Daily Kos

On my browser (firefox) the big letters at the start of each paragraph make this harder to read, at least IMO.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?  Fortunately, Harman isn't on the Senate side of the fence, so she doesn't get to say what's "on the table" or off...

I just feel unable to handle all this without hearing his take on the entire affair!

can't be appointed.  FWIW.

http://xnerg.blogspot.com/

I don't know this site, but came across it looking for something else.  Let's savor this.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/...

EXCLUSIVE: CIA Nominee Hayden Linked to MZM
By Justin Rood - May 8, 2006, 11:33 AM
While director of the National Security Agency, Gen. Michael V. Hayden contracted the services of a top executive at the company at the center of the Cunningham bribery scandal, according to two former employees of the company.

Hayden, President Bush's pick to replace Porter Goss as head of the CIA, contracted with MZM Inc. for the services of Lt. Gen. James C. King, then a senior vice president of the company, the sources say. MZM was owned and operated by Mitchell Wade, who has admitted to bribing former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham with $1.4 million in money and gifts. Wade has also reportedly told investigators he helped arrange for prostitutes to entertain the disgraced lawmaker, and he continues to cooperate with a federal inquiry into the matter.

King has not been implicated in the growing scandal around Wade's illegal activities. However, federal records show he contributed to some of Wade's favored lawmakers, including $6000 to Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) and $4000 to Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL).

Before joining MZM in December 2001, King served under Hayden as the NSA's associate deputy director for operations, and as head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency.

King worked at NSA Headquarters in Ft. Meade, Maryland, in 2004 and 2005, both sources told me. "King was out there working on same floor as Hayden," one former employee with firsthand knowledge of the arrangement said. "He was doing special projects for Hayden as an MZM employee." Neither former employee knew details of King's work for Hayden; one said he thought he was doing "special projects" for the director, while the other speculated it was "high-ranking advisory work."

The NSA did not immediately respond to my request for comment. Hayden left the NSA in April 2005 to take the post of Deputy Director of National Intelligence. The DNI office referred my call on the matter to the NSA.

As an MZM employee, King was involved in a number of controversial projects. In 2002, he was a key adviser to the team creating CIFA, the Pentagon's domestic surveillance operation. In 2004, he was one of three MZM staffers who worked on the White House Robb-Silberman Commission, which recommended expanding CIFA's powers.

NSA is home to its own controversial project, of course -- the post-9/11 warrantless domestic wiretapping operation known as the "terrorist surveillance program." There is no indication that King has been involved in that project.

"I don't see anything nefarious" about King's work for Hayden, one employee told me, although he conceded he did not know what projects King worked on. "I think Hayden needed help."

King became president of MZM when Wade left the company in June 2005, following revelations he bribed Cunningham to win lucrative federal contracts. The company has since been sold and renamed Athena Innovative Solutions. It did not return my call for comment.

I can't stand it anymore.

It could also be seen an easy way for the Republicans to disagree with Bush.  A way to separate from Bush in time for the election over what will be an arcane issue for most (military leading the CIA).

If you're right, someone forgot to clue some of the Republicans in Congress into the plan.

CNN

U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said, "This appointment ... signals that we are not that concerned about having an independent intelligence community independent of the Department of Defense."

Hoekstra said civilian government policy makers "need to get [intelligence] in an unvarnished way through a civilian, not through a military, lens."

Things have gotten so rotten in DC that the Dems can now convincingly assert that harsh scrutiny of appointees and process is not about partisan politics at all. It's about responsibility to real security, through the reform and renewal of a badly-compromised structure.

It demonstrates that the Republicans want a fight over Domestic Spying, believing that as an issue it's a winner for them.

So far, I've seen a couple of reports that Hayden, however, is not a Rumsfeld supporter, but rather an opponent of increased militarization of intelligence (despite his standing as an active General).  So it's not clear that this is a Rumsfeld consolidation move.

She needs one.

Is Feinstein thinking this will give her some jomentum?

WTF? Can't they see the writing on the wall? C-O-U-P? If this Hayden is confirmed, intelligence will now be thoroughly political and thoroughly under military control. BushCo won't even need to tamper with the elections ...

as in the case of Abu Gonzales, Condiliarzer (and the attempt with the mustasche), the idea here is to legitmate a policy - in Hayden's case, the policy of shredding the 4th amendment - by making his Senate confirmation the test of that legitimacy. Unfortunately, with "opponents" like Feinstein and Harmon, this "legislative salami" tactic will probably work once more. So get ready for the widespread "legalization" of domestic wiretapping AND black bagging. One more pawl in the ratchet of dictatorship. Meet Heinrich Hayden.

