Great pick! It works from an agency perspective and it works from a political perspective. Hayden will be no shrinking violet in confirmation and in the discharge of his duties.

I told my husband before I even knew who Bush was going to pick that they need to militarize the CIA.

With all the problems at the CIA and those who love to announce our national security to the world - we need men and women who care more about this country than their ideology. And Thank God the majority of those who are serving us in the military are honorable and believe in this nation! There have been too many problems in the past with the CIA and we can not at this critical time trust some of these people at the CIA anymore.

This is the same person who did not know that the Fourth Amendment stipulates "probable cause" as a legal standard for searches and seizures of property and persons. He claimed to know the Fourth Amendment and insisted that only the lower legal standard of "reasonable" applied to searches.

This is another typical Bush appointee who is niether qualified nor competent.

Wade

This is going to be fun. I love watching republicans tear each other apart.

Looks like Kerry's not the only one:

"Bottom line, I believe he’s the wrong person, the wrong place, at the wrong time. We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time." - Hoekstra

http://thinkprogress.org/hoekstra-fox

By the way - Dubya reached a new low this week. Oh, November is going to be fun.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-08-bush-approval_x.htm

Well Matt it appears Kerry is not the only one...or as Paul Harvey would say, And now for the rest of the story:

Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., said on "Fox News Sunday." "We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time."

Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, who said Hayden's military background would be a "major problem,

Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he would use a Hayden nomination to raise questions about the legality of the program and did not rule out holding it up until he gets answers

Holy crap maf. Great minds do think alike!

Weird.

Okay - enough of this "mental masturbation" before dbog gets on us again ...

Gen. Hayden is going to kick a#% at the CIA and that's what the American people want.

If the libs oppose him for wanting to intercept terrorists' and traitors' communications, by all means let them have their rope.

Ash and maf, let's see if you two can think for yourselves.

Tell us why General Hayden "troubles" you and why having heam head the CIA is a problem.

A civilian should be heading the CIA, not a military man.

Rummy doesn't need to have a greater influence over intelligence than he already has. We don't want to have to wait for Hayden to "retire" when the time (inevitably) comes for him to speak out against the sheer incompetence of Rummy, Dubya & Dr. Evil, aka Shotgun Dick Cheney.

Now, Valence, tell us why you think Hayden is right for the job - other than him "kicking a*s" at the CIA?

Without a lot of time right now, I would say his role as architect of the NSA spying program is a major concern to me. I seriously disagree with spying without going through the courts. Remember I am not disagreeing with a program to target "terrorists" communications. I just want them to go through the courts.

I think you take logical liberties in you assertion that that's what the "American people want"

maf, I haven't read one word of dbog's posts since he made that crack about my wife. I'm kinda funny that way about people who are insulting of my loved ones when I can't crack them in the face.

He is just a huge pedantic bag of wind, kind of a Rush wannabe.

The saddest part is that he can't even own up to it & issue an apology.

Go over to the Gore post & see Parker call him out for his hypocritical stance on name calling. Too funny.

It would be nice if the General in charge of the CIA was a law abiding citizen, which Hayden is not. The Republicans clearly are no longer just the "law and order" party, they have become the militarist party, like the Germans in the 30's and 40's. Militarism is alive and well in the USA, in the form of bush, McCain and the Republican Party. Peace

"A civilian should be heading the CIA, not a military man."

That is not always the case and is insufficient grounds for opposing the post.

Your incoherent "point" about him being too close to Rumsfeld and ready to rail against his approach is also insufficient grounds.

Now, a military guy is what the CIA needs to whip the flabby organization into shape right now. The man is forward leaning, has a broad body of experience in the intelligence business according to his professional history, and simply strikes me as a man ready for business. But you libs go ahead and try to play the boogy-man card again go ahead. You robots are just too predicable.

The only place that your moonbattery gets any play is in the libmedia, as the GOP win of the House, Senate, and the presidency, shows.

Ash, I'm sorry that you don't have a right to a private phone conversation with Osama bin Laden or al Zarqawi. You poor baby.

I have an idea for a bumber sticker:

More lib whining, I have all day long. NOT!

