May 7, 2006
CONFIRMING HAYDEN....So it looks like the White House is running into a headwind in its plan to nominate Air Force General Michael Hayden to run the CIA. It turns out that both Republicans and Democrats are skeptical that he's the right man for the job, but apparently that's a feature, not a bug:
White House aides have indicated that they are fully aware that General Hayden might face a tough confirmation battle though the process has gone smoothly for him in the past but defend his competence and say they welcome a new chance to defend the surveillance program as a necessary tool in seeking to ferret out terrorists.
Why am I not surprised? I assume the White House figures that Republican critics will air out a few mild criticisms and then shut up, leaving them free to paint Democrats as weak on national security because they think the NSA ought to get search warrants if they want to spy on U.S. citizens. They went to this well in 2002 and 2004, and I assume they figure it's not dry yet.
But I wonder if they've finally miscalculated? Stay tuned.
—Kevin Drum 3:34 PM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (53)
It sure depends on what will surface in the hearing. But imho Gen. Hayden is proficient in double speak, so I share your low expectations. Yes, this sounds like a republican poblicity stunt to give GOP lawmakers the chance to sho that they are tough on the Bush gang. Just in time to help them in the election campaigns.
Posted by: Gray on May 7, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK
A skinhead DCI ?
Nice !
Says a lot about Bush Handlers, Inc. it does
"Terrorists do not need pretexts for their barbarism." - Judge Alvin Hellerstein
Posted by: daCascadian on May 7, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK
The American people will once again be treated to the spectacle of members of the Democrat party saying that it's a bad thing to listen to terrorist phone calls.... and you think it's the REPUBLICANS who have miscalculated?
Posted by: American Hawk on May 7, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK
Will it work once more? Most likely.
Your grrlfriend Ann Althouse is already on board in going to that particular well as she continues her swiftboating of Kerry this morning.
Posted by: jerry on May 7, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK
AH:
Why -are- liberals against wiretapping terrorists? I've long wondered.
Posted by: adam on May 7, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK
Why -are- conservatives in favor of invasion of citizen privacy? I've long wondered.
Posted by: Joel on May 7, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK
"The American people will once again be treated to the spectacle of members of the Democrat party saying that it's a bad thing to listen to terrorist phone calls..."
Please, o slaves to the Republic party, continue to ejaculate onto the straw men of your own making.
They are even cheaper than blow-up dolls. Have fun, but do try to keep it private!
Posted by: Kenji on May 7, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK
Well, Joel, I think that's clear: conservatives favor invading citizen privacy because they're terribly frightened of terrorists and other 'evil-doers', and b) they imagine the only people who need fear the government (or, at least, -this- government) are the bad scary people.
Posted by: adam on May 7, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK
Well, Adam, if they're so sure that the only people being tapped are terrorists, why are they afraid of court oversight of the taps? Could it be because wiretaps of actual terrorist phone calls are as nonexistent as WMDs in Iraq?
Posted by: Joel on May 7, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK
Terrorist phone calls ("Hello, Achmed, how's the weather for bombing?") may not be nonexistant, but you can be sure they are being missed, and by a mile, while they listen to every word that Greenpeace says. This is the gang that can't even shoot-the-shit straight.
Posted by: Kenji on May 7, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK
Just making sure: has everyone here seen that Gen. Hayden doesn't actually know the fourth amendment, while proclaiming himself to be an expert?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/06.html#a8184
Posted by: Joe on May 7, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK
Kenji, all I'm saying is if such phone calls are believed to take place, the law stipulates the the gov't must present their evidence to a FISA court.
Why -are- conservatives afraid of providing evidence that they are wiretapping terrorists and not just political opponents? I've long wondered.
Posted by: Joel on May 7, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK
Easy! They're conservatives, so they hate and distrust Big Government, yes? But--and this is the magic--they don't see the Bush Administration as part of Big Government, they see the Bush Administration (and Bush himself) as standing -outside- of Big Government. (This is one reason why Bush himself is, or was, so blindly adored and defended--he personifies the anti-government government.)