"It's more important that the CIA be led by a competent person"...Jesus H. Christ, woman, what makes you think he's competent when he is willing to parrot the bullshit Abu G legal analysis on domestic spying?

This guy's specialty is electronic surveillance, not human intelligence. This guy's mission is to get the CIA in the business of tapping our phones and links to the internets, mark my words.

Praising Hayden's "competence".
Yes he is very competent in making the Fourth Amendment a bloody joke.

Just in case you forgot: "he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

And another danger. Hayden is just another step in the direction of making the CIA tell the President what he wants to hear.

You wanna attack Iran? Ask the CIA to provide the "reasons".

But that's not what Intelligence is about. It's the trap Saddam fell into: Nobody dared to tell him that America REALLY was going to attack him although they knew better.

Will Hayden's CIA still tell Bush that attacking Iran would be a foolish, dangerous nightmare?

And thus, the President picks a fight.

that picking a fight would not be wise choice for the President right now. With his reputation in the mud, and with all but a few lunatics supporting him, he has no more clout.

Remember when he was talking about political capital right after narrowly winning in 04? He can't even fill vacancies anymore. Maybe it would help if he would drop the "I can do anything I want and you cant stop me" attitude. Not holding breath for that one though.

If Bush is using Hayden as a way to get out of the Specter hearings next month, then Goss' resignation might be nothing more than Bush once again evading his responsibility for his actions. Hayden goes to the Senate, Specter asks his 20 questions, Hayden dodges, noone else is called, and Specter announces he is satisfied with the responses. Everything gets swept under the rug again. Perfect outcome for Bush.

was making the rounds on Sunday and I caught a bit of his appearance on CBS.  He came out immediately in favor of Hayden, clearly stating that his mind is made up.  Then he went on to bash any Democrats who wouldn't wait to see what might come up in the hearings before making up their minds.  Do regular people listen to that and realize that he's totally full of shit?  Or do they just listen to the bashing?

stoke the fires of fear approach, and "Guess Who: Traitorous Democrats Edition" game. Does your person represent California?

Seriously though, I don't think defeating Hayden will cost us any points in the election. Its fairly easy to side step. Get Reid out there NOW saying, "As a representatitive, sworn to the Constitution of the United States, I cannot in good faith give the presiden t or recomend my collegues give the president our consent on his nominee. A man who willingly and proudly  enabled the consitutional right of an unknown number of US citizens to be violated. I cannot with concious support a nominee who has violated our laws and in the process made America less secure to head our most important intelligence post, especially in a post 9-11 world."

Its declarative, and vague statements of indictment that will always do in fear mongers, you throw the onus  of supporting your indictment on the fear mongers. They  won't know how to answer back, nor can they WITHOUT ANSWERING THE INDICTMENT!

This is more troubling than the political posturing of the mid-terms.  There is a seismic turf battle going on at the cost of the American people and their security.

The Pentagon which had already has 80% of spying funding is trying to militarize the entire system.  From sending out hit squads to embassies without Diplomatic oversight or approval we have patterns of a military State/Nation.

http://www.nysun.com/...

Dems will flounder, waffle, and quietly acquiesce further evidence to their dereliction of duty.  It is shocking and shameless the incestious power grab and nationalism that this Criminal Cabal is creating under their guise of war on terror.

1. Minor point, but Chimpy's fish comment, originally reported as a perch, is now being reported as a large-mouth bass.

2. Josh Marshall links to reports that Negroponte is agreeing to let DOD take over covert ops from the CIA. Hayden, a general, works for Rumsfeld. Thus, Rummy will have succeeded in gutting the CIA and having his guy in charge of its remains. And everything that matters will belong to Rummy and the Pentagon.

