Etaoin
05-09-2006, 07:02 AM
Mission: Impossible III
Mike Hayden or Tom Cruise, does it matter?
Tuesday, May 9, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
Porter Goss's resignation as CIA Director creates an opportunity for a serious discussion about our intelligence needs, priorities and methods. But the early bidding suggests that the battle to confirm General Michael Hayden will be about none of the above.
The teeth-gnashing about yesterday's nomination of General Hayden to replace Mr. Goss is mostly misplaced. When it comes to the CIA, there is much to worry about, but the four stars on the nominee's shoulders are pretty low on the list. General Hayden has been out of the Pentagon since 1999, first running the National Security Agency and lately as Deputy Director of National Intelligence, meaning essentially at the White House. The idea that he'd be Don Rumsfeld's robot at this remove is preposterous.
Next up from the bottom has to be General Hayden's creation and running of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists. For this he deserves not criticism but a national medal. It removes any doubt he recognizes the reality of the current threat. Arlen Specter's preening notwithstanding, Republicans should welcome the chance to let Senate Democrats prove themselves soft on terror in front of the nation.
A serious debate would focus on just how little progress we've made retooling our intelligence capabilities for the war on terror. The White House had been trying for some time to orchestrate a succession at the CIA, the better to consolidate control over an agency that lately has seemed more concerned with undermining the President than chasing down national security threats.
THE REST (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008352)
Mike Hayden or Tom Cruise, does it matter?
Tuesday, May 9, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
Porter Goss's resignation as CIA Director creates an opportunity for a serious discussion about our intelligence needs, priorities and methods. But the early bidding suggests that the battle to confirm General Michael Hayden will be about none of the above.
The teeth-gnashing about yesterday's nomination of General Hayden to replace Mr. Goss is mostly misplaced. When it comes to the CIA, there is much to worry about, but the four stars on the nominee's shoulders are pretty low on the list. General Hayden has been out of the Pentagon since 1999, first running the National Security Agency and lately as Deputy Director of National Intelligence, meaning essentially at the White House. The idea that he'd be Don Rumsfeld's robot at this remove is preposterous.
Next up from the bottom has to be General Hayden's creation and running of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists. For this he deserves not criticism but a national medal. It removes any doubt he recognizes the reality of the current threat. Arlen Specter's preening notwithstanding, Republicans should welcome the chance to let Senate Democrats prove themselves soft on terror in front of the nation.
A serious debate would focus on just how little progress we've made retooling our intelligence capabilities for the war on terror. The White House had been trying for some time to orchestrate a succession at the CIA, the better to consolidate control over an agency that lately has seemed more concerned with undermining the President than chasing down national security threats.
THE REST (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008352)