Gen. Michael V. Hayden:first step in a planned overhaul to permanently change the mission and functions of the legendary spy agency
UPDATE via California Conservative…Sen. Feinstein Supports Michael Hayden
“We need a respected, competent intelligence professional who can command respect and manage this growing agency. Based on what I know so far, General Michael Hayden appears to fit that bill,” Said Feinstein
I think that most of us would agree that our intelligence agencies are in need of a major overhaul. And if we are to be successful, the first step is the CIA. We became fully aware of this on September 11, 2001, but the evidence was right in front of us on February 26, 1993, June 25, 1996, August 7, 1998, and October 12, 2000. Has it gotten better? We really have no way of knowing. This article from the NYT’s, states that by putting Hayden in is only the first step. It may be the first step, but it is huge.
If I am to believe what the Times states as fact: Goss was forced out for resisting change, then it looks like the agency needs to be cleaned from the top to the bottom. Never have I see the amount of leaks coming from this agency. Those leaks, imo, are a cry for the agency to be over hauled!
Case in point:
“There will be a serious change to the structure of the agency,” said one intelligence official, who like other C.I.A. officials and administration officials who were interviewed were granted anonymity because they are not allowed to speak publicly about intelligence matters.
Who granted them the immunity? The New York Times!
>-
May 8, 2006 - 09:28 AM on May 8th, 2006
Hayden Chosen to Lead CIA
Bush officially named General Michael Hayden (of my beloved Air Force) to succeed Porter Goss as head of the CIA. It was widely reported this weekend that he was at the top of the list, so this is no surprise.
May 8, 2006 - 11:32 AM on May 8th, 2006
Putting aside our partisan blinders for a moment, can I get anyone here to agree with me that having a Military officer head the CIA seems like a bad idea?
Am I the only one here who thinks this particular agency should be headed by civilians only?
May 8, 2006 - 11:45 AM on May 8th, 2006
SF- I think at one time that worked, but I don’t feel the CIA can continue to operate as it is running. Never have we seen the leaks coming from an agency that is supposed to be top secret. This agency needs to come into the 21st century, and do what it is supposed to do. Gather information and thwart attacks. I will not put the blame on any POTUS for the shape that this agency is in. I think that it has been a systemic failure for quite some time and I think that we didn’t keep as close of an eye on it as we should have.
Hayden is a 4 star General, but he will be acting as head of the CIA. And I do believe that he will bring the dicipline and knowledge to the job that has been lacking…
May 8, 2006 - 11:46 AM on May 8th, 2006
are you aware that the CIA was formed with military generals in charge?
take a history lesson, SF.
judging by our “civilian” leadership…I’ll take ACTIVE military in the CIA…
May 8, 2006 - 11:46 AM on May 8th, 2006
p.s.- I understand he and Rummie are not the best of pals!
May 8, 2006 - 11:47 AM on May 8th, 2006
it’s easy for you to be so critical..having never served in the military.
May 8, 2006 - 12:00 PM on May 8th, 2006
“are you aware that the CIA was formed with military generals in charge?
take a history lesson, SF.”
I am aware that the first four CIA Directors were military officers…but that was over 50 years ago, and much of the nature of the CIA has changed since then.
May 8, 2006 - 12:18 PM on May 8th, 2006
“it’s easy for you to be so critical..having never served in the military.”
It’s not that I’m critical of the Military here, I just don’t know if this role is appropriate for them.
It’s been over 50 years since an active duty officer has ran the show over there at the CIA.
Not being critical, just using critical thinking. (!)
May 8, 2006 - 12:48 PM on May 8th, 2006
SF **** ****, name the heads of the CIA under Clinton. I believe there was one Admiral in there.
I know you can’t be honest because you are a liberal. What you are looking for in a CIA director is a Bush hating Democfrat who will give cover to leakers and the scheeming Valerie Plames of the CIA.
May 8, 2006 - 12:53 PM on May 8th, 2006
“SF **** ****, name the heads of the CIA under Clinton. I believe there was one Admiral in there”
Robert M. Gates November 6, 1991 – January 20, 1993
R. James Woolsey February 5, 1993 – January 10, 1995
John M. Deutch May 10, 1995 – December 15, 1996
George J. Tenet July 11, 1997 – July 11, 2004
PCD, nope.
May 8, 2006 - 12:58 PM on May 8th, 2006
Perhaps it is best, in this time of war of unkown extent and duration, to have the Military in charge. They seem to be the only ones who can get the job without the politization that has occurred with the civilians.
The leakers have screwed tings up so badly that they have ruined it; we can’t trust them at this time.
May 8, 2006 - 01:18 PM on May 8th, 2006
Yeah, I mean, we are only AT WAR, for christ’s sake..why would we possibly want military leaders fighting it?