Read it and weep:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

The press briefing was proceeding according to script when all of a sudden, an ill-mannered presence almost ruined the Hayden pleasantries with rude questioning:

Q Why did you want Mr. Goss fired? And also, does the CIA send detainees to secret prisons, prisons abroad?
.
AMBASSADOR NEGROPONTE: I wouldn't characterize Mr. Goss's departure in that way, Helen. Porter had talked for some time about the possibility of leaving public service. I think that the President felt this was an opportune time. He saw Porter, and I think Porter also had talked about himself being a transitional leader, transitioning from the old setup prior to intelligence reform to the new one. And the President just felt that this was a good time to appoint new leadership to carry the agenda forward and consolidate the reforms that Mr. Goss had initiated.
.
Q How about the second part of my question? Do we send detainees to secret prisons abroad?
.
AMBASSADOR NEGROPONTE: I'm just not going to comment on that question.
.
05/08/06 Press Briefing (Snow, Negroponte)

Some people think that kind of thing is cute, but I didn't find that line of questioning funny at all.

More and more, she seems like a female version of Joe Lieberman.

Wow. There are more non sequiturs in this post than raisins in my breakfast cereal. As Josh Marshall points out, this NY Sun article posits that the nomination of General Hayden suggests a shift in power from the CIA to the Pentagon for paramilitary operations. That seems a more likely rationale for his nomination, not some attempt to "frighten" democratic congresspersons into submission. They're doing a good enough job on their own, without his needing any attempt at all.

Why should we fight to have a debate about wire tapping in the news when we could have hookergate?

Ratings in the can? Check.
Public opinion trashed? Check.
International goodwill spent? Check.
Voters leaning Democratic? Check.
Plan of Operation? Succumb.

...

And Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, basically says the NSA program is off-limits during Hayden's hearing.

So I guess questions about his 'understanding' of the 4th Amendment would be a total waste of time.

if the other side refuses to fight?

Democrats must stand up for the 4th Amendment and stop playing frickin' politics!

At some point, our liberties take precedence over their fears of not being reelected. And, in fact, fighting would improve their chances dramatically.

Okay, folks, Harmon and Pelosi and Feinstein and Joe Nomentum Zell Lieberman and their Dem ilk need a face full of blogosphere indignation.  Already, they want to roll out the CIA red carpet for Hermann Goering.  Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze!   What the hell are they thinking and drinking?

Go here and let your irritation at Bush enablers be heard:

http://www.democrats.org/...

Anyone who lives in the D.C. area, please rush over to the Hill and open a testicle and spine stand on the capitol steps.  Hurry.

You will do the Democratic Party a huge favor and you will get rich in the process.

Okay, Kos and all the other BlogMeisters, fire at will at the Democratic Hill!

Democrats need to spend a few million dollars on a national buy saying a) We support the surveillance of terrorists, b) We support the the wiretapping of terrorists in critical situations without a warrant in advance, c) Getting a warrant AFTER the fact is too much for him, d) Asking Congress to fix the law or the Judicial Branch to rule on the application of law is too much for our President, who acts like a King - not an elected official.

Gen. Hayden is an improvement over Porter Goss. It's the President that is a problem - Democrats need to tie the problems of the administration to the President and the GOP - not somebody that less than 5% of America can identify.

Karl Rove is baiting Democrats. Instead of doing taking the bait and coming out swinging at Hayden - come out in a very public way in support of a nonpartisan intelligence apparatus. Then take a swing at the President. Paint the President as politicizing intelligence FIRST and don't get bogged down in the weeds decrying how bad a choice Hayden may be. I'm not saying keep our powder dry - I'm saying shoot the GOP for politicizing intelligence - Gen. Hayden was just doing his job.

What committees does this go to in the Senate?  Just intelligence?

Time to start dialing . . . starting with Feinstein.

I am ashamed.  Are they selling out to help Israel or are they just quislings?  Either way, they'll have a lot to atone for this yom kippur.

Do you honestly expect the Democrats to stand up?

Have the ever?  The gutlessness of the Dems is only matched by the hubris and greed of Republicans.  Which one the public will tire of first is the thing that will show in November of 2006.

I'm not so sure about the Dems...

Georgia10 you will be a devastating DA, with or without Powerpoint - - those drop caps in your closing statement will be overwhelming!

I speculated on some of this in a diary this morning. I think Bush has picked a "fight" with Congressional Republicans in order to help them hold onto their majorities in the House and Senate.

But does the name Gen. Hayden make anyone else think of the character, nutso Gen. Jack D. Ripper, played by Sterling Hayden in Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove? If Gen. Michael Hayden starts talking about "Communist conspiracies to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids," we are in really big trouble folks. Okay, we're already in big trouble.

