US lawmakers concerned about White House CIA pick

[DeclinetoState]

Top US lawmakers expressed concern over the expected nomination of General Michael Hayden as the next CIA chief, setting up a possible congressional showdown with the White House.

President George W. Bush is expected to name Hayden on Monday as his choice to replace Porter Goss, who unexpectedly resigned Friday, at the helm of the Central Intelligence Agency, according to US media.

Both Republican and opposition Democratic legislators voiced concern about putting a military officer in charge of the agency instead of a civilian, and cited Hayden's support for a controversial domestic spying program as a worry.
Yahoo! Singapore (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/060507/1/40m25.html)

[The_Elucidator]

"Bottom line, I do believe he's the wrong person, the wrong place, at the wrong time," Representative Pete Hoekstra, a Republican who heads the House intelligence committee, told Fox News Sunday.
"We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time," Hoekstra said.
"The danger of having the military take over intelligence is that the military has a very different perspective on the world," he said. "They're worried about today and wars and threats to the United States in the short term and how we might respond militarily."

Yes they do have a different perspective! They are held to a higher standard than civilians and will be much less likely to run to a drive-by media outlet and will be much more likely to maintain the military's need to know policy, minimizing leaks.

[Aussie]

We all know how fubared things get when civilians run the military. You gotta be careful in putting the military in charge of a civilian agency.

[Patriot Heart]

My thought is that so far the civilians haven't done such a hot job running the CIA. Give the General a chance. Maybe he can clean the house of the clintoon appointed left wing kook-spooks in there.

[DoctorDoom]

Both Republican and opposition Democratic legislators ... cited Hayden's support for a controversial domestic spying program as a worry.The only "controversy" was generated by the libeRAT traitors and their DBM lackeys who are giving aid and comfort to our enemies, and who were piqued that the fedgov had the chutzpah to monitor communications to and from terrorists and their organizations.

If nominating General Michael Hayden has the RATs and RINOs throwing hissy fits, then it's automatically a Good Thing.

[Maggie_T]

Personally, I'm delighted with the choice for two reasons:

1) It will make panty-waist liberals crazy, and that's always a good thing. :grin:

2) Given that our country is being run by jello-spined, whiny, hand-wringing, what-will-the-press-think-of-me-if-I do (your word here) morons these days, I think it's high time that serious jobs were given to serious, responsible people. And IMO militars fill that description very well.

Besides, I always thought that if you want things well done, you should bring on the military.

There. I said it. Now let me see our resident pansy liberals writhe in ire. :devil:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Who better to run the CIA in a time of war than a General?

[Borgia]

What was wrong with Porter Goss - nominated by Bush?

[Rhino]

What was wrong with Porter Goss - nominated by Bush?
Goss was reportedly forced out due to disappointment over his leadership of the CIA.

He was appointed less than two years ago to reform an agency under fire over the September 11, 2001 attacks and pre-war intelligence on Iraq.

But Goss upset the US spy establishment when he named some of his congressional allies to top jobs and used strongarm tactics in a bid to reform agency.From my experience with some of these agencies, a bit of strongarming is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Naturalized-Texan]

What was wrong with Porter Goss - nominated by Bush?
It appears that maybe he took his job too seriously. The career bureaucrats, especially the Clinton holdovers who are undermining the war effort, don't like that. Of course, Gen. Hayden will probably be even tougher and maybe he will sack some of those Clinton holdovers.