Voicing Concerns Over Mike Hayden
General Michael Hayden, deputy DNI under John Negroponte, was considered the so-called front-runner to replace Porter Goss. And while he is highly qualified to do so, some people in Congress have reservations, and wasted little time in voicing them. (Hat-tip: Captain's Quarters)
Even before President Bush has named his choice to take over the CIA, the Air Force general who is the front-runner drew fire Sunday from lawmakers in the president's own party who say a military man should not lead the civilian spy agency.
The criticism of the expected choice of Gen. Michael Hayden to head the CIA came from some influential Republicans in Congress as well as from Democrats.
"I do believe he's the wrong person, the wrong place, at the wrong time," said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich. "We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time."
Hoekstra said on "Fox News Sunday" that having a general in charge of the CIA could create the impression among agents around the world that the agency is under Pentagon control. If he were to get the nomination, military officers would run all the major spy agencies, from the ultra-secret National Security Agency to the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Hoekstra said "there's ongoing tensions between this premiere civilian intelligence agency and the Department of Defense as we speak."
The sentiment was echoed by Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, who said Hayden's military background would be a "major problem," and several Democrats who made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said Hayden could leave agents with the impression that the CIA has been "just gobbled up by the Defense Department."
The criticism comes a day before Bush was expected to name Hayden as his choice to lead the CIA. Outgoing director Porter Goss abruptly announced his resignation Friday after less than two years on the job.
Hayden is widely respected in both parties for his long experience with intelligence, and many lawmakers said he could be a good candidate for some other job. Some, like Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, suggested that he might think about resigning his military post if he were going to head the CIA. But Hoekstra and Chambliss were among those who said that wouldn't solve the problem.
"Just resigning commission and moving on, putting on a striped suit, a pinstriped suit versus an Air Force uniform, I don't think makes much difference," Chambliss said on ABC's "This Week."
Talk of Hayden's possible nomination has reignited the debate over the Bush's administration's domestic surveillance program, which Hayden used to oversee as the former head of the National Security Agency.
California Rep. Jane Harman, leading Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Hayden "made a big mistake" by defending the legality of the eavesdropping program in December during a speech at the National Press Club. "That program does not comply with law," she said on CNN's "Late Edition."
Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he would use a Hayden nomination to raise questions about the legality of the program and did not rule out holding it up until he gets answers. "I'm not going to draw any lines in the sand until I see how the facts evolve," Specter said on Fox.
White House insiders tried to shrug off suggestions that Hayden's military experience could become a serious issue. And they said they welcome a fight over the domestic eavesdropping program — an issue that Bush certainly has not shied away from taking on in his effort to take a tough stance against terrorists.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said she is concerned about Hayden's role in the domestic spying program, but that should not be the issue in Senate confirmation hearings for the CIA. But having a four-star general leading the spy agency should be, she said.
"There have to be more people that can be drawn upon" in the administration, she said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "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."
Vice President Dick Cheney, in an interview with NBC, would not comment on whether Bush was prepared to nominate Hayden. But he said the new CIA director will have to "make a lot of adjustments" at the agency.
"We're faced with trying to find ways to figure out what a small group of terrorists are going to do, they're difficult to penetrate, difficult to track by national technical means," Cheney said. "It places a much heavier emphasis on human intelligence than was required, necessarily, before, but it automatically places a burden on whoever's in that job as director of the CIA."
Hayden has his defenders on Capitol Hill. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he hopes he could be confirmed.
"In all due respect to my colleagues — and I obviously respect their views — General Hayden is really more of an intelligence person than he is an Air Force officer," he said on "Face the Nation" on CBS. "I think that we should also remember that there had been other former military people who have been directors of the CIA."
And Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, who will oversee confirmation hearings for the post, acknowledged on CNN that there is some real concern about somebody from the military heading up the CIA. But he said that can be easily resolved by Hayden resigning his post and bringing in deputies with a strong civilian background.
I can fully understand the apprehension amongst some regarding where his loyalties lie, especially being in charge of a civilian intelligence agency. And if I were amidst the tin-foil hat crowd, I might even venture the nutty conspiracy theory of a military coup in progress, albeit in a rather slow progression. But, thank God I'm not a part of that crowd. Mike Hayden's a good man, and did good things in reforming the NSA. But his confirmation is already facing some heat over his involvement in the NSA surveillance program. Could this prove to be where he meets his Waterloo? Maybe, but if the White House were smart, they would come out tomorrow and name another. As Hayden hasn't been named yet, it's not necessarily a "withdrawal" the way Harriet Miers was.
Now, the field of candidates that I have seen rumored (Captain's Quarters gives us Frances Fragos Townsend, David Shedd, and Mary Margaret Graham amongst others being considered) aren't nearly as competent as Mike Hayden. I'm crossing my fingers that the administration moves forward with Hayden. He can clean up the CIA, and streamline it to work hand-in-hand with the DNI, and the administration.
