• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Next Head of the CIA?

J

jlmadyson

Platinum Member
The Next Head of the CIA?

President George W. Bush stunned Washington on Friday by accepting the resignation of CIA Director Porter J. Goss, and Republican sources told TIME that the White House plans to name his replacement on Monday: Air Force General Michael V. Hayden, who as Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence has been a visible and aggressive defender of the administration's controversial eavesdropping program. His nomination is sure to reignite the battle over the program on Capitol Hill, where one House Democrat promises "a partisan food fight" during the confirmation process.

Though Hayden, who has a close rapport with Vice President Cheney, has not been formally offered the job, he is the leading candidate and the announcement is planned for Monday at the White House, the sources said. The President frequently extends a formal offer immediately before an announcement, to cut down on leaks and allow for last-minute developments.

White House officials had hoped to announce Goss's departure and Hayden's nomination at the same time but Goss, who resigned under pressure, balked at that kind of choreography. "He said, 'If we're going to do this, let's go ahead and do it,'' a senior administration official said.

Bush and Goss appeared together along with Negroponte in the Oval Office after lunch Friday in a terse, three-minute ceremony announced with just 50 minutes' notice. A senior administration official said Negroponte, with the blessing of the White House, began talking with Goss about leaving a couple of weeks ago. "The creation of the DNI has been a transformational and very tumultuous time for the intelligence community and particularly the CIA," the senior administration official said. "When you ask somebody to do so much transformational change, often it makes sense to let somebody then take the agency forward from there."

Goss, a former Republican House member from Florida who was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, formally offered his resignation at about 9:30 a.m. Friday in the office of Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, following a National Security Council meeting. Goss then talked with Bush before the departure announcement, where they were seated in front of the fireplace the White House uses for photo opportunities with visiting world leaders. Although Bush put his hand on Goss's arm as journalists were herded in, the President betrayed none of his usual reluctance at a high-level departure. "This morning, Director Porter Goss offered his resignation as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; I've accepted it," Bush said matter-of-factly. "I've established a very close, personal relationship with Porter, which is very important for the Director of the CIA." Goss then spoke briefly, saying that the agency "is on a very even keel, sailing well" and that the Agency has "improved dramatically your goals for our nation's intelligence capabilities."

It was Hayden who appeared in the White House briefing room in December to defend a highly classified National Security Agency program that includes interception of domestic phone calls and e-mail messages without warrants if one of the parties has known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Hayden said at the National Press Club in January: "It is not a driftnet over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about. This is targeted and focused."

The senior administration official said Hayden was chosen for the job for his "natural leadership qualities" and his "decades of experience in the intelligence community." "He's been a customer of it, he's been a producer of it," the official said. Hayden, who entered active duty in 1969 and is the highest-ranking military intelligence officer in the armed forces, has been Director of the National Security Agency, Commander of the Air Intelligence Agency and Director of the Joint Command and Control Warfare Center. Hayden has bachelor's and master's degrees from Duquesne University. His first assignment was in January 1970 as an analyst and briefer at the headquarters of the Strategic Air Command at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. That was a classic Cold War post, and he now will be in charge of helping a glamorous but struggling part of the government adapt to a very different world.

The Director of Central Intelligence, a post of legendary power and intrigue during the Cold War, has been partially eclipsed by the Director of National Intelligence position that was created as part of a restructuring in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. Since then neither Goss nor John D. Negroponte, the first occupant of the new DNI position, ever seemed comfortable with the arrangement, which notably shifted the responsibilities of delivering the daily intelligence briefing to the President to Negroponte.

The departure was the culmination of a turf war between Goss and Negroponte. A U.S. official told TIME that he thought Goss "was standing up for the Central Intelligence Agency" and was concerned "that some of the core capabilities of the Agency that let it accomplish its mission might be eroded with the growth of the DNI apparatus."

