Letters to the Editor
-
General Hayden is a traitor
"Government lawyers had assured him" is just another way to say "I was only following orders". If the man can't understand the simple language of the 4th Ammendment then he is too stupid; if he understands it but works to violate it he is a traitor. The rest of your legal crap you can shove where appropriate.
-
Not Qualified
No man is "qualified" to run an agency with the power of the CIA when he has proven that he does not have the ability ot resist an illegal order. We desperately need a government full of men of integrity, not yes-men. I am shocked that Joe Conason of all people would fail to see this. By this sort of reasoning, J. Edgar Hoover would have to be considered to have been an excellent Director of the FBI notwithstanding his racism, tacit tolerance of organized crime, and chronic violations of the constitution.
-
Hayden's problems
I'm sympathetic in general to when people ask the questions which challenge too-easily made assumptions, as Conason does here in not just jumping on the 'Bush appointed him so he's bad' bandwagon. However, the answer to the question needs to be accurate, and it might be that the bandwagon was right.
Nowhere in Conason's article do I see a central issue addressed, a concern held even by some republican senators, that this represents a power grab by the Pentagon, which already controls 80% of the federal government's intelligence spending.
There are already good reasons to be concerned about the issue of the pentagon's interests competing with those of the American people, after decades of questionable wars, huge spending, power agendas with military bases across the world, and presidents feeling pressured - see Eisenhower's cautionary messages about the issue.
With all that, I'd think the question deserves some consideration.
Second, while Conason notes with phrases such as 'the admittedly abysmal standards of Bush appointments' the issue that this may be a poor appointment, I don't see a need to automatically accept bad appointments because the next one might be worse. The democrats have no good reason not to fight both, and every good reason to fight both.
Our system has many checks and balances, and while the loyalty of the CIA director to the public interest over the adminstration is not one the people should not want to rely on, it's not one to give up without protest, either. Sometimes, insiders, from Daniel Ellsbeg in the Pentagon to Mark Felt as the #2 man at the FBI, provide a service.
One of the limits to the power grabs by a corrup government is indeed the loyal Americans who won't go along, and we should protect that culture. There are enough Rumsefelds, Ashcrofts, Feiths and Wolfowitzes that we should block them where possible to try for the John Deans or Elliot Richardsons who will have more standards.
Perhaps Hayden should be approved - I'm not expert enough to say - but the article seems not to be quite balanced.
-
You're Wrong!!!
No one in the Bush Administration - and that includes Hayden - has any interest in fixing or rebuilding the CIA. Porter Goss was sent in to preside over its demise and hayden will bury it.
The real point here is that the CIA is being made to pay for loyalty to the truth - while the FBI is being given a free pass over egregious failures that led to 9/11.
-
Following orders is no excuse
This guy Hayden is trying to hide behind the same argument that AG Gonzalez has been peddling, that Cic Bush has unlimited powers in wartime.
This is not the case, and someone better start showing BushCo where the limits are.
Call Hayden a scapegoat if you want, but i say ;et's start with him and then we can go on to bigger fish. After all, that's one of the rationales used to enable the Iraq war: get the 'easier target before tackling Korea or Iran.
-
What about punishing him for his sins?
He's the guy that's been running the illegal wiretapping operations. Why shouldn't he be punished for something he did?
-
Many of Conason's Arguments are Faulty
I was dismayed by the entire premise of Conason's work: that a candidate nominated by George W. Bush is the best choice to repair damage caused by other Bush appointees. It seems as though even a child would see the flaw in this idea: Like appointing Ed Meese to chair a commission on civil liberties for porn producers.
Evidently though Conason is blind, at least on the subject of General Hayden. His arguments didn't get any better as we read along.
Conason notes right off that Hayden is promulgating the entirely specious Article II argument to give blanket permission for any idea that enters Dubya's pointy little head. Conason knows it's specious - he implies as much with the reference to Nixon. Hayden is saying, in effect, "Any order from the President is a lawful order." Yet the fact that Hayden is arguing this way seems to drift right past Conason, unnoticed.
Conason tries to argue that Hayden isn't responsible for deciding whether or not an order is lawful. That's misleading at best. The duty of any service person - officer or enlisted - is to remain aware of potentially unlawful orders and to refuse to obey a questionable order until its legality has been verified. "Verified," in this case, does not mean "Run past Bush's pet Attorney General." If Hayden doesn't recognize the need to seek an objective legal opinion on these matters, then he is too dangerous for the job.
Conason also notes several times that Bush has betrayed the trust of the American people in grand, potentially criminal style. Specifically, he notes that Bush and his appointees have grossly mishandled the nation's intelligence apparatus. But for some reason he believes we should trust Bush this time and pass his latest intelligence appointee right on through.
It is true that one way or another we will have a Bush appointee in that job. But he should not be someone as tainted as General Hayden. Congress needs to begin vetting Bush's appointees with all the intensity that Bush's past betrayals have earned for him.
-
Hayden is not a good choice
I do not dispute the fact that Hayden has the inherent skills for the position. For once, Bush is not appointing an incompetent hack.
However, Hayden is a military man, hence, his loyalties will be with the Secretary of Defense and the President. He has already shown that he is willing to lie and cover up for both.
There are no reasons to believe that Hayden will show any independence from the Pentagon and the White House. If he dares go against the will of either, he will be promptly booted out.
Given the Administration's record, any WH appointee is suspect, and should not be given the benefit of the doubt under any circumstances.
This Administration does not tolerate dissent in any shape or form. It won't change until Bush, his cohorts, and his Congressional GOP clique are thrown out of office.