If the others are put in place, and don't play ball with Negroponte, they will be gone as quickly as Goss was. I can understand the internecine fighting going on, but only because we're trying to bring all the intelligence under one, real collector. That's the DNI. He gives the president what he needs in terms of intelligence. What is a point I must make, though, is that I don't like John Negroponte. I think he's brusk, and is constantly fighting to get his way on certain things. He and Rep. Hoekstra had it out over the release of the Iraqi documents collected since the invasion. It's clear to me that Negroponte may be the sort of bureaucrat that gets ticked when anyone ever questions his job. And based on this post from Captain's Quarters on Thursday, May 6th:
The problem thus far is the growth of the bureaucracy under Negroponte. These may consist of analysts, but creating these positions eats up resources that may be best used in the field. We warned about this aspect of the 9/11 Commission's demand to create the DNI and his directorate, and Congress has watched Negroponte's empire-building with alarm. And according to the LA Times, Negroponte hasn't even begun empire building, as his ambitions have led him into a power struggle with Donald Rumsfeld:
But Negroponte faces a larger and much more difficult challenge: a struggle with Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's Department of Defense, which runs more than 80% of the nation's intelligence budget and is busy expanding its role even further. ...
Already, the Pentagon's intelligence budget dwarfs that of the CIA. Although the budgets remain classified, the CIA is believed to get about $5 billion annually, less than the National Security Agency, which gets $6 billion to $8 billion a year. The Defense Department's National Reconnaissance Office, the operator of military satellites, also gets $6 billion to $8 billion a year.
Other Pentagon agencies have sizable budgets — the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the department's mapping office, has a budget of about $3 billion, and the Defense Intelligence Agency gets $1 billion to $3 billion annually. The individual military services, which all have their own intelligence-gathering operations, also have large budgets.
Negroponte declined to speak about these issues in the wake of Goss' resignation Friday. But in a speech last month, he said — in an implicit criticism of at least some of the intelligence agencies he supervises — that his basic goal is to "optimize the [intelligence] community's total performance as opposed to optimizing its members' individual operations."
"We are in the process of remaking a loose confederation into a unified enterprise," Negroponte added.
An enterprise, or an intelligence empire that would have made J. Edgar Hoover proud and jealous at the same time, Mr. Negroponte? I'm almost afraid of the answer on one level. On another I'm heartened by the fact that someone recognizes what's needed to make our intelligence agencies and our methods for gaining that intelligence better so we don't have another day like September 11th again.
Mistress Pundit
General Michael Hayden, deputy DNI under John Negroponte, was considered the so-called front-runner to replace Porter Goss. And while he is highly qualified to do so, some people in Congress have reservations, and wasted little time in voicing them. (Hat-tip: Captain's Quarters)
Even before President Bush has named his choice to take over the CIA, the Air Force general who is the front-runner drew fire Sunday from lawmakers in the president's own party who say a military man should not lead the civilian spy agency.
The criticism of the expected choice of Gen. Michael Hayden to head the CIA came from some influential Republicans in Congress as well as from Democrats.
"I do believe he's the wrong person, the wrong place, at the wrong time," said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich. "We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time."
Hoekstra said on "Fox News Sunday" that having a general in charge of the CIA could create the impression among agents around the world that the agency is under Pentagon control. If he were to get the nomination, military officers would run all the major spy agencies, from the ultra-secret National Security Agency to the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Hoekstra said "there's ongoing tensions between this premiere civilian intelligence agency and the Department of Defense as we speak."
The sentiment was echoed by Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, who said Hayden's military background would be a "major problem," and several Democrats who made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said Hayden could leave agents with the impression that the CIA has been "just gobbled up by the Defense Department."
The criticism comes a day before Bush was expected to name Hayden as his choice to lead the CIA. Outgoing director Porter Goss abruptly announced his resignation Friday after less than two years on the job.
Hayden is widely respected in both parties for his long experience with intelligence, and many lawmakers said he could be a good candidate for some other job. Some, like Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, suggested that he might think about resigning his military post if he were going to head the CIA. But Hoekstra and Chambliss were among those who said that wouldn't solve the problem.
"Just resigning commission and moving on, putting on a striped suit, a pinstriped suit versus an Air Force uniform, I don't think makes much difference," Chambliss said on ABC's "This Week."
Talk of Hayden's possible nomination has reignited the debate over the Bush's administration's domestic surveillance program, which Hayden used to oversee as the former head of the National Security Agency.
California Rep. Jane Harman, leading Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Hayden "made a big mistake" by defending the legality of the eavesdropping program in December during a speech at the National Press Club. "That program does not comply with law," she said on CNN's "Late Edition."
Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he would use a Hayden nomination to raise questions about the legality of the program and did not rule out holding it up until he gets answers. "I'm not going to draw any lines in the sand until I see how the facts evolve," Specter said on Fox.