"Ash, I'm sorry that you don't have a right to a private phone conversation with Osama bin Laden or al Zarqawi. You poor baby."

sir: That's not at all what I am insisting on. I want to talk to my sister about her kids with reasonable assurance the CIA is not monitoring my call. Everyone knows my anti Bush sentiment by spying on this blog site.

Why can't the administration go through the courts?

Enough nonsense.
"We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time."
The only criteria people should be considering is whether
a) he can do the job properly, and
b) he WANTS to do the job - the next few months are going to be very hard on him.

Cylinder, Semby, Sirc_Valence,

Agree!

Let's hope Gen Michael Hayden cleans house. Some CIA employees have been too lax with classified information and seem to think the press and others should have free access. We need someone who will come down hard -- very hard -- on anyone who leaks it to the press or to any other persons who do not have a "need to know"!

If I were Gen Hayden, the first thing I would do is send every employee to remedial training on how to handle and protect classified information. Next I would thoroughly investigate and fire -- jail if warranted -- anyone who has leaked any classified information to the press or anyone else who is not authorized access to that information... to include any members of Congress who are not on the list of persons authorized access to the information.

Wade, Barneyg2000, Ash, and maf53,

In case any of you "experts" have not worked with classified information, there are laws, regulations, rules, and policies governing classified information, including handling, securing, releasing, etc. Releasing classified information to the press, Congress, or anyone else who does not have a need to know -- even if they have a clearance -- is not delegated to individuals who may be unhappy with the administration, their supervisors, their agency, ongoing programs, or the classified information itself.

Unauthorized release of classified information is not a "right" of "free speech" guaranteed and protected by the Constitution!

Perhaps some well publicized extended jail time would get that message across to CIA employees and those in other agencies who may be inclined to leak the information.

AAR

This is a great issue to pick a fight with the Demorats and put them on the defensive. Hopefully, the Republicrats in the Senate don't go wobbly. This, tax cuts, a fight over justices and a possible supreme court fight in October are great news.

Why can't the administration go through the courts?

The question isn't why the President cannot apply for FISA warrants - it's clear that in many instances DOJ does just that.

The President cannot be limited in this instance by federal courts for the same reason that federal judges cannot, for instance, require the President to hold the 4ID in reserve at locations inside Kuwait or dictate that ROEs for the Afghanistan Theatre of Operations require hostile fire before lethal force can be employed. These are powers clearly granted by Congress through the US Constitution and the AUMF to the President as Commander-in-Chief.

Having a military person in that position might hopefully help interdepartment relations

Is this a bigger moment for the Decider than that time he caught that really big fish?

"President Bush told a German newspaper his best moment in more than five years in office was catching a big perch in his own lake.

"You know, I've experienced many great moments and it's hard to name the best," Bush told weekly Bild am Sonntag when asked about his high point since becoming president in January 2001."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/08/AR2006050800020.html

Seems that now it wasn't even a perch, but a large mouth bass.

Three new polls have shown Bush's approval rate up between 2 to 7 points. Also, oil prices are below $70.00. The price of gas should now fall between 10 to 25 cents/gallon shortly.

Ash, In the same interview, Bush said that the most interesting fact about George Washington was that he (Bush) read three or four books about him (GW) last year.

Boy that sure is interesting.

Ash, apparently the WH changed the transcript to bass ... because the Decider said the fish he caught was 7.5 lbs, which, if it were a perch, would be twice the size of the world record. So either he's a liar, or the world's greatest fisherman.

Barney, here's the quote. Too funny:

"That's George Washington, the first President, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three -- three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting? People say, so what? Well, here's the "so what.""

The President cannot be limited in this instance by federal courts for the same reason that federal judges cannot, for instance, require.........

cylinder -- right on the money!!

Unauthorized release of classified information is not a "right" of "free speech" guaranteed and protected by the Constitution!

AAR -- also spot on!!

I don't think the youngsters on this blog (I say youngsters because of their incredible naivete. If they're older than 25, then it's just ignorance) quite grasp the gravity of the damage that can be (and has been) caused by the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

Ash,

I know liberals put all of their faith and lawmaking power in judges... in spite of the Constitution.

