Gen. Michael V. Hayden (AP)
Posted on 05/07/2006 10:38:03 PM PDT by bd476
Republicans and Democrats voiced concerns yesterday about the expected appointment of a military general to replace outgoing CIA Director Porter J. Goss, who resigned abruptly last week.
"There is some real concern about somebody from the military heading the CIA," Senate intelligence committee Chairman Pat Roberts, Kansas Republican, said of Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the Bush administration's reported front-runner for the job.
Mr. Roberts, who will preside over the next spy chief's confirmation hearings, told CNN's "Late Edition" the issue may be resolved quickly if Gen. Hayden were to resign his military commission.
An Air Force officer for nearly 40 years, Gen. Hayden has continued to wear the uniform in multiple intelligence posts, including as head of the National Security Agency (NSA) from 1999 through last year, and in his current job as top deputy to National Intelligence Director John D. Negroponte.
Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican, and a member of the intelligence committee, said that while Gen. Hayden "is very well respected in the community," simply "putting on a striped suit, a pinstriped suit versus an Air Force uniform, I don't think that makes much difference."
Another committee member, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, said the general's experience makes him "a logical choice," but that federal law stipulates a civilian should run the agency. "This isn't the [Defense Intelligence Agency] or the NSA, which are military agencies," said Mrs. Feinstein, who appeared with Mr. Chambliss on ABC.
"It's meant to be a civilian agency," she said. "He might think about resigning his commission if he's going to do this. You can't have the military, I think, control, you know, most of the major aspects of intelligence."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
We don't want a military guy doing a civilian job.
I want someone to finish housecleaning over there.
So my only question is whether or not this guy going to finish the job.
So, far he seems to be scaring the sh-t outa the RATS the most. Maybe they got the most reason.
It's painfully evident that we need full cooperation between all intelligence agencies.
Besides, putting a general in charge is not the same as putting the DoD or any branch of it at the helm.
oolatec wrote: "We don't want a military guy doing a civilian job."
Who else would have the competence and experience of General Hayden. This Air Force General will not be prone to errors in judgment. General Hayden would be a logical and sound choice.
From the article:
"...An Air Force officer for nearly 40 years, Gen. Hayden has continued to wear the uniform in multiple intelligence posts, including as head of the National Security Agency (NSA) from 1999 through last year, and in his current job as top deputy to National Intelligence Director John D. Negroponte..."
His name won't be put in nomination until tomorrow. At that point I bet he resigns his commission and becomes a civilian.
Did you object when Admiral Stansfield Turner ran CIA?
Where were all these Congressiwhiners when a bunch of generals were trying to fir the SecDef a couple of weeks ago?
Exactly; especially when there is so much dissention between the CIA and the Pentagon already.
Lol, I like the way you think.
We want an outstanding military guy running the CIA.
I agree. the libnuts still over there are doing our nation a great favor by leaking classfied information and undermining the prosecution of global war on terrorism. Yeah... military discipline and effeciency would be a disaster for the agency.
Admiral Stansfield Turner? Wasn't he the Carter appointee who effectively gutted and demoralized the agency? It took the Reagan administration eight years to just get a start on undoing the damage Turned did in four.
Mr. Silverback wrote: "Where were all these Congressiwhiners when a bunch of generals were trying to fir the SecDef a couple of weeks ago?"
My best guess would be that they were:
Or perhaps they were busy earning points for this:
There is not a peep at all in this article about the NSA surveillance program which Hayden oversaw. (That program is probably planned to be the centerpiece at the post november elections impeachment banquet thrown by the new Speaker of the House --- Pelosi.)
Hayden vigorously defended the surveillance program publicly it in a speech back in December at the National Press Club. All the politicians know this, but few are wanting to bring this up right now.
The "we can't have a general in charge of the CIA" argument is a super-dooper, double-dyed red herring.
Some people in congress, on both sides of the aisle, want to keep this guy out of CIA but they don't want us to know the real reason why they oppose him.
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.
