Replies

"I have essentially responded to this idea in Post 16."
I believe I understand some of the ramifications you and a few others have voiced concerning Hayden's appointment.
But on equal terms one could say. OK. He was pretty much into a lot of Intel work that borders on what the CIA would do. The NSA and DIA (we cannot forget what Able Danger's mission was), really interlaced with civilian/domestic affairs to some degree.
What I should have stressed in my few comments is I do believe if he where to take over, he must strictly adhere to CIA's rules of the road. I did not mean to imply I believe he should modify their mission assignments, nor modify how they do their business.
What I would hope he would do is carry on where Goss left off. Continue to weed out leakers, and political hacks. Force the mental set on providing quality analysis, build up areas in the CIA that now lack, e.g. foreign operatives. In short put the CIA back on track. I don't think he would bring a mental set with him that say a Army or Marine high ranking Intel Officer might bring to the job. Running the NSA, tells me he already knows much of what is expected by a civilian arm of the Intellegience community.
Perhaps I am quite off base in my thinking but that is what I basically believe. Of course I may be quite naive in this area.
As far as my replie concerning the vine drying up. I simply can see it might remotely be considered. But somehow I don't think this is the case. The CIA is required. Modifying it greatly to infuse into the military Intellegience communities would be a mistake. And I don't think this is the intention in offering Hayden the post. With things being as they are, perhaps GWB really feels this guy will do a good job at the CIA, both as policeman and championing the CIA role. I for one would rather have a real good intellegience officer in place then some slick politician type or a bean counter. And perhaps it is that which drives GWB to see the general's resume as a close fit for this position.