So, as long as a judge say't it's o.k. to listen in on a conversation between a terrorist (calling from a foreign country) and a person in this country that makes it all okie dokie with you and the liberals, right?

And if a judge says it's o.k. to listen in on a call between you and your sister about her kids, that's all right too? Just as long as a judge approves it, all's right with the world!

Don't you think people other than judges are capable of making decisions? I know liberals would prefer we just abolish Congress, the state legislatures, and local governments and set up a system of judges to make all of our laws and decisions for us, but I don't agree with that form of government, nor do I believe judges are sharper or better at making decisions that other people!

AAR

"I want to talk to my sister about her kids with reasonable assurance the CIA is not monitoring my call."

If your sister's kids are not Ward Churchill, or Sami al Arian or Lynne Stewart acolytes you shouldn't be too worried.

There's no reason for anyone, in general, to waste time trying to hear what you are blabbing on about. Much less the NSA which conducted the program. As the A.G. said, "There is a very detailed process. It can be quite cumbersome at times, quite frankly. It can take days, it can take weeks, it sometimes will take months to get a FISA application ready to go and approved... We don’t have months. We don’t have weeks, we don’t have even days in certain cases to deal with this new kind of threat."

The president's authority regarding the NSA communications interception program is derived from Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

Warantless intercepts for foreign intelligence gathering ARE LEGAL. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (you libs should try reading it sometime) only prohibits UNREASONABLE searches!

If you are making a call to a line to terrorist go-betweens or sleepers, or if they make a call to you, it would be UNREASONABLE for the call not to be intercepted.

Wade, Barneyg2000, Ash, and maf53,

In case any of you "experts" have not worked with classified information,...

AAR, you and I both know that none of these morons have been near classified information. Baloneyg2000 and Ash-face are in the third grade; Wade is a window-licker who comes here and drops unsubstantiated assertions; mf53 comes here and links to old news.

They're all twits, AAR. That is evidenced by the answers they gave when Valence called them out on their criticisms of Gen Hayden. All they had were talking-point answers.

AAR, you seem to have a bit of knowledge about classified information. Were you in the intel field? I was, during my military career. And if I had "leaked" anything like these civilians and congresspersons do to the press, I'd have been more than fired. I'd have had a final military assignment at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas.

Anyway, it's gonna be an interesting confirmation process. I look foward to seeing the usual idiots trying to outfox the expert...

What do the following have in common?

Rear Admiral Sidney M Souers
Lt. General Hoyt Vandenberg
Rear Admiral Roscoe H Hillenkoetter
General Walter Bedell Smith
Vice Admiral William F Raborn Jr.
Admiral Stansfield Turner

They were all nominated to be CIA director by a DEMOCRAT! No active military person has ever been nominated by a Republican until now. The hypocrisy on the left is stunning!

*UNREASONABLE searches*

That is what the constitutions says. But, letting Peter Goss or General Hayden, or Dick Cheney decide what is ureasonable is, well unreasonable. It is like letting the foxes guard the hen house. Do you want Hugh Hefner deciding what is obscene?

The right of speech and the right to privacy is what this country was founded on. I am not going to soil the names of those early patriots by letting the cabal of evil take them away.

Ash,
Since I don't read German, and since Sonntag hasn't provided the English text of the interview, could you translate "Big mouth Bass" and "Perch" to German for me?

Ash,
I missed that "privacy" thing in high school civics; can you point me to that right in the Constitution?

Ash-licker,

Who's "Peter Goss?"

You dumbash...

Rathaven, you are obviously an unenlightened cretin. The freedom-fighters who recently slit Atwar Bahtjat's throat have a constitutional right to talk to Ash without being worried that the evil Bush cabal is snooping on them.

Bush-hitler may be using the government against his political opponents! You know, the way the Clintons mysteriously obtained the FBI files of 340 of their political opponents, accidentally stashing them in a safe, without anything approaching Bush-hitler's scruples and checks in the terrorist intercept program.

("God punishes Conservatives by making them argue with fools.")

Or the "privacy rights" of Billy Dale?