Whatever the eventual vote would have been on the Senate floor, not all Dems are Dianne Feinstein or Joe Lieberman.  Russ Feingold, for instance, is not Dianne Feinstein or Joe Lieberman, and neither is Barbara Boxer.

The White House is taking a calculated gamble here.  The gamble is that the closely-split poll numbers on the domestic spying program actually cut in their direction when the issue gets a full airing.  Given the fact that the American people now do not believe Bush on much of anything and are inclined to listen to the Democrats, I'm not sure this is a given at all.  In order for this to work for the 'Pugs, somebody in the administration has to have some street cred on terrorism at this point in time.  I'm not sure they do.  All of the false alarms; the cooked-up intelligence on the war they tried to link to terrorism but which Americans now see has nothing to do with the still-free bin Laden; the fact that the administration can't handle a hurricane in New Orleans, let alone another major terror attack; Jack Abramoff, and the list goes on.  Their credibility is shot.

So what happens when Russ Feingold and 24 other Democrats (Akaka, Boxer, Byrd, Cantwell, Dodd, Durbin, Harkin, Inouye, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Menendez, Mikulski, Murray, Obama, Reed, Reid, Sarbanes, Schumer, Stabenow, and Wyden, I'm pretty sure of) start explaining to the American people from the floor of the Senate exactly what the domestic spying program really means, and Bush, his post-Abramoff, hopefully post-Rove indictment, starts yelling "Terra!  Terra!  Terra!"?

Why, the whole damn thing backfires and blows up in their face.  I think their "calculated gamble" is really an attempted long bomb out of their own end zone with 0:03 left on the clock in the fourth quarter.

They know the jig is up.  They know what they're facing if they lose the House of Representatives in November.  Nancy Pelosi told them as much over the weekend:  investigation after investigation after investigation with subpoena power.  Pelosi didn't suggest impeachment but went to great lengths not to rule it out.  And Georgie Porgie, pudding and lies, pissed on the country and made thousands die, knows exactly what's going to happen with John Fucking Conyers at the head of the House Judiciary Committee just as well as you and I do.

The fact is, though, that there are smart Republicans in the Senate, Republicans with real political sense.  If they didn't have real political sense, they would have never made it to the United States Senate in the first place.  They don't want to be part of Georgie Porgie's gotterdammerung.  They don't want to go down with his misguided ship of state.  The Collinses and Craigs and Crapos and Grahams and Grassleys and Greggs, the Lugars and McCains and Shelbys and Smiths and Snowes of the Senate do not want to be dead political meat.  They don't want to see their state legislatures go Dem in November even if they themselves aren't up for reelection.  They want to do everything they can to stay in the majority so they can stay chairs of the Senate Committee on Waste Management and Brain Surgery and the like.

They're probably already on the phone to the White House saying "please, please, please don't do this."

Look for the first Republican defection on the Senate side.  Then, the flood gates will open, and Georgie Porgie will have to Harriet Myers General Hayden good and fast.

This confuses me:

And thus, the President picks a fight.

v.

And how quickly the tactic worked!  As Glenn Greenwald points out, Dianne Feinstein took the bait with the ferocious appetite of a 7.5 pound perch, praising Hayden and already coming out in support of his confirmation...
And Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, basically says the NSA program is off-limits during Hayden's hearing.

If they want a fight and Feinstein and Harman aren't fighting, how is the tactic working and what bait was taken.

Btw, I agree that he by all appearances is a terrible choice and that Feinstein and Harmon are off base, but I don't understand the political tactic you are describing. Do the Republicans want a fight or do they want Democrats to cower?

...Dianne Feinstein took the bait with the ferocious appetite of a 7.5 pound perch,...

too great.

interviewed on NPR this evening about this nomination, probably because he was the last head with military ties (he was retired at the time). He said that there is nothing inherently wrong with a military man leading the Agency, but that he felt it was not appropriate now because, unlike when he was the head, we are not at war.

Melissa Block reminded him that we are "at war". Freakin hilarious. Yes, the Cold War is a wee bit different than the Never Ending War on Terror.

First, my compliments to georgia10 for raising this possibility and backing it up.  Brilliant political analysis, though I agree it's speculative at this point.