White House insiders tried to shrug off suggestions that Hayden's military experience could become a serious issue. And they said they welcome a fight over the domestic eavesdropping program — an issue that Bush certainly has not shied away from taking on in his effort to take a tough stance against terrorists.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said she is concerned about Hayden's role in the domestic spying program, but that should not be the issue in Senate confirmation hearings for the CIA. But having a four-star general leading the spy agency should be, she said.
"There have to be more people that can be drawn upon" in the administration, she said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "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."
Vice President Dick Cheney, in an interview with NBC, would not comment on whether Bush was prepared to nominate Hayden. But he said the new CIA director will have to "make a lot of adjustments" at the agency.
"We're faced with trying to find ways to figure out what a small group of terrorists are going to do, they're difficult to penetrate, difficult to track by national technical means," Cheney said. "It places a much heavier emphasis on human intelligence than was required, necessarily, before, but it automatically places a burden on whoever's in that job as director of the CIA."
Hayden has his defenders on Capitol Hill. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he hopes he could be confirmed.
"In all due respect to my colleagues — and I obviously respect their views — General Hayden is really more of an intelligence person than he is an Air Force officer," he said on "Face the Nation" on CBS. "I think that we should also remember that there had been other former military people who have been directors of the CIA."
And Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, who will oversee confirmation hearings for the post, acknowledged on CNN that there is some real concern about somebody from the military heading up the CIA. But he said that can be easily resolved by Hayden resigning his post and bringing in deputies with a strong civilian background.
I can fully understand the apprehension amongst some regarding where his loyalties lie, especially being in charge of a civilian intelligence agency. And if I were amidst the tin-foil hat crowd, I might even venture the nutty conspiracy theory of a military coup in progress, albeit in a rather slow progression. But, thank God I'm not a part of that crowd. Mike Hayden's a good man, and did good things in reforming the NSA. But his confirmation is already facing some heat over his involvement in the NSA surveillance program. Could this prove to be where he meets his Waterloo? Maybe, but if the White House were smart, they would come out tomorrow and name another. As Hayden hasn't been named yet, it's not necessarily a "withdrawal" the way Harriet Miers was.
Now, the field of candidates that I have seen rumored (Captain's Quarters gives us Frances Fragos Townsend, David Shedd, and Mary Margaret Graham amongst others being considered) aren't nearly as competent as Mike Hayden. I'm crossing my fingers that the administration moves forward with Hayden. He can clean up the CIA, and streamline it to work hand-in-hand with the DNI, and the administration.
If the others are put in place, and don't play ball with Negroponte, they will be gone as quickly as Goss was. I can understand the internecine fighting going on, but only because we're trying to bring all the intelligence under one, real collector. That's the DNI. He gives the president what he needs in terms of intelligence. What is a point I must make, though, is that I don't like John Negroponte. I think he's brusk, and is constantly fighting to get his way on certain things. He and Rep. Hoekstra had it out over the release of the Iraqi documents collected since the invasion. It's clear to me that Negroponte may be the sort of bureaucrat that gets ticked when anyone ever questions his job. And based on this post from Captain's Quarters on Thursday, May 6th:
The problem thus far is the growth of the bureaucracy under Negroponte. These may consist of analysts, but creating these positions eats up resources that may be best used in the field. We warned about this aspect of the 9/11 Commission's demand to create the DNI and his directorate, and Congress has watched Negroponte's empire-building with alarm. And according to the LA Times, Negroponte hasn't even begun empire building, as his ambitions have led him into a power struggle with Donald Rumsfeld:
But Negroponte faces a larger and much more difficult challenge: a struggle with Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's Department of Defense, which runs more than 80% of the nation's intelligence budget and is busy expanding its role even further. ...
Already, the Pentagon's intelligence budget dwarfs that of the CIA. Although the budgets remain classified, the CIA is believed to get about $5 billion annually, less than the National Security Agency, which gets $6 billion to $8 billion a year. The Defense Department's National Reconnaissance Office, the operator of military satellites, also gets $6 billion to $8 billion a year.
Other Pentagon agencies have sizable budgets — the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the department's mapping office, has a budget of about $3 billion, and the Defense Intelligence Agency gets $1 billion to $3 billion annually. The individual military services, which all have their own intelligence-gathering operations, also have large budgets.
Negroponte declined to speak about these issues in the wake of Goss' resignation Friday. But in a speech last month, he said — in an implicit criticism of at least some of the intelligence agencies he supervises — that his basic goal is to "optimize the [intelligence] community's total performance as opposed to optimizing its members' individual operations."
"We are in the process of remaking a loose confederation into a unified enterprise," Negroponte added.
An enterprise, or an intelligence empire that would have made J. Edgar Hoover proud and jealous at the same time, Mr. Negroponte? I'm almost afraid of the answer on one level. On another I'm heartened by the fact that someone recognizes what's needed to make our intelligence agencies and our methods for gaining that intelligence better so we don't have another day like September 11th again.
Mistress Pundit
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home