CJ..thanks..now I don't have to type the list..and Oh, maf and Ash....why don't you two just get a room?????????

I don't remember mentioning the constitution when I was talking about one of the stimuli for revolution. You may or may not remember that the constitution came after the revolution.

Hey keefer I thought you forgot about me! Of course I meant Pervis Goss, but I always count on you to proofread my stuff and correct any oversights.

How are things in the toll booth, dude? I'm way to claustraphobic for a job like that. I realize that conservatise live in very small worlds, so I guess that's why you can do it.

"could you translate "Big mouth Bass" and "Perch" to German for me?"

No.

The only German I know is Sieg Heil! That's because I'm a Nazi Hunter.

Boy you guys can get a little touchy! It was meant to lighten things up on this blog! Jeez! Wouldn't a perch that size be pretty remarkable.

Lighten up. I'm trying to.

I had to laugh at my Senator Frankenstein saying the following, "There's a bill that prohibits a military official from serving in a civilian position...well the "bill" was never passed.

The Demorats have fallen into a trap.

spook' I guess I fit into your ignorant category because I'm over 25 (twice as a matter of fact)

the gravity of the damage that can be (and has been) caused by the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

I guess I can't understand. At least not as well as...say Valerie Plame can even if it's authorized.

Why on earth should the head of the CIA be a civilian?

More crap from the left. How about a little walk down memory lane.

By the way, nearly every CIA Director we've had has a military background sans a few.

The following became CIA Director DIRECTLY from their military positions:

CIA Director Sidney Souers 1946...he became CIA Director while he was with the Navy where as a Rear Admiral

CIA Director Hoyt Vandenburg 1946-1947...US Air Force. Upon leaving the CIA became Chief of Staff of the USAF.

CIA Director Roscoe Hillenkotter 1947-50...he became CIA Director while he was with the Navy where as a Rear Admiral

CIA Director Walter Smith 1950-53...he became CIA Director while he was with the Army where as Commanding General of the First Army

CIA Director Stansfield Turner 1977-81...he became CIA Director while he was the Commander in Chief, Allied Forces Southern Europe (NATO)

keefer,

I worked almost 30 years as a civilian for the Army, both in CONUS (various locations) and Germany, with some time in Hawaii and Korea. I worked extensively with the other services as well, including DoD level. I even worked six months in San Francisco and survived the tour... including one moderate earthquake!

One of my physics professor in college actually worked on the Manhattan Project building America's first atomic bombs. Talk about security, you wouldn't believe some of the stories he told -- double locked doors which he never knew if someone would come back to unlock, machine guns lowered in his face, and more. He was a total nervous wreck after working on that project and afraid even to step off the curb if a car was running anywhere near him. He needed special permission to travel virtually anywhere.

I worked in many different fields and areas from policy to automated systems, but not intel; although, I did work around people who did. We treated all classified information like America's security and defense depended on it, which it did. We were given constant training and briefings on security regulations, controlling, processing, and handling classified information. I'm sure you are well aware of the drill. If there was even the slightest hint of a "possible" compromise -- even FOUO or confidential -- we had a thorough investigation. And if secret or above was involved... that was something else!

As you said, if we had leaked classified information like we are seeing today, we could have expected them to throw the book at us. If someone had leaked information about programs like the NSA terror surveillance program to the press or unauthorized members of Congress, we wouldn't need to wait for Congress or anyone else to tell us to initiate a thorough investigation. I would have expected the guilty party to be fired and likely get jail time. I doubt there would have been any plea bargains either!

Liberals are all fired up about a military being in charge of NSA. Does that mean it would be o.k. if Gen Hayden retired tomorrow? When a military member retires, does that clear their past military history and experience from the books and make them a "pure" civilian? Do liberals know how many government civilians have served in the military? How many are retired military? How many are retired officers, including generals? Should they be removed from their civilian positions because of their military service? The fact is, their military service and training is more often than not a benefit to their civilian jobs!

I worked for, with, and supervised both military and civilians. I worked for and briefed more than my share of generals and general officer level civilians, including four stars. A good strong military general could do some real house cleaning in the NSA as long as he isn't worried about what's done on his "watch" just to earn another star.