May 8, 2006 - 01:36 PM on May 8th, 2006
SF
All 4 of those boobs you listed should be shackled and caned for their colassal failure to stop a dozen attacks against the US between 1992 and 2001
May 8, 2006 - 01:53 PM on May 8th, 2006
Woolsey, shyster. That’s worse.
May 8, 2006 - 02:22 PM on May 8th, 2006
Just an FYI for you guys, Democrats are NOT the only ones calling this a wrong move;
Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra (MI), is the Chairman of the House Intel Committee…
and Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, Chairman of the Senate Intel Committee…
Rep. Hoekstra said “We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time”
Peejz, you’re from MI, tell me if this guy is a wacko liberal or not.
May 8, 2006 - 02:26 PM on May 8th, 2006
Maybe Kofi Annan should head the CIA…would that make you happy, SF?
May 8, 2006 - 02:47 PM on May 8th, 2006
Maybe SF Liberal should head the CIA.
May 8, 2006 - 02:52 PM on May 8th, 2006
um…….
I don’t even know how to respond to that one…:roll:
May 8, 2006 - 02:54 PM on May 8th, 2006
just say ok.
May 8, 2006 - 04:17 PM on May 8th, 2006
“Already, General Hayden’s appointment has provoked opposition from members of Congress from both parties, including some of the president’s allies. In an interview yesterday with The New York Sun, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Peter Hoekstra, a Republican from Michigan, said had he known Porter Goss was leaving his position as head of the CIA, he would have included language in the intelligence reauthorization bill prohibiting an active member of the military from becoming the CIA director.”
“Putting a military person into this role is just a bad idea,” Mr. Hoekstra said. “I think you will have the CIA folks in D.C. and the CIA folks around the world see this as the last straw. I am not sure you will see resignations. But people who have chosen the CIA as a career, I don’t think ever envisioned it being run by a general.”
May 8, 2006 - 04:44 PM on May 8th, 2006
7- Where is the critical thinking in the statement?
6- Who changed the direction of the CIA? Why was it changed? Are we better for the change?
14- Pete is a very good Congressman and he is a hell of a nice guy. I, and others, feel he is pandering on this issue due to the Nov. election. I disagree with him, but I still have a lot of respect for him. He was also said to be in the running and told the POTUS no. Second time since GWB has been in office btw.
Pete may have an R by his official title, but when he was sent to DC, he went as a representative of all. I really can’t say enough good about him. His is the least partisan person you could ever have the pleasure of calling a representative.
19“I think you will have the CIA folks in D.C. and the CIA folks around the world see this as the last straw. I am not sure you will see resignations. But people who have chosen the CIA as a career, I don’t think ever envisioned it being run by a general.”
I saw 9/11 as the last straw of intelligence failures. We were no where near up to speed. I don’t worry when I hear of people threatening to quit. I welcome it. They can and will be replaced!
May 8, 2006 - 04:53 PM on May 8th, 2006
Peejz, exactly what I was thinking. have the changes over the years at the CIA been beneficial? I’d argue that they have not.
Let the leakers quit. Saves the trouble of throwing them out.
May 8, 2006 - 05:41 PM on May 8th, 2006
“7- Where is the critical thinking in the statement?”
I was saying that I wasn’t being critical of the military, and was just using critical thinking about having a military man in charge of the CIA…
“6- Who changed the direction of the CIA? Why was it changed? Are we better for the change?”
???
“14- I, and others, feel he is pandering on this issue due to the Nov. election.”
How so?
“Pete may have an R by his official title, but when he was sent to DC, he went as a representative of all. I really can’t say enough good about him. His is the least partisan person you could ever have the pleasure of calling a representative.”
Did you work for him ever? I worked for Republican Joe Knollenberg back in High School, before I became a Liberal.
Mike Kilo, you’ll get a kick out of this: I once wore a Megadeth shirt to a republican fundraiser I was invited to for doing campaign work for Rep. Knollenberg and got kicked out for not being up to dress…torn jeans, long hair, megadeth T-Shirt…
May 8, 2006 - 05:42 PM on May 8th, 2006
“I don’t worry when I hear of people threatening to quit. I welcome it. They can and will be replaced!”
By whom? Career military?
There are more than a few Republicans concerned with this development…this isn’t a Left or Right thing.
May 8, 2006 - 05:49 PM on May 8th, 2006
22- you made the statement in 6 that the CIA had changed in 50 years, hence my questions.
7- I asked where your critical thinking was in #7. You state that you object to a military person, but there is nothing to tell us why.
14-in this case we feel he is pandering out of fear for the the House elections. I am well aware of what I wrote, hence I wrote it.
No, I have not worked for him. I have met him at various functions.
May 8, 2006 - 05:56 PM on May 8th, 2006
23- What are you asking? Are you asking if I think some spooks will quit and be replaced by military, the answer is no. They will be replaced by new people that want to work on the team for the same goal. Not prima donnas that think the agency will sink without them.
May 8, 2006 - 07:36 PM on May 8th, 2006
“22- you made the statement in 6 that the CIA had changed in 50 years, hence my questions.”