"We were beginning to reach a point where some of the core capabilities of the CIA might be placed in jeopardy," the official said. "When the way ahead was sketched out, the director thought there were some problems there."

But the senior administration official countered: "The President has been very focused on the improvements of the intelligence capabilities of the CIA. He understand that particularly with tough cases like North Korea and Iran and elsewhere, you've got to have good human intelligence resources, and that's the CIA's bread and butter. You also have to have good, smart analysis, and that's another thing that the CIA is the heart of. But the new law has a new head of the intelligence community. That's the Director of National Intelligence. The custom and the culture of the intelligence community is catching up with that fact. The President will choose somebody who will continue to close the gap between the law and reality." With reporting by Massimo Calabresi/Washington
Click to expand...

It will make for some interesting hearings I'm certain.
 
Is Bush stoned? Hayden has an excellent record as the former Director of the NSA, and has certainly been a big supporter of Bush's rather questionable wiretapping policy. But he was also the head of the NSA during that whole period, which moves him from Bush administration cheerleader squarely into the realm of political target. The Democrats will rip him to ribbons over that, why not pick a much less contentious candidate?

And in any case, why would Hayden take the job? With the new DNI setup, CIA director is no longer really any better than NSA director...certainly not better than Deputy-DNI. I certainly have trouble thinking like Bush, but this seems like a stretch.
 
I guess Michael "Brownie" Brown is busy consulting now, but what's Bernard Kerik up to?
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Is Bush stoned? Hayden has an excellent record as the former Director of the NSA, and has certainly been a big supporter of Bush's rather questionable wiretapping policy. But he was also the head of the NSA during that whole period, which moves him from Bush administration cheerleader squarely into the realm of political target. The Democrats will rip him to ribbons over that, why not pick a much less contentious candidate?

And in any case, why would Hayden take the job? With the new DNI setup, CIA director is no longer really any better than NSA director...certainly not better than Deputy-DNI. I certainly have trouble thinking like Bush, but this seems like a stretch.
Click to expand...


Why does it matter what anyone thinks? Fact is that it will be hard for the Dems to block this. Oh they can put up a fight, but the man is qualified. He thinks "correctly" and that is all this administration wants. Goss was not able to completely crush the CIA into conforming, so this guy may be next to try. It follows Bush "logic" quiet well.
 
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Is Bush stoned? Hayden has an excellent record as the former Director of the NSA, and has certainly been a big supporter of Bush's rather questionable wiretapping policy. But he was also the head of the NSA during that whole period, which moves him from Bush administration cheerleader squarely into the realm of political target. The Democrats will rip him to ribbons over that, why not pick a much less contentious candidate?

And in any case, why would Hayden take the job? With the new DNI setup, CIA director is no longer really any better than NSA director...certainly not better than Deputy-DNI. I certainly have trouble thinking like Bush, but this seems like a stretch.
Click to expand...


Why does it matter what anyone thinks? Fact is that it will be hard for the Dems to block this. Oh they can put up a fight, but the man is qualified. He thinks "correctly" and that is all this administration wants. Goss was not able to completely crush the CIA into conforming, so this guy may be next to try. It follows Bush "logic" quiet well.
Click to expand...

A year or two ago, you may have been right, but I think Bush and the Republicans are starting to realize that in a lot of situations, they need bi-partisan cover. Going around telling everyone who disagrees with them to go pound sand is impressing fewer and fewer people nowadays, and the lessons of Bush's Supreme Court nominations (especially Roberts) must be telling the Republicans that getting Democratic support makes them look good.