Hence, they see court oversight of Bush wiretaps as Big Government intrusion on the Liberated-From-Big-Government Excecutive.
Posted by: adam on May 7, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK
It's not that he doesn't know the Fourth Amendment; it's just that he's clueing us into Bush's special "signing document" attached to it. So far, it's been, ya know, kind of a secret.
Posted by: Kenji on May 7, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK
Al nails it! The Republicans have lost their nerve to protect America, and are more concerned with re-election. But if we aren't all to die from the monsterous brown people, everyone must give George everything he wants.
Posted by: Freedom Phucker on May 7, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK
Al? Al was here? Who knew?
Posted by: Joel on May 7, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK
Adam and Joel, you are both on the right track, of course. These guys take American Exceptionalism even further, in that it now applies only to the Republic party. Anything they do is legal, because they are, in the Church Lady sense, soooo special. "Extremism in the defense of liberty..." and all that crap. Then they tar anyone who dares to criticize them as elitists.
Remember, Bush senior's favorite food, at election time, was pork rinds.
Posted by: Kenji on May 7, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK
American Hawk sounds familiar.. hmm...
Posted by: cleek on May 7, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK
Joel, Al is being channeled by Adam. It's something that only the very special can do. Kind of like peering into someone's soul. We elitists are not so abled. Sigh.
Posted by: jcricket on May 7, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK
When asked if the current illegal wiretapping was being directed against political opponents of Bush, Hayden refused to answer.
So, if we look into the future the Republicans want us to have, we see unlimited military oversight of Americans in America, and the 'Left Behind' crowd flying the nuclear armed bombers.
I'm giving 50-50 that the next use of an American nuclear bomb is by an American Air Force officer against an American city. Are we having fun yet?
Posted by: serial catowner on May 7, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK
"Kind of like peering into someone's soul."
Heh. I first read this as "peeing into someone's soul," which is something I could imagine Al doing.
Posted by: Joel on May 7, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK
Joel, that almost made me spit my margarita all over the screen!
Posted by: jcricket on May 7, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK
What are the Republican critics going to do? If they go beyond a few mild criticisms, then Bush will just make a recess appointment as he did with Bolton.
Posted by: KCinDC on May 7, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK
Question for American Hawk and other Bush supporters. You often cite the absence of major terrorists attacks against us here in the homeland as evidence of the success of the Bush policies regarding the war on terror. If a major attack does occur here, would that be evidence that the policies are not working?
Posted by: tim on May 7, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK
Maybe it a bad cop - good cop ploy.
Hayden is so obviously bad that people will be relieved when Bush trots out the real nominee.
And if not enough stink is made about the bad cop then he is in.
Posted by: MonkeyBoy on May 7, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK
KC, you are quite likely correct. It is not beyond imagination that he plans to do this anyway. Each time he pulls crap like this though, each time he stubbornly refuses to consider that his choice may not be in the best interest of the nation, he loses a few more of the old-style conservatives that once held sway in the R party. His JAR numbers are eroding because of this. Time (tick-tock) is showing him to be the Worst. President. Ever. His administration is circling the drain even as we blog.
Posted by: jcricket on May 7, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK
Question for American Hawk and other Bush supporters. You often cite the absence of major terrorists attacks against us here in the homeland as evidence of the success of the Bush policies regarding the war on terror. If a major attack does occur here, would that be evidence that the policies are not working?
Obviously, it depends on what happens. If somebody who was born here blows themselves up in the lobby of a hotel in New York, that's an unavoidable attack; that wouldn't be a failure. If an arab terrorist snuck in over the mexican border, then yes, I would blame Bush for not enforcing the border and building a fence.
Posted by: American Hawk on May 7, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK
It would be nice if some of those in Congress brushed up on Hayden's previous testimony (a summary and critique from one perspective here).
I can only wonder what happened to what appeared at one time to be a conscientious individual trying to do the right thing; from his 2002 statement to the Congressional Joint Inquiry (here):
As a practical matter, we have chosen as a people to make it harder to conduct electronic searches for a law enforcement purpose than for a foreign intelligence purpose. ...What I really need you to do is to talk to your constituents and find out where the American people want that line between security and liberty to be. ...