Retired Spook,

You are right. Today's "youngsters" are very naive and do not begin to comprehend the gravity of the damage that can be (and has been) caused by the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Most are in that category of not having learned from history so they are forced to relive it. I just don't want them to destroy America in the process!

I wouldn't trust most of today's "kids" with any classified information. The comments from the our liberal commenters show why liberals can not be trusted with America's defense secrets.

But, what can you expect after being influenced and brainwashed by their liberal professors who openly express their anti-American opinions. We were taught to be patriotic and not do anything to support the enemy.

AAR

Can anyone tell me how Valerie Plame's 2.5 million dollar book deal has damaged her? How many years of wages is that for a desk jockey at the C.I.A.?

Isn't it amazing? The left loves six retired generals when they oppose Bush. It got the impression they would be accepted at the head of anything, by the left. Now, one isn't good enough for the CIA, regardless of qualifications.

I guess he didn't come out strong enough against Bush before.

Ash says:
" Remember I am not disagreeing with a program to target "terrorists" communications. I just want them to go through the courts."

OK, Ash, you clearly haven't been in Colorado long enough for those liberal cobwebs to be aired out of your fuzzy little brain. But I will try again. See if you can answer this:

Scenario: We have the telephone numbers of several known terrorists overseas. We listened in on enough of their overseas conversations to know they are plotting against the U.S. We now make a point to listen in on all their telephone conversations.

One morning one of them calls a number which is located within the United States.

What would you have us do? Go to court to ask for a warrant to listen in on that conversation? Hang up because the number dialed is in the U.S.? Of course not, to both of those questions. To do either one would be silly, and could put thousands or millions of lives at risk.

No, within that two- or three-minute window, the duration of that phone call, we will listen in. As we should. As we must.

If the conversation yields information on a domestic crime being committed by the person in the United States, the information gleaned from the intercept cannot be used. It was gained without a warrant. If the conversation yields information about a pending attack, that information can be used to interfere with that attack.

But the thing is, Ash, if anything of value is learned in that intercept, the intercept is then taken to a judicial review. A COURT, Ash!

Now, if you can think of any way that tiny window of opportunity can possibly allow for a court order, or warrant, to be issued prior to the intercept, please do let us know.

Get a warrant for the number which was called? Sure, in case it is ever called again. In a world of rapidly changing numbers and throw-away phones, it is highly possible that that number would never be called again. But sure, we could get a warrant for it, just in case.

Also, you seem to have a comic-book-like theory of how these intercepts work. You seem to envision all these spooks huddled in their headsets, listening in to Aunt Bea talk about her pie crust secrets. But in fact most of it is computerized, a form of 'data mining' in which certain words or phrases red-flag a conversation, for further review. So unless Aunt Bea makes her pie crust with plastique, uses det cord, plans to take her pie to the Empire State Building, and talks about Cousin Mohammed, the chances are that even if her call was monitored, nothing would be done with it, and no human ears would ever hear the call. But if she does attract attention, through the computer, then her call would be subjected to a judicial review. That is, a COURT.

So, Ash and fellow travelers, please do educate us on how, exactly, we can posssibly arrange for court orders for those types of calls........

stever says:
"It would be nice if the General in charge of the CIA was a law abiding citizen, which Hayden is not. "

That's a pretty strong statement, stevie....can you back it up? Oh, and don't even bother to drag out that old mantra about the NSA intercepts being 'illegal'. That kind of intercept has been declared legal and constitutional by way too many courts, including the Supreme Court, for you to keep reguritating that old claim.

You people amaze me. You don't even care how stupid you sound, how insane you come across. You will eagerly, gleefully, spout the most bizarre rubbish---just to see your name onscreen, I guess. But sheesh, you'd think that after a while you'd at least want to be at least partly right at least part of the time.

"What would you have us do? Go to court to ask for a warrant to listen in on that conversation?"

No, you have 72 hours after your wiretap to apply for a warrant. Do your wiretap but withing 72 hours apply for the warran. And I believe they should do that whether they find anything of value or not. Alms, I am against giving shady men in a shady department a blank check to eavesdrop whenever they want. Trust but verify to use an old cliche.