Second, though I am appalled at Senator Feinstein's statement and the prospect of Democrats running from the opportunity to deal with this constitutionally crucial issue of the NSA wiretaps and all the powers the Bushites claim, I recognize her expertise and willingness to fight on other issues.  She's one of the few voices in the Senate consistently warning of the dangers of new nuclear weapons development and deployment.  She was a voice of sanity on the bankruptcy bill, etc.  She is not a traitor to Democrats.  She's very wrong on this.

If you caught Arlen Specter's press conference, you saw a man in agony over the wiretap issue.  However cautious and even gutless he might be, he sees the lack of political backup for investigations into what he also clearly sees as a major constitutional question.  This kind of crap from Democrats is not going to help.  If Democrats run away from this issue, they may be making a political calculation but they are not doing their duty as Americans and elected members of Congress.    

We gotta get rid of these easy Dim Dems!

They're opportunistic, pure and simple.

One, they believe that by ass-kissing Bush and stabbing their party in the back (and in Feinstein's case undermining the authority and seniority of the intelligence committee's ranking member, Rockefeller), they will personally benefit politically.

And two, Feinstein once served on the Trilateral Commission and her husband has a controlling share in a defense industry company--which the infamous Carlyle Group that the Bush family is in deep with also owns a big chunk of--that has won government contracts in recent years.

And Harman's husband is the Harman in Harman/Kardon, a large consumer electronics firm whose technology can, I'm sure, be fairly easily used to perform sophisticated electronics surveillance.

Do the math. They have the means, motive and opportunity to corrupt themselves for political and financial gain. All that's missing is the smoking gun.

If they're in on the con, they need to be flushed out and sent packing, like their buddy on the other side of the country in CT (and, possibly, in NY as well).

I'm sick of corruption that is destroying the country in so many ways, and could care less if it's in the Republican or Democratic party. Corruption is corruption and we need to root as much of it out as we can, short-term political consequences be damned.

They are Republican bought and paid for pod people with a D after their name.

We keep losing because we keep acting stupid. This is just another confirmation. Even with the GOP mired in terrible poll results and scandal after scandal, we keep handing them chance after chance.

What we need is a wholesale change in our party. A "line up behind us or get out" attitude. That would help tremendously.

I agree with Feinstein.

Our overarching objective should be control of at least on chamber of congress, at any cost.

Allowing the GOP to convince Independent soccer moms that the Dems are not as tenacious as the GOP on national security does us no good.

By nominating Hayden, Bush was hoping that the Dems would publicly contest the nomination, and, in doing so, improve GOP fortunes this fall.

I'm heartened that Feinstein did not take the bait.

or work for a defense contracting firm?????  could this be WHY she is so ready and willing to sing the praises of Hayden????

See..... the HOUSE chairmen on intelligence has come out against Hayden, whereas the SENATE chair has come out in favor of him.

So, now the HOUSE can say "hey, if we could have stopped it we would have", but of course, they can't.  In this way the house gets to save face on this issue and buy a few brownie points with the voters.  All this done in order to keep the house in the hands of republicans so Bush doesn't get tried for war crimes, impeached, and anything else that 69% of Americans want to do to him.

He who survives gets to tell the story.  The systematic euniphication, demoralization, and cannablism of the civilian CIA is equivelent to the book burning of the 3rd Reich.  Lets extinguish dissent and re-write the story.

No, I do not wear tin foil hats and this is not a conspiracy theory.  my point is the Pentagon who is pushing for full dominion on intellegence, unsupervised hit squads assigned to Embassies without Diplomatic oversight or approval, and most importantly $$$$$$.

You are seeing history in the making people and I for one do NOT like what I see.

Heterodoxie; Those that do not subscribe to orthodoxed beliefs.

"...it provides W-brand incumbents a chance to puff up their chests and appear tough on terrorism as they protect Hayden from a barrage of questions about the domestic spying program."

"Or they can prove to America that Democrats really believe in "Real Security" and the rule of the law."

If both those statements are true, HOW can they pull it off? It's damned if you do, damned if you don't as I read it. Draw up a battle plan!

you a lot of pull.  Is there anyway you could have Senator Feinstein's office (Steve Cash) explain what has happened to information regarding NSA intercepts of a United States Person from Nebraska while attempting to submit information to both Sentor Durbin and Reid over the Senate Server System?  

