Bush Turns to Gen. Hayden to Lead CIA

WASHINGTON - 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 ran.

Republican and Democratic critics also questioned the wisdom of putting a military officer in charge of the civilian spy agency.

"Mike Hayden is supremely qualified for this position," Bush said in the Oval Office, with Hayden at his side. Without mentioning Hayden's critics or their objections, the president said: "He knows the intelligence community from the ground up."

If confirmed, Hayden would replace Porter Goss, who resigned under pressure Friday.

To balance the CIA between military and civilian leadership, the White House plans to move aside the agency's No. 2 official, Vice Admiral Albert Calland III, who took over as deputy director less than a year ago, two senior administration officials said. Other personnel changes also are likely, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the changes are not ready to announce.

Talk of Hayden's nomination rekindled debate over the administration's domestic surveillance program, which Hayden used to oversee as the former head of the National Security Agency.

"There's probably no post more important in preserving our security and our values as people than the CIA," Hayden said.

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she has found Hayden to be "straightforward and willing to share his candid professional judgments — even when they differed" from those of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"Nevertheless, to send a signal of independence from the Pentagon, General Hayden may want to consider retiring from the Air Force," she said. "That would put to rest questions about whether an active duty military officer should lead the CIA at this time."

Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., had said in advance of the announcement that he would use Hayden's nomination to raise questions about the legality of the domestic surveillance program and did not rule out holding it up until he gets answers. "I'm not going to draw any lines in the sand until I see how the facts evolve," Specter said on Fox.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (news, bio, voting record), R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he was concerned that Hayden's nomination would detract from the real issue of intelligence reform.

"The debate in the Senate may end up being about the terrorist surveillance program and not about the future of the CIA or the intelligence community, which is exactly where the debate needs to be," Hoekstra said on CBS' "The Early Show."

"This is about whether we still have alignment and agreement between the executive branch and Congress as to where intelligence reform needs to go," he said.

Hoekstra's sentiment was echoed by Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss (news, bio, voting record) of Georgia, who said that Hayden's military background would be a "major problem," and several Democrats who made the rounds of the Sunday television talk shows. Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., said Hayden could leave agents with the impression that the CIA has been "just gobbled up by the Defense Department."

Bush noted that Hayden was unanimously approved by the Senate for his current job — the nation's No. 2 intelligence official.

Bracing for a tough nomination fight, the White House took the unusual step of pre-empting Bush's announcement with a defensive media blitz. "We think the issue is getting the best man for the job and the president has determined that Mike Hayden is the best man for the job," Hadley told The Associated Press. He also appeared on morning news shows before Bush formally announced his nomination of Hayden.

"He'll be reporting to the president of the United States, not Don Rumsfeld," the secretary of defense, Hadley said, adding that other military officers have led the CIA, Hadley said. "So the precedents are clear."

White House counselor Dan Bartlett said Hayden would be the fifth CIA chief in uniform. "He has been viewed as a non-comformist and an independent thinker," Bartlett said.

Hadley said that any nominee to lead the CIA would face questions about the controversial domestic surveillance program by the National Security Agency and that Hayden, the former director of the agency, was the best man to answer those questions.

If Hayden were confirmed, military officers would run all the major spy agencies, from the ultra-secret National Security Agency to the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Some lawmakers, like Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record) of California, suggested that Hayden might think about resigning his military post if he were going to head the CIA. But Hoekstra and Chambliss were among those who said that wouldn't solve the problem.

"Just resigning commission and moving on, putting on a striped suit, a pinstriped suit versus an Air Force uniform, I don't think makes much difference," Chambliss said on ABC's "This Week."

"In all due respect to my colleagues — and I obviously respect their views — General Hayden is really more of an intelligence person than he is an Air Force officer," McCain said on "Face the Nation" on CBS. "I think that we should also remember that there had been other former military people who have been directors of the CIA."

John Lehman, head of the Sept. 11 investigative commission, told CNN: "Mike Hayden is one of the best military intelligence officers we've ever had."

I think this is a great move and will result in less political manipulation of the office by both sides. Of course, we all know the sniveling liberals despise the military and this should be a nice present for them to occupy their useless time.

This is all about moving the State Department wannabes, the Democrat activists and the loose talkers out of the intelligence community. The "he's a general" and the "domestic eavedropping" angles are distractors used to justify opposition without stating the primary cause of that opposition: that the Democrats and the press may lose their "agents" within the CIA.

"Republican and Democratic critics also questioned the wisdom of putting a military officer in charge of the civilian spy agency."

This is bunk and lies. The CIA has had military men as past Directors. Four Navy Admirals and one Army General. Most of the civilian directors have served in our armed forces at some point in their lives prior to their CIA job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_Central_Intelligence

He's a good man and an outstanding leader, with beacoups intelligence experience from the lowest tactical level of collection, evaluation, and use....to the highest national capabilities (and limitations) of intelligence applications to national policy decision making.

I guarantee that those "agency" employees who really care about their country above politics and even above self...are going to feel supported and vindicated by General Hayden's advocacy and leadership, especially with war upon us and more crises looming ahead. Those that squeal about his uniform should tell us where US national interests draw the line between "civilian" collection and use of intelligence and "military" intelligence ... and when the CIA ever stayed out of "military" intelligence.

And why John Deutsch was a better man for the job than Mike Hayden.

If Bush had chosen a military armchair critic like Anthony Zinni, Adm Crowe or even recycled ol' Stansfield Turner redux, the same "critics" would be effusive.

As has been discussed on similar threads. The bottom line is. GWB put Goss in for the initial cleanup. Exposing the Queen Bee and her drones. Break up the tight ring.
Now Hayden moves in and starts leading the CIA. He is new man on the block. He comes in with clean slate. After all he was not the one that started the house cleaning process.
Goss was the head chopper. Goss did his part. Hayden now will unify the CIA in a new direction. GWB knew exactly what he wanted to accomplish. And now it is clear in my mind why he did not just "appoint new people", earlier on. He had a plan. The plan had to include getting rid of leakers and those that operated at mid managment levels and below that have screwed up the agency for so long. The good ones will stay. The mal-contents will be asked to retire. Fresh blood will be brought in and managed under new managment.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.