct and that Hayden proposed the “Domestic Spying Program” to the White House.

    Keep in mind however that BushCo.’s modus operandi is to shift responsibility for bad policy decisions down the chain of command. For example, the CIA was blamed for bad intelligence on the Iraqi WMD, while no one in the White House has taken responsibility for the misuse of that intelligence. Therefore I take the official version with a grain of salt.

    Even if the official version is correct it does not run counter to the standard way in which the White House operates. Hence it is not evidence of Hayden’s independent from BushCo. Either Hayden shares BushCo.’s values on this, his judgment was clouded by the NSA’s failures on detecting the 9/11 plot, or he has been co-opted by BushCo. This may not make him a toady, but the toady judgement is at least consistent with what is known.

    As far as the “independent” script taking hold goes, note the following from today’s WaPo.

    In the midst of three major crises — the Iraq war, the tensions with Iran and worldwide terrorist attacks — will Hayden have the fortitude to give Bush straightforward intelligence, even if it contradicts the president’s views?

    The consensus among officials who have worked with Hayden is that he possesses a well-developed ability and willingness to deliver contrarian views, albeit diplomatically, as he did during yesterday’s hearing.

    Does anyone doubt that the “officials who have worked with Hayden” talked to the Post as part of an orchestrated campaign by BushCo. to get Hayden confirmed?

  • Not holding him accountable for that is the modus operandi of this administration.-Lance

    On this point you are absolutely correct. By standing by Hayden they now have him by the short hairs. This is one of the benefits BushCo. reaps for keeping screw-ups on staff.

  • It’s like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football when Lucy’s holding it. We keep coming back for more. This one’s over. It was never in doubt.

    Incidentally, Bush’s immigration speech resonated well around the country, and he got a nice bounce in the latest CBS poll, up four points to 35%. Seems to take about ten scandals to drop him by the same amount.

  • Can detainees be held in secret for decades?

    Is “waterboarding” an acceptable interrogation technique?

    Why exactly do the answers to these questions need to be reserved for closed session? They are simple yes or no answers without disclosong any secret information.

  • I’m still blaming Hayden for the Domestic Surveillance Program. Though I can imagine Dick Cheney screaming at him in some meeting demanding to know why the Dickster was nearly killed by UA Flight 93 and how Hayden allowed it to nearly happen.

    I imagine that Cheney is a blustering coward, bullying others when he suffers from such a fright. Such a personality produces a lot of stress, which goes far to explain Cheney’s decaying condition.

  • …without disclosong any secret information.-Mr Furious

    I am guessing from the context that you meant disclosing and not disco song. Don’t worry, given my past record, you’ll have plenty of opportunities to pay me back for that snark in the future.

    I agree on your point. His failure to answer these question is further evidence that he’s not the straight shooter that the standard script tells us he is.

  • I agree on your point

    See it didn’t take long. That should be, I agree with your point.

  • I just can’t get over how weak the Democratic Party comes off on matters like this. Dems signalled their willingness to “rubber stamp” Hayden’s nomination as soon as he was named as Goss’ successor. They throw out a few questions in hearings and get a firm “no comment” to just about every single one of them. And that seems just peachy to every single one of them.

    Yes, the Dems are the minority party. Yes, the Dems don’t control the media, or courts, or White House. And maybe, just maybe, a filibuster or even a simple party-line “no” vote would reflect badly on the party is someone’s eyes. But sweet Jesus, it’s like the Democratic party isn’t even trying. They forfeit every single issue and nomination. I can’t decide if Democrats are wracked by indecision, or, even worse, secretly kind of like what Bush is doing. Either way, there isn’t the anger and indignation these issues deserve from our Democratic Senators. And it’s not being translated into firm opposition.

    Despite what the polls say, I think we’re looking at permanent minority party status for the Democratic Party.

  • “I asked very tough questions.”

    Oh man, that is so rich. I would love to find out just how “tough” his questions got.

  • Comments are closed.