NSA is governed today by various executive orders and laws and these legal restrictions are drilled into NSA employees and enforced through oversight by all three branches of government.
The laws haven't changed, but apparently Hayden's loyalties now rest with the president, not the people; he shouldn't get pass on that.
Posted by: has407 on May 7, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK
Has407, you're assuming that Hayden's earlier statement reflected his true feelings, rather than being administration propaganda in the same line as "We do not torture!"
Of course he should be asked about it in confirmation hearings regardless.
Posted by: KCinDC on May 7, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK
The American people will once again be treated to the spectacle of members of the Democrat party saying that it's a bad thing to listen to terrorist phone calls....
Becuase if left unmonitored, of course all they'll listen to are terrorist phone calls.... ho ho ho.
Posted by: The Ghost of CREEP on May 7, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK
My wife refuses to watch saturday night live because the guy who plays president bush is just not dumb enough. Can't he try harder?
Posted by: slanted tom on May 7, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK
I was just looking at the transcripts of American Hawk's phone calls. He is probably no terrorist. But he is wishy washy with the party affiliation. Hung up on the American Family Coalition. I think we should place an asterisk by his name in the ledger and audit his returns in case he turns. His wife is a potty mouth too.
NSA Robot
Posted by: Jr G-man on May 7, 2006 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK
I assume the White House figures that Republican critics will air out a few mild criticisms and then shut up, leaving them free to paint Democrats as weak on national security because they think the NSA ought to get search warrants if they want to spy on U.S. citizens.
More political theater for Mr. Drum to chew on...
Back when it mattered and Sen. Feingold was proposing censure, Mr. Drum was telling Democrats to keep their mouths shut...
they stood for nothing then, and now their quotes will get thrown back in their face during this confirmation process...
ahh...but what is a bit of law-breaking between friends...
At least Sen. Feingold is on the Intelligence Committee so everyone can see what a patriot acts like when confronted with an issue of law and order...
Posted by: justmy2 on May 7, 2006 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK
It wont last. The wiretap issue will explode, he will have to "retire".
R2K
Posted by: Alex on May 7, 2006 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK
If somebody who was born here blows themselves up in the lobby of a hotel in New York, that's an unavoidable attack;
What's that? Terry Nichols and the Uni-Bomber were released?...
Unavoidable huh....might as well pack up an call it a year...
If an arab terrorist snuck in over the mexican border, then yes, I would blame Bush for not enforcing the border and building a fence.
Now tell us about that fence you are about to build on the Canadian border Mr. Wizard...
stop it with the race-baiting nonsense...we are all sick of reading it....
Posted by: justmy2 on May 7, 2006 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK
"If somebody who was born here blows themselves up in the lobby of a hotel in New York, that's an unavoidable attack..."
Well, yes, when the FBI suspends its investigation of right-wing hate groups, as it has essentially done. Really, they could save a lot of big-government money but doing nothing at all, but I guess that's a start!
Posted by: Kenji on May 7, 2006 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINK
Watch for the Decider to make a recess appointment soon after Memorial Day.
Posted by: dano on May 8, 2006 at 1:10 AM | PERMALINK
hmmmm...
"...This is the group photograph of the Psi Upsilon fraternity from the 1960 Yale yearbook.
As you can see, there's out-going CIA Director Porter Goss, current Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, and beside Goss is William "Bucky" Bush, the current president's uncle.
Small world."
"Terrorists do not need pretexts for their barbarism." - Judge Alvin Hellerstein
Posted by: daCascadian on May 8, 2006 at 2:10 AM | PERMALINK
Hayden is really Karl Rove?
http://tinyurl.com/klnh9
Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on May 8, 2006 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINK
I thought the reason for Bush not firing
Donald Rumsfeld was to avoid a bruising
confirmation fight in the Senate when his
successor was named. Now we have an even
better scenario on exactly the kind of thing
the Republicans fear most: a hearing that will
focus on the NSA wirertapping issue and other
domestic spying issues. Won't this open up
a can of worms ( if not a veritable Pandora's
Box) at precisely the time Bush needs to look
as Presidential as possible? I look forward
to these hearings and the goodies we might
learn from them. At least it will make for
good television viewing.