While testing their network to see what generates  attacks (a honeypot) first amendment protected was found to cause this to happen.  Have them explain what the heck Sentinel is and why are government computers sieving data packets domestically.

• Bush always prefers to appoint a General.
• Why shouldn't the Democrats stand aside and let Hayden in, when next week the skunk is out of the box, they will have some fun with the Republicans who paraded their man up and down the aisles. the point everyone misses here, is the hostility between Bush and his Rubber Stamp Congress. The Presidents coattails are providing them with zero lift for the mid-term elections. So they (courageously) took on the Dubai Port deal, much to the President's consternation. The Republican Congress than talked tough on Immigration, while Bush tried out the Compassionate Conservative message. Tim Russert and the Right Wing media simply fail to report the real news, which is the growing division within the Republican party. McCain anywhere on the ticket is a sign that times are desperate for the GOP.
• The Kennedy drug scandal was a watershed. The news media ran out to the sing a few more booyahs to the moral impeachment of Bill Clinton and the self indulgent Democratic leadership, to cast a few stones, if there were any left, but the young Congressman made a compelling speech. Was Rush Limbaugh even half this convincing, or sincere, when he faced the same problem. No he just looked like a fat hypocrite.. What we saw in Kennedy was character under duress, which has always been the standard of political leadership. Now Bush, who has never publically admitted his problem or sought treatment, somehow looks a lot smaller.

in his nomination for CIA director as the "wrong  man, at the wrong place, at the wrong time" by Joe Biden back in 1975.
Look how things have turned out.

CIAs_number_three_resigns

CIA No. 3, facing bribe probe, quits.

and as a constituent, wrote a letter to that effect. She is the Arlen Specter of the left - all bark and no bite. Always trotting ahead of every one else to pave the path for the Republicans.

What is wrong with Democrats???

The headline reads:

"Amid Concerns, Hayden Tapped for Spy Chief."

Tapped, get it?

If Bush wanted to pick a fight, then you could assume that he thought a fight was in his best interest.   You seem to be willing to give him that fight.

If the republicans think they can gain by puffing up their chest, as you say, and defending Bush's man, and attacking Democrats as weak on defense, then again it would seem a fight is in the GOP's best interest.   You propose giving them the fight.

As for this nonsense about Democrats backing away or cowering, it is just that, nonsense.  I suspect Hayden will be challenged on his actions at the NSA and for his connections to crooked military contractors.

Hayden will be judged on his merits.   I think it is clear there are enough skeptical republicans and democrats to ensure tough hearings.

I am so sick of people who accuse Democrats of not fighting.   LOOK AROUND YOU!  There are a lot of good people fighting.   And there are quite a few like you whining.

Gen. Hayden.  I think my head is about to explode.

Isn't it great how the one thing Amurrikins will listen to it their wallets? 19-yr-olds coming home dead or in pieces from Iraq? Not a problem--eggs, omelets, you know. High prices at the pump? The shrieks of fury can be heard from coast to coast.

-- a second, and third and fourth chance forever and ya know, they seem not to understand what we mean or -- check this out -- they don't WANT to do it.  You can probably give them a few more chances and my guess is that they STILL won't like -- get it.

The question that I have for us, those of us who care of any stripe -- what are WE going to do about it when they roll over and over and right out of contention in November? Already Dean is reassuring the media that the Democrats would not try to impeach Bush if they win the Congress.  Pray tell why is he doing that?  He should not reassure them about anything like that!  Meanwhile, the freaking CIA Director resigns and not one Democrat challenges the media to find out why or pursues any point of challenge to the White House.  Instead, we have Feinstein and others ready to sign on to a military appointee.  

They don't get if folks and what is key to finally accept is that they don't WANT to get it.  Until WE get it, though, there will be these endless diaries bemoaning "why oh why don't the Democrats do" fill in the blank.  Its not them that have to get it --- its those of us still clinging to the notion of opposition and engagement that have to 1) get it and 2) ACCEPT it.  There is no opposition offered by the Democrats.

And I do want to say one other thing. I was disturbed by your first guests. I think it's time to stop beating up on the professionals of the CIA. The fact is they did their job. They gave the intelligence to the White House. The White House didn't want to use the intelligence. The intelligence failures that got us into Iraq were not, by and large, in the CIA. They were in the White House. They wouldn't listen to what they were being told by the CIA and that is something that did not come out in those interviews.

http://www.rawstory.com/...

