CIA Director Michael Hayden on Meet the Press

Current Central Intelligence Agency Director General Michael Hayden appeared on Meet the Press with Tim Russert this morning, in his first Sunday morning interview since taking office.  He made a number of statements worth further examination.

He discussed the situation in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan, interrogation techniques, and our intelligence on Saddam Hussein.

What we learned after the jump...

Tim Russert asked Director Hayden about the following statement he made in November of 2006:

The inability of the [Iraqi] government to govern seems irreversible

He added that he had made that statement in reference to the "short-term