General Hayden Nominated. Hope Reigns For Rumsfeld Resignation? ©

As do many, I have numerous objections to Presidential nominee, Air Force General Michael V. Hayden. This military elitist was selected to head the Central Intelligence Agency. Only a week ago, Porter Goss, a longtime friend, and associate of John D. Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence, held this position. However, Goss is gone and King George II wants Hayden to reign.

Will the General work well with his associates? One can never know. The past cannot always be a predictor, though this time I hope it is.

Negroponte, the man that watches over the nation’s 15 intelligence agencies, and Goss, former Director of the Central Intelligence agency, were friends for decades. They were even fraternity brothers at Yale. However, in recent months, they have become adversaries.

A year into his tenure, Porter Goss was forced to relinquish some of his powers to Director Negroponte. CIA Director Goss would no longer oversee the president's daily intelligence briefings. Negroponte would. Negroponte would bring CIA personnel under his wing; analytical functions of the agency were also turned over to his burgeoning control. Directors Negroponte and Goss began to fight regularly; the screams echoed loudly throughout the Capital. Morale was low. Ultimately, Goss resigned his post, but not in accordance with the President’s plan. The President preferred a smoother transition.

Nevertheless, Goss is gone. Whether the reasons are mysterious or not and Hayden can now become his successor. Oh joy, oh bliss, Bush believes, though there is much dissent. I am among those with have misgivings; yet, I am elated, even encouraged. Could this appointment originate theatre of the absurd?

I do not want the Director of Central Intelligence to be military strategist. A man with a mind for war does not seem the best choice for a country that claims to want peace. The thought frightens me. I disdain the idea of appointing a person that favors spying on the public. This scares me more than his military expertise might. That this General believes the best way to alleviate terrorism is to eliminate the right to privacy is, to me, unforgivable. Hayden’s declarations and distrustful posture causes me to shiver; still I have hope. You might wonder why that would be.

After all you know, as do I, in December 2005, Michael V. Hayden, the former Director of the National Security Agency and now Deputy to Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte, spoke in support of a contentious plan, one that violates the civil rights of citizens, and is, in fact, illegal.

General Hayden was among those that crafted and executed this controversial eavesdropping scheme. He and his cohorts thought the mission worthy; therefore, they saw no need to obtain official warrants before breaching our rights. They chose to indiscriminately intercept domestic phone calls and electronic mail messages without regard for the laws of this country. Yet, I think there is anything good that might come from his appointment; never you say.

You might wish to remind me of what I do recall, Hayden and the White House claim if one of the parties is thought to have links to al Qaeda or related terrorist organizations then actions must be taken, no matter their legitimacy. General Hayden declared these unlawful measures were apt, and even necessary.

Dear reader, are you now offering me these words of wisdom? In January 2006, Air Force General Hayden stated openly at a National Press Club meeting, "It is not a driftnet over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about. This is targeted and focused.”

Yes, I know and I too wonder, “Targeted and focused” on whom and with what certainty. I can only ask and likely, I will receive no answer from the powers that be; however, ‘Can we trust the intelligence of those that showed none prior to September 11, 2001, or after?’ I do not. I am confident that you think believing in these bullies is unwarranted. I do too. Yet, I do not believe in these bandits, but in their ability to self-destruct.

As I expressed early on in this exposé, I fear this appointment. However, I am still inclined to think this nomination might be best.

My hope may be fleeting for I recall, on December 11, 2000, the day before George W. Bush was selected President of the United States by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, I was reflecting upon the possibility. I theorized if Bush were imposed on a reluctant public, and the rightful candidate, Albert A. Gore was refused his due process, “How bad could it be?”

At that time, I never imagined what Baby Bush could and would do. I had no conception of what he would create or more accurately destroy. Who knew the Constitution itself could be threatened and finally defeated? Then, I did not. Now, I do and I regret that statement.

Currently, I realize reality can be far worse than any fiction or fable. I acknowledge that I am likely to be repentant after I make this assertion; nevertheless, I will state it. Hayden might be the catalyst for a Rumsfeld dismissal or resignation and that, I think, cannot be bad. Granted this is a hope and probably not a possibility. Yet, each time I hear a report discussing this nominee, there is discussion of how the two men disagree often.

There are those that tout the "natural leadership qualities" of Hayden and this causes me to dream. Others surmise that since Hayden is technically an agent of the Defense Department, Rumsfeld will remain the stronger; he will have the upper hand. Nevertheless, there are still others that speak of General Hayden’s strong will and outspokenness.

Many suggest he resign his commission; a large number say his military title will have no influence. It is his demeanor that matters. For me, I hope that he is de-meaner of the two and that his strong will and persuasive hand will out force out his foe. A girl can dream. I can hope that the Secretary of Defense will fall. However, I must be prepared for what may follow. I remember when I reflected and thought how bad could Bush be.

For your review . . .
• Profile: Michael V Hayden BBC News, May 8, 2006
• Top C.I.A. Pick Has Credentials and Skeptics, By Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti. New York Times. May 6, 2006
• UPDATE! General Formally Named to Lead CIA, By Peter Baker and Charles Babington. Washington Post. Tuesday, May 9, 2006
• White House Begins Push for C.I.A. Pick, By Elisabeth Bumiller and Carl Hulse, New York Times. May 9, 2006
• Hayden May Replace Goss at CIA By Scott Simon and Mary Louise Kelly. National Public Radio
• Goss Forced Out as CIA Director; Gen. Hayden Is Likely Successor, By Dafna Linzer and Walter Pincus. Washington Post. Saturday, May 6, 2006
• The Next Head of the CIA? By Mike Allen AND Timothy J. Burger. Time Magazine. riday, May. 05, 2006
• Bush Faces Fight in Nominating Hayden as CIA Head, Reuters. Monday 8 May 2006
• George W. Bush, Petitioners v. 
Albert Gore, Jr., et al. Supreme Court of The United States
• Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
• GORE, Albert Arnold, Jr., [1948-]
• Election 2000 Timeline
• White House tries to allay concerns about Hayden, By Mark Silva and Stephen J. Hedges. KansasCity.com, originally published in The Chicago Tribune. Monday, May. 08, 2006
• Remarks By General Michael V. Hayden National Press Club. Monday, January 23, 2006

On May 8, 2006, the day of this writing, minds met unexpectedly.
Please peruse another editorial . . .
With thanks to ksh01 for sharing this link and the author, Steve Clemons.
Misreading Michael Hayden's Role in the Intelligence Bureaucracy Wars: Negroponte Wants Hayden to Battle with -- Not Help – Rumsfeld The Washington Note