I think he should get acknowledged for speaking honestly on this on ABC.  Good for him.

And Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, basically says the NSA program is off-limits during Hayden's hearing.

What other ways can this woman find to not get at the truth? This is despicable.

It's another reason, as if we need more, to support Marcy Winograd. Harman will just keep letting us down. Count on it.

If you read her silly diary on prepping dem candidates on national security is was full of the same crap. The talking points were all Third Way pabulum, like let's not discuss the lies that got us into the war because, well it's already done. Let's be strong on security by doing nothing about it.

Hasn't worked before. Won't work now. Not using this opportunity to bring up illegal wiretaps is throwing away a great chance to make the Rethugs look worse. Do you think Newt Gingrich would ever have said, "Let's not use this to criticize Clinton. Might make us look weak?" Yeah, right.

Senator Feinstein,
      Have you taken leave of your senses? Your lightning quick endorsement of General Hayden to replace Porter Goss as CIA head is foolhardy and ridiculous. First of all appointing a military man as head of the CIA is just going to give the Pentagon more power, is that really what we need from this secretive and foolishly bellicose administration?

You also might want to look into General Hayden's links to MZM
(http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000581.php), who is tied into the Duke Cunningham scandal.

If you don't redeem yourself on this you will have lost my vote as well as my support.

thank you,
Me.

My favorite idiotic name-callling? "Lamo-o-crats. "

Good God, people. No wonder we lose elections.

Get a grip, tell her your opinion, and stop accusing her of treason. Maybe then we'll win a few elections, by proving we have a collective IQ greater than a houseplant.

I see a number of problems with your argument.

1. The law does not prohibit appointment of a military officer to the CIA Directorship. In fact, three other military officers have served in that position. One of them was Stansfield Turner, appointed by President Carter. Nor should there be a concern that General Hayden would be insufficiently independent of the Department of Defense. His position as CIA Director is a cabinet post, equal in rank to the Secretary of Defense. SecDef would not be his superior.

2. There can't be any serious doubt that General Hayden has the qualifications for the job. He has years of experience in the intelligence field and may well be among the most qualified and experienced persons available.

3. General Hayden, as Director of NSA, carried out the President's orders as far as wiretapping goes. We don't know what those orders were, we don't have any court order saying the orders were unconstitutional, and in any event it is not realistic to expect an executive branch official to disregard Presidential orders relating to national security in a time of war absent contrary judicial precedent. You have to remember that if any Americans' calls were tapped, those calls involved overseas calls to and from persons involved with or sympathetic to al Quaeda. No purely domestic telephone calls were apparently tapped. So it is not clear that a warrant would have been required by the 4th Amendment.

4. The "rule of law" is not advanced by making a partisan fight over a man who did his duty to his country and obeyed orders that, for all we know now, were perfectly lawful. The "rule of law" and national security are advanced by the spirit of bipartisan cooperation, especially in matters of national security in a time of war, and therefore I commend Sen. Feinstein for not succumbing to the partisan temptation to use Gen. Hayden's nomination as an excuse to attack the Administration.

5. The Democrats can gain an advantage on national security issues by taking the threat of terrorism seriously and by then advancing logical, coherent, and realistic proposals to win the war against it. Pretending that there is no threat of terrorism, or that it exists but is overrated, or that we don't need to use the military to respond to it, or that we don't have to use the traditional tools of intelligence gathering to learn about our enemy's intentions and actions, is foolish and won't win any elections.

General Hayden is qualified for this job. That should be the only criteria. Any other inquiry beyond that injects partisanship and political factors irrelevant to the job into the debate. That does not serve the nation well and does not serve our party well. And it creates a precedent that could easily be used to this party's disadvantage if and when it wins the presidency in the future.

Pelosi, Harmon, Lieberman, Feinstein and a few others!  They are like the Washington socialites at the commencing of the Civil War who rode out in their buggies to see the nice battle at Manassas, Virginia, only to find that real men got their heads blown off their bodies and bled real blood as well, and then the fine folk had to flea back to their parlors so they'd not get hurt.

No quarter to the Tories, right georgia10?

Just another promotion for doing Bushworld Hard Work -- General Hayden participated in the NSA domestic spying on U.S. citizens, and now he gets a flashy, high visibility promotion to the CIA?

Why are they so sure of themselves?  What do they know that we don't about their next scam?