You're right, Bush and the Republicans could bash Hayden through if they wanted to...but the Dems would make enough noise to make people question the decision. Being a political bully is only admirable if people agree with you, otherwise it's the kind of thing that costs you votes, something the Republicans will probably already have a problem with come the end of the year. It's not just a matter of votes in Congress, public opinion gives the Dems all sort of new ammunition.
 
isn't all of this going down simply because the cia, as a close-knit family, had the audacity to stand up to bush when bush, cheney, rummy et al were manufacturing reasons to invade iraq?

i recall how bush sent john bolton over to the cia to twist arms and take names to force the cia into playing along with the administation's attempt to justify the invasion of iraq, and how that attempt backfired in bush's face when bolton got pwn'ed by the cia clan.

add to that, during bolton's failed nomination hearings for UN ambassador, former cia deputy director john mclaughlin villified bolton by describing bolton as a "kiss-up kick-down kind of guy" and railed against bolton's personality and bolton's attempt at personally intimidating low-level cia staff into helping the bush administration fabricate evidence to support invading iraq.

it certainly looks like bush, through manipulating the dni position has gotten his revenge by cutting the legs out from under the cia, and is about to apply the coup de grace with the appointment of hayden.

sad...very sad indeed.

to goss and the other true patriots over at the cia, my condolences.
 
Originally posted by: tweaker2
isn't all of this going down simply because the cia, as a close-knit family, had the audacity to stand up to bush when bush, cheney, rummy et al were manufacturing reasons to invade iraq?

i recall how bush sent john bolton over to the cia to twist arms and take names to force the cia into playing along with the administation's attempt to justify the invasion of iraq, and how that attempt backfired in bush's face when bolton got pwn'ed by the cia clan.

add to that, during bolton's failed nomination hearings for UN ambassador, former cia deputy director john mclaughlin villified bolton by describing bolton as a "kiss-up kick-down kind of guy" and railed against bolton's personality and bolton's attempt at personally intimidating low-level cia staff into helping the bush administration fabricate evidence to support invading iraq.

it certainly looks like bush, through manipulating the dni position has gotten his revenge by cutting the legs out from under the cia, and is about to apply the coup de grace with the appointment of hayden.

sad...very sad indeed.

to goss and the other true patriots over at the cia, my condolences.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but with a few rare exceptions, politically appointed directors of federal agencies aren't really the same as long-serving members of the community. I certainly believe that the CIA stood up to Bush, if only because they are first and foremost an intelligence agency, and their job is to produce the best intelligence possible, not play political games. But I doubt Goss was behind it, my guess is that, if anything, he's being booted because he failed to properly "control" the CIA.
 
It doesn't matter WHO bush appoints as head of the CIA. Everyone knows the CIA is run out of dickhead cheney's office now.
 
Hayden may or not be a good choice to replace Porter Goss. He certainly has experience in intelligence, illegal wiretapping, and the other important qualification--slavish obdidence to what ever the whitehouse wants.

But we also have to remember why it is rumored Portor Goss is resigning. He also had that other area of intelligence experience and was the go to guy for that---namely how to supply women of loose morals for use in lobbying efforts.-----women who will let anyone to be bribed come all over their little blue dresses and not kiss and tell later.

How deep is Hayden's little black book and how does he stack up in that area?--it may be a key job requirement--and inquiring minds want to know. Who could ever replace Portor Goss's deep experience in all areas of intelligence matters?

Hayden may play in Peoria, may play in Congress, but can he deliver for K St?
 
Doesn't that put Military Officers in charge of all of the US Inteligence Agencies now, and John 'Death-Squad' Negroponte at the top above them?

Sounds like the way that the Chinese and Russian Communist Governments used to operate, not what I would envision for a Democratic America.
 
Originally posted by: zendari
He's well qualified and ready for hte job.
Click to expand...

That's not really the issue in question, is it? At this level, it's about politics as well, and Hayden is NOT in a good position on those grounds.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: zendari
He's well qualified and ready for hte job.
Click to expand...

That's not really the issue in question, is it? At this level, it's about politics as well, and Hayden is NOT in a good position on those grounds.
Click to expand...

If you say so. That depends on whether Democrats want to play politics with something as important as our intelligence and national security.
 
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: zendari
He's well qualified and ready for hte job.
Click to expand...

