Rumsfeld Defends Choice of Hayden for CIA

[wicket]

LINK

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he supports the nomination of a military general as the head of the CIA, and said thePentagon is not trying to take more control of intelligence matters.

"There's no power play taking place in Washington," Rumsfeld told Pentagon reporters, calling talk of bureaucratic turf fights between civilian intelligence agencies and military leaders "theoretical conspiracies" and "all off the mark."

President Bush's selection of Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to head the CIA has raised questions from congressional Republicans and Democrats over his ability to be independent from the military establishment, as well as his ties to a controversial eavesdropping program.

Rumsfeld said there have been military leaders of the spy agency in the past and that would pose no conflict with the Pentagon. Hayden, who now is deputy director of national intelligence, formerly headed the National Security Agency and is a 37 year Air Force veteran.

[louis-t]

1. And we should believe him why?

I always knew you were crazy, Charlie Brown, but now I can see yer nuts!

[saigon68]

11. He's Rumdumb's " butt boy"

And the big guy is ready to have at Mr. Ganymede

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/g/ganymede.html

[0007]

21. Drum roll please!

[saigon68]

24. ITS ITS Mr. Ganymede

[bullimiami]

2. exactly. what do we care what rumsfeld says about it.

[peacetalksforall]

3. Rumsfeld, Negroponte, Bush, Rice? Some endorsement.

[Dhalgren]

4. Rumsfeld is a publicly known and verifiable liar. He has been

shown to have lied so often and so egregiously that the very fact that he speaks in public, at all, is an example of his extreme hubris...

[Lerkfish]

5. well, that cinches it. Hayden is the absolute wrong guy for the job

as if we didn't already know that, but ....

[atreides1]

6. Rumsfeld is right

There have been military leaders of the CIA in the past, what he failed to say was that most of them did not have the connections to the Pentagon like Hayden does.

[Placebo]

7. Here's a rule of thumb:

If Rumsfeld supports someone, you shouldn't.

[wicket]

8. Ain't that the truth!

n/t

[keopeli]

9. Why is Rumsfeld commenting on the CIA chief appointment?

What possible reason could there be for Rumsfeld to comment?

Remember, this is the person who routinely re-directs questions to other people: "That's a question for the NSA" or "That's a question for the President."

So, why is he eager to endorse Hayden for the CIA?

I don't know the answer, but I can read the signs.

Hayden is an unrefined, undereducated military career man who is loyal if nothing else. Rumsfeld clearly has sway over the man - to know this is true, one need only reflect on the past 5 years and notice that every dissenter or independent mind in the military has been released. The only leaders who remain are the undereducated loyalists, like Hayden.

Rumsfeld's comments are likely to make it MORE difficult to confirm Hayden.

There's no doubt about it. Bush the Lesser has lost his mojo.

[Pithy Cherub]

10. That may be the large point. To not get Hayden confirmed.

Hayden is very smart and knows where the bodies are buried - over decades. James Bamford writes extensively about Hayden and his skills in Body of Secrets. Hayden is not to be underestimated. Rummy would be actually losing in his latest beauracratic battle if Hayden is confirmed. Rummy did the same thing to Colin Powell as well.

With all that it still cause great unease that Hayden would be in uniform - and therefore subject to the Uniform Military Code of Justice while "leading" a civilian spy agency tasked with being on the ground - oh say in certain prisons in country's that can not be named. Rummy is definitely trying to throw a speanner in the works while trying to appear "helpful". ;)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

12. Okay, let me see if I understand this....

1. Rummy, a major NeoCon player, is in charge of the Defense Department which includes the Joint Chiefs (JCS) and 80% of the intelligence budget;

2. If confirmed, General Hayden would control the remaining 20% of the intelligence budget while reporting directly to Negroponte, another major NeoCon player, and indirectly to Rummy via the JCS;

3. Currently, a proposal is in the works to remove all CIA covert ops and human intelligence functions from the CIA and have them report to the Pentagon. The remaining pieces of the CIA...analysis of political, economic, and military operations of foreign governments...would stay under Hayden for the time being. The next step in the process will see ALL intelligence functions reporting to the Pentagon.

4. In summary, that would essentially consolidate 100% of all intelligence funding under Rummy's oversight. Additionally, although Hayden would report to Negroponte, my bet is that he would take most of his direction from Rummy.

So, based on the above commentary, how exactly does Rummy lose this "beauracratic battle"?

[Pithy Cherub]

14. All of that great info presupposes that Negroponte is

done fighting for complete control over those assets. If Negroponte stands down from the coming beauracratic battle and doesn't get more control of the funding process then you are correct Rummy (Cheney) wins. Rummy is truly trying to "help" Hayden because he is strategizing for the next really big battle which is for the 'heart and mind' of Bush on who wins the ultimate battle for control over intel. Nominating Hayden is a shot across the HHS Rumsfailed's (Cheney)bow.