BTW I came to Colorado because of its liberal leanings. You want conservative values? Go to Missouri, which I left because it was so backward. They came close to make Chrisitanity the official religion of the state. They gave the country John Ashcroft. Need I go on?

"But the thing is, Ash, if anything of value is learned in that intercept, the intercept is then taken to a judicial review. A COURT, Ash!"

Cool. But as I stated before I want all of them reported for judicial revue.

Interesting, isn't it that Ash considers the people working in our intelligence community to be "shady men in a shady department..." yet I hear no sense of the same feeling towards the al Qaeda operatives around the world who explictly wish to bomb us into oblivion. Apparently, moving to Colorado where it is "less backward' than Missouri had an odd effect upon him. His post sound like he's more afraid of these "shady men in a shady department" than he is of the people who, by their acts, have proven that they are eager to decimate our population...

Thanks for letting the mask fall of, Ash. Your words speak volumes for what you DON'T assert...

Ash,
I know I'm late to the dance here, but the 72 hour rule still requires probable cause. The AG would have to swear that he had probable cause to listen beforehand, not after the phone call yielded the information.

You’re 50? Jeeze, you’re old!

Rathaven,
Perch is Flussbarsche, and sea bass is seebarsche, black or small mouth bass is schwarzbarsch. I'm not familier with large mouth bass in German. either way the translation problem may be in the barsche part of the word. I haven't seen the article you speak of.

Are these liberals still complaining about less than 1000 wire taps against possible terrorists?

Are they STILL COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS.

Good God!

"Are these liberals still complaining about less than 1000 wire taps against possible terrorists?"

The problem between our positions is that you accept the figure of 1000 wiretaps.

Ash,
We know that there are much more, but they're all political enemies; liberals and such. I read the transcripts of you and your sister talking about that cookie recipe; and frankly, I can see why the Administration want's to keep you under surveillance, you and Barney are threats to National Security.

Wait, you … and … Barney? Has anyone else noticed that we’ve never seen the two of them together? I’ll alert the black helicopters.

In the meantime, lie down, we wouldn’t want you to hurt yourself.

Thanks Bane,
By the way, my nom-de'net, when pronounced in German "Rat Haben" or "haben sie rat" translates to have (some) advice.

A good strong military general could do some real house cleaning in the NSA as long as he isn't worried about what's done on his "watch" just to earn another star.

Exactly--Gen Hayden isn't bucking for another star; he's an intel guy who has the credentials to do the job.

Of course I meant Pervis Goss,

You're kidding, right, Ash-hole? Pervis?
And the toll booth is kickin', Ash-breath. The Mrs. and I made 130 grand last year...

You’re 50? Jeeze, you’re old!

C'mon, bane; I'll be 50 on Sunday. Go easy on us "codgers!"

keefer,
50 on Mother's day? Priceless! I sincerely hope your mother is still with us to celebrate the day with you. Btw, I've got four years on you, boyo.

I was just reading Gen Hayden's long list of accomplishments; I agree he shouldn't be the Director, he should run for President!

Well, I was expecting a certain response from some people on here.

Several weeks ago, I suggested nominating a retired general to head up the Department of Defense. I was flat out called "UN-AMERICAN". Well, now our esteemed President nominated an active general to head up the CIA. I guess now you people who in so many words cussed me out and called me a traitor are now torn between 2 things. Are you a hypocrite or are you and the President as UN-AMERICAN as I was for suggesting nearly the same thing...a military general in a civilian role???? You tell me, I can't wait to hear.

You're right Ash, I don't accept them. I hope we are wiretapping 50,000 terrorist suspects quite frankly.

But hey, let's make sure these guys get a fair shake....the lefty way.

Do you want me wiretapped, WarBoy?

Hey rat: can see why the Administration want's to keep you under surveillance, you and Barney are threats to National Security.

BOO

The Mrs. and I made 130 grand last year...

Wow the Mrs makes $110 grand. Sounds like a keeper keefer

Ash,
Okay, your not a threat to national security, but if either of you reproduce the national IQ will drop precipitously.