Feinstein is a DINO; such a shame California wasted a seat on her.

Who are we kidding? They'll ask some half-assed "tough" questions, and, unless a dead hooker turns up in his trunk, he's in. Move on. Next?

This is good for Rebublicans because a fight over confirmation will make Dems look weak on terrorism, but yet Dems must fight so they don't look weak on NSA spying.  But if Dems don't get elected in 2006 then they have no supoena power to REALLY do something about NSA spying.

These weak sister Democrats are not tiptoeing away from the national security debate with their tail between their legs because they are afraid for national security or even of looking weak on national security. Hell, our national security is in no real danger from forces outside the country. IMO, our security is being jeopardized by the elitists now running this country by stage managing the national dog and pony show we call a two Party system through majority control of BOTH parties. We can vote for either party but we will get in either case a politician with their seal of approval stamped on their arses.

These sorry excuses of Democrats mentioned are going to play ball because the folks who butter their bread and insure their re-elections will no brook any opposition to their Middle East foreign policy, or domestic policies for that matter. Hayden will salute and do as he is told in furtherance of those ends.

On the other hand, the General won’t last too long at the agency because as far as the old hands are concerned he is the enemy. The CIA folks are a breed apart. They don't get too mad publicly, they just get even and are as unconcerned about legal niceties as the Bushmen.

She wouldn't fight Scalito, and she won't fight Hayden.  Whether or not Hayden is confirmed is secondary.  What's primary is that the Dems have a rare chance to publicly grill a WH appointee about wiretapping, and DiFi doesn't seem to want to bother.

This woman is one of only 2 senators from a gigantic state that happens to be pretty damned blue.  What purpose is she serving by holding that seat?  Why doesn't she give it up and let someone who will actually make use of it hold the seat?

With these leaders, no wonder the party is doomed.
Hayden is our chance to pin-point that the "Terrorist Survelience Program" is only ONE of MANY survellience programs the government is utilizing. Gonzales tipped his hand about this months ago. If we have to worry about a dirty bomb going of in DC or NYC, then why didn't Al Queda set one off in Islamabad while Bush stayed their overnight? The could have justified it among Muslim extremists as saying their fellow muslims died as martyrs for a greater cause. Why hasn't one been snuck into the green zone in Iraq and detonated while congressional or administrative missions are touring? Answer - they don't have them!!! With Flight 93, within hours of the attack on the WTC, the concept of flying planes into buildings ended, cause passengers were willing to sacrifice themselves rather than being complicit in more american deaths. No passenger will ever sit still for another highjacking, when they have the spectre of slamming into occupied buildings. This is why there hasn't been anymore highjackings since 911, not cause they check our shoes!

At least make Hayden take a test on the bill or rights. Multiple choice on the 4th ammendment, cause we know that he has trouble with that one. Oh and a lit cliff note tip to the general - include Inalienable on your vocab study sheet.

Stop the General Hayden nomination dead in it's tracks blogswarm!

Special emphasis on the bitch Feinstein. We, she 'represents' me, need to send her packing.

Not impossible as she is really, really unpopular.

In a related incident the Senator came out in support of the fox as new director of the hen house. Her support arose from her belief that "nobody knows chickens quite like a fox."

And I voted for this person, I feel so ashamed.

Remember when the senators got to see the torture photos that the Pentago wouldn't release to the public?  Didn Hayden have a role in the secret prisons where torture occurred?  If Feinstein can't hold on to her humanity while putting two and two together on this, shame on her.

when you have the whole quote:
   

Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, warned against making the wiretapping the focus of hearings.

   "His confirmation should not be about whether you're for or against the NSA program," said Harman, D-California. "It should be about whether he's the best man to transform the CIA into the premier clandestine service for the 21st century.

Since the CIA doesn't run the NSA, a completely different organization which the CIA doesn't control...that makes some sense. Can't use everything to attack the fact that Bush has the worst tailor in the world.

Wish Bush would replace the NSA head, who knows with all the heads rolling his could be next (!)...now that would be a treat and a perfect opportunity.

I honestly thought reading your first two paragraphs that you were going the other way.  I thought Bush threw a divisive nominee so they could look tough in defeating his nomination!

I'm so naive.

You never answered your question.  Will the Dems stand up?

It doesn't sound like it especially when Jane Harmon, who has no say what the Senate will consider, chimes in.