That is an impressive list you have and if Negroponte loses well then everything you laid out is quite the winner's trophy for Rummy.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

15. It's not a matter of Negroponte "losing"....he's playing the role...

...that he's been given to facilitate the transition of control of the CIA to the Pentagon. That's the ultimate goal of the current maneuverings.

Remember shortly after 911 when Rummy asked that the CIA report to him? That was resisted strongly by the CIA old-timers to include Tenet at that time. Since then, Tenet and most of the old-timers have been purged from the CIA, reducing the amount of expected resistance to the organizatiopnal move.

IMHO, having all intelligence functions report to Rummy would be completely disastrous. That would allow the NeoCons to fabricate anything they wanted to justify their global ambitions.

Here's a link to one of Seymour Hersh's articles, dated 5-5-2003, that will give you some background of the infighting that has been going on to control the nation's intelligence apparatus:

SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE
Donald Rumsfeld has his own special sources. Are they reliable?
<http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact>

[Pithy Cherub]

18. No doubt consolidation of the Intel function (& functionaries)

under Pentagon control is Rummy's goal. However, who is Negroponte beholden to in this? Negroponte waited a year (or until he had evidence)to clean out functionaries beholden to Rummy & Cheney.

Not using the enemy of my enemy is my friend analogy exactly, but there are other forces of evil at work in this. Bush is in deep trouble because the wannabe spy Libby from Cheney's shop was caught, the CIA didn't play the complete game and the PNAC agenda hit some serous turbulence. Cheney & Bush are not of one mind on this. Negroponte was another awful State Department Ambassador with poison tentacles elsewhere. Bush needs a deep fixer (not Negroponte) and needs to (but probably won't) put some clean air between Rummy, intel and Iran. This intel fight is clearly about the future. Rummy realizes this is a last shot at it as it were - remember the defense department knew nothing of this move until announced.

One clue is how the rest of the republicans are acting. Hayden would need to be an on-paper "independent"/civilian which with his knowledge is going to be very interesting. Hence, his hints that he may resign his commission.

The CIA also resisted the move to Rummy because at that time being DCI was a cabinet level position. Now the DNI also has a seat at the NSC. People also forget there is a small intelligence service inside the State Department too.

IMO, much bigger game going on and Rummy stands to lose everything if Hayden isn't "his".

[Media_Lies_Daily]

13. "Unrefined, undereducated military career man"?? Have you read his....

...biography?

GENERAL MICHAEL V. HAYDEN
http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5746

IMHO, I don't see anything in his career to suggest that he is "unrefined, undereducated military career man".

First, officers don't reach the rank of a four-star general without having very good political and interpersonal skills.

Second, you don't rise as high as he has within the intelligence community unless you have some serious smarts.

Third, he has earned a BA and MA in History...hardly the stuff of an "undereducated military career man". Additionally, he has also attended the following military schools, schools that had to have been earned based on his superior performance as an officer:

1975 Academic Instructor School, Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.
1976 Squadron Officer School, Maxwell AFB, Ala.
1978 Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, Ala.
1980 Defense Intelligence School, Defense Intelligence Agency, Bolling AFB, D.C.
1983 Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk, Va.
1983 Air War College, Maxwell AFB, Ala.

Rummy is eager to endorse Hayden because Hayden will report indirectly to Rummy via the Joint Chiefs...that will allow Rummy to control even more of the intelligence community. Rummy already controls 80% of the intelligence budget...confirmation of Hayden will further consolidate Rummy's control.

[keopeli]

17. "unrefined, undereducated" refers specifically to qualif. of CIA chief

I really appreciate all of your instights and comments M_L_D.

I concede Hayden's expertise in the Military and his education, which includes a bachelors and masters degree.

I am referring to his education and experience in Civilian Intelligence gathering and dissemination. Further, his grasp of the law and constitution "appears" lacking from his public statements (i.e. 1st Ammendment and wiretaps).

As for unrefined, I'm referring specifically to his demeanor and public personna, which is characterized by qualities similar to those of Bush the Lesser: Colloquial English, over-simplified language and reasoning, fallacious rational based on mis- (or dis-) information. Perhaps he's well refined and his public persona is deliberately portrayed this way. Nevertheless, the impression that he is 'unrefined' is being promoted by the Administration as a quality endearing to Bush the Lesser.

Perhaps I've over-simplified the case, and I'm willing to be corrected. These are my reasons for classifying him as "unrefined and undereducated".

[wicket]

19. I was wondering that myself!

n/t

[Canuckistanian]

16. Of course he does, he's DOD

Of course he wants one of his own guys in the top civilian agency.

That way, he can keep tabs on what the CIA is doing and have more influence on CIA policies and action.

Sure, we don't mind more concentration of power in the hands of the same few people, do we?

[Gregorian]

20. Wizard-like hand gestures, at eleven!

Oh Rummy, you're so predictable. And we should have believed you about invading Iraq, too. You never lied about that. Chemical Rummy.

[MiniMe]

22. Well, thats one strike against Haydon, one of many n/t

[Kenergy]

23. Birds of a feather n/t