That's not really the issue in question, is it? At this level, it's about politics as well, and Hayden is NOT in a good position on those grounds.
Click to expand...

If you say so. That depends on whether Democrats want to play politics with something as important as our intelligence and national security.
Click to expand...

Did you read my article above? It was key Republicans that were doing the questioning including the head of the intelligence committee. Of course, just like everything else, you'll blame it on the Democrats if this guy fails.
 
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: zendari
He's well qualified and ready for hte job.
Click to expand...

That's not really the issue in question, is it? At this level, it's about politics as well, and Hayden is NOT in a good position on those grounds.
Click to expand...

If you say so. That depends on whether Democrats want to play politics with something as important as our intelligence and national security.
Click to expand...

Did you read my article above? It was key Republicans that were doing the questioning including the head of the intelligence committee. Of course, just like everything else, you'll blame it on the Democrats if this guy fails.
Click to expand...
That depends on who votes for him and against him.
 
No it depend on if Democrats and Reublicans unite and prevent the white house from manipulating something that important to our national security--namely the ability of responsible members of our intelleigence community to gather and process information in an honest way that is above politics.

Somehow I don't have faith in Hayden to be anything other than a business as usual white house stooge.
 
of significance to me is this little snippet from engineer's link:

"These people are all just this little clique, they play musical chairs, they're all far too close to the president politically, and I think that the confidence that everyone needs in the CIA would be better instilled if we had someone else."

consistent with a habit that has repeatedly done serious damage to his and his party's creditability, bush would choose hayden, who, on bush's orders has the temerity to speciously violate the law of the land either out of blind loyalty to bush or blind lust to advance his career.

bush, with his distaste for hiring by consensus, would rather hire staff that personally suites his fear of losing micro-control. bush has already been smacked down and humilitated from recommending illogical choices like harriet miers, john bolton, mike brown etc. etc.

you'd think it'd be pretty obvious to him by now how much he has hurt his party because of his being a chronic control freak. seems to me his problem is indicative of a person that is exposing an achilles heel by maniacally attempting to hide it.

all those repubs on the hill up for re-election must be suffering from entrenched jaw and sphincter cramps by now with the way bush is continually hurting their chances to keep office.
 
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: zendari
He's well qualified and ready for hte job.
Click to expand...

That's not really the issue in question, is it? At this level, it's about politics as well, and Hayden is NOT in a good position on those grounds.
Click to expand...

If you say so. That depends on whether Democrats want to play politics with something as important as our intelligence and national security.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Well, first of all, you're wrong that it's just Democrats who are not so thrilled about the choice. But you're also wrong because politics IS a big part of what goes on at that level, and it's a perfectly valid requirement. It's not a game, it's a vital part of national security at that level.

Look, the main job of an agency director is as an interface between his agency and the customers, in this case the President and Congress. Someone who is technically very qualified to RUN the agency, but who has a difficult time dealing with people outside of the agency, is NOT a good candidate. For better or worse, the noise over the NSA's potentially illegal wiretapping has made General Hayden a rather less than popular figure...something that will amost certainly have an impact on his dealings with Congress, and that's something that has real negative consequences for our national security.

Edit: And this of course works downward as well. The questions surrounding General Hayden and his role in the wiretapping might very well hurt moral at the CIA.
 
I'm glad that Hayden has been nominated - it's time to turn the 10000 watt searchlights on the warrantless wiretaps yet again, and this is the perfect time to do it...

Say Gen. Hayden - you have spoken that the approval process for wiretaps was too slow to fight the enemies that we must now fight. But the FISA law has exceptions that allow for authorization after the tap has been done, within a certain window. So then tell us, Gen. Hayden - how long of a window WOULD you need to ensure that you can tap in the way that you need to ensure national security? Give us a NUMBER, in days or weeks, before the paperwork could be ready for the FISA courts...we will wait...

Future Shock
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top