Well, for starters, there’s the whole Bay of Pigs thing…
“7- I asked where your critical thinking was in #7. You state that you object to a military person, but there is nothing to tell us why.”
It is historicly a civilian agency. It’s unprecedented and possibly dangerous to put military leadership in a civilian intelligence agency.
Will congress still have oversight of CIA operations, or would those operations be under Pentagon control, and not subject to civilian review?
“14-in this case we feel he is pandering out of fear for the the House elections. I am well aware of what I wrote, hence I wrote it.”
Yes thank you, but I’m wondering why you feel he has to pander the anti-bush crowd for this upcoming election by opposing Bushs nominee for the post.
Could it be that Bush is so unpopular in the Michigan 2nd District that a Republican has to oppose the president to get a few extra votes?
May 8, 2006 - 08:01 PM on May 8th, 2006
What is “possibly dangerous” about a general in charge of CIA? The CIA is an open book compared to the NSA. WHo do you think has been running the NSA for all these years? What do you think the evil conservative general will do with his unlimited power SF?
May 8, 2006 - 09:48 PM on May 8th, 2006
26-Well, for starters, there’s the whole Bay of Pigs thing: You mean the Kennedy’s?
Yes I know it has been a civilian agency. It has had a dismal record in the past 40 years. Where are you getting that Congress will not have oversight? I think a better question would be has Congress been overseeing the CIA in the last 40 years? What exactly is so dangerous about a General running the CIA? I have yet to see anything other than it has been a civilian org..well I think that civilian org has had too much autonomy. I don’t think they have had much oversight.
Where did I say he was pandering to anti-Bush? I said he was pandering, imo. And he is not up for re-election this year. I think he is trying to appease the swing voters.
May 9, 2006 - 06:48 AM on May 9th, 2006
22. Megadeth T-shirt should be MANDATORY.
May 9, 2006 - 09:51 AM on May 9th, 2006
Here is the flip side to SF’s arguement against Hayden:
Despite such qualms, intelligence specialists say Hayden’s appointment may turn out to be a clever move by intelligence czar John D. Negroponte to help him assert authority over Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his burgeoning intelligence bureaucracy. Negroponte, who by law oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, has expressed frustration that he has not made more progress in managing the agencies under the Defense Department’s jurisdiction.
May 9, 2006 - 12:08 PM on May 9th, 2006
“What exactly is so dangerous about a General running the CIA?”
An active duty officer is loyal to the commander in chief.
A civilian head of the CIA would be loyal to the public, and to congress.
There is a conflict of interest when you have a non-retired military man head the CIA.
Again, it’s not just Liberals like me saying this is a bad idea. PLENTY of Repubs, including some powerful Intel Committee members from the House and Senate…
Most importantly, Gen. Hayden wrote the controversial warrentless spy program for Bush…
May 9, 2006 - 08:20 PM on May 9th, 2006
“Most importantly, Gen. Hayden wrote the controversial warrentless spy program for Bush:” Please don’t insult our intelligence and try to say you are on the American side. If you would put aside what you call “partisan blinders”, you would look into the FACTS of the program. But I think your PLO member in cognito.
May 9, 2006 - 10:01 PM on May 9th, 2006
If I were placed in charge of the CIA, first thing I wpould do would be to root out and dump the Clintonistas. I mean the worms, the weasels, the boll-weevils.
They would be sent to Al Qaeda for use in beheading PR videos. Or maybe to Castro’s worker’s paradise to harvest sugar cane.
May 10, 2006 - 12:46 AM on May 10th, 2006
>
Wrong. Adm Stansfield Turner under President Carter.
>
Wrong. The CIA is a branch of the Executive branch of the government. Not the legislative. That’s how we got into trouble in the first place with the CIA, too many idiots looking at working there as a stepping stone to other more political positions like congressional staffs rather than looking at it as being a position of trust to protect the US from foreign powers.
>
Explain how being the person responsible for a decision is a conflict of interest. Actually I’d much rather have the person who is going to advocate the sending of troops into harms way in charge of collecting and analyzing intelligence than some unaccountable civil servant who may have a political axe to grind with a President and be more than willing to use the blood of US Service members to do so.
The CIA was originally extablished because Congress felt that due to communication and inter service rivalries, the military had failed to detect and stop the Pearl Harbor attack. While this was later wholly discounted as a witch hunt, the agency had been created from the remnants of the Office of Strategic Studies from WWII. The OSS was a military branch that performed the functions currently done by Delta, and Seals as well as R+D in covert weapons and communications equipment.
May 10, 2006 - 06:31 AM on May 10th, 2006
In case you missed the update: Sen. Feinstein Supports Michael Hayden
“We need a respected, competent intelligence professional who can command respect and manage this growing agency. Based on what I know so far, General Michael Hayden appears to fit that bill,”Said Feinstein