Posted by: anthony v. cuccia on May 8, 2006 at 2:38 AM | PERMALINK
Reality check: Michael "Get off my lawn" Hayden is a Cheney associate - Bush probably barely knows who the guy is. This is all part of a continuing scheme to reconstruct the intelligence community in a new and radical fashion, removing restraints and centralizing leadership. [WARNING: Hitler analogy] I believe the Nazis called it 'gleischaltung' - coordination. They're literally building a shadow government inside the (formerly) 'real' one. The first step was to set up the CIA by getting them to sign off on Iraq; then they could be blamed when WMD weren't found, etc. Then the stage was set for 'fixing' the problem. These people have a radical view of government; they've already replaced the State Department, now it's civilian intelligence's turn. Cheney/Addington - think of them as one person - are running this. Bush is excited about the fishie he caught.
Posted by: cynic on May 8, 2006 at 3:35 AM | PERMALINK
And don't forget, when these far right apointees start leaking to sabotage the next anti-war government that leaking is patriotism.
Posted by: McA on May 8, 2006 at 4:17 AM | PERMALINK
The families of Sept. 11th victims apparently dont think too much of General Hayden. Not that Bush and his cronies care a whit about them. This charming guy (Hayden) will make a lovely duo with the creepy criminal John Negroponte , making the fascist takeover of the American intelligence services complete.
Posted by: Stephen Kriz on May 8, 2006 at 6:53 AM | PERMALINK
And don't forget, when these far right apointees start leaking to sabotage the next anti-war government that leaking is patriotism.
Don't worry. The head of the CIA serves at the pleasure of the president.
Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on May 8, 2006 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK
Bush: Hayden 'supremely qualified' to be CIA chief
Isn't that what Bush said about Tenet and Goss?
Yup.
Enough said.
McAnus: And don't forget, when these far right apointees start leaking to sabotage the next anti-war government that leaking is patriotism.
If the next 'anti-war' (a bullsh*t characterization if ever there was one) government engages in torture, crimes against humanity, electoral fraud, and violations of international and US law, then it would be patriotic.
Until then, you're just another shameful, ranting, lying, hypocritical rightwing assh*le trying to provide cover for an incompetent, immoral, unethical, and criminal administration.
Posted by: Advocate for God on May 8, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK
It's a bad idea to put a military guy in there unless he's retired and been heading private sector business for over a decade.
This is not where we want to put another bureaucrat.
Posted by: aaron on May 8, 2006 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK
But I wonder if they've finally miscalculated?
Is that a joke or a typo? The Bush Administration has miscalulated on so many things I have lost count.
Other related developing Hayden news:
EXCLUSIVE: CIA Nominee Hayden Linked to MZM http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000581.php
Posted by: Catch22 on May 8, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK
Catch22, they've almost never miscalculated in their reliance on "independent" Republicans in Congress to make a few ineffectual oppositional comments about their latest outrage and then cave and support them when it comes time to vote. That's what Kevin was referring to.
Posted by: KCinDC on May 8, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK
KCinDC,
Thanks for the clarification. However, even with that reasonable interpretation we still have the Harriet Myers debacle. Furthermore, the Dubai Ports deal is another related miscalculation where the administration vastly underestimaged GOP opposition.
Posted by: Catch22 on May 8, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK
Those who slammed retired generals for criticizing the administration as undermining civilian control of our government should be absolutely fuming at the appointment of a general, even were he to retire first, to be head of the CIA.
Why aren't they?
Because they are hypocrites and liars.
Posted by: Advocate for God on May 9, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK
Amazing site. useful information. super color scheme.
sex http://sex.action-links.net | sex http://sex.builtfree.org | movies http://movies.100freemb.com | cyber sex http://cybersex.freepagez.com | college loan student http://collegeloanstudent.freepagez.com |
Posted by: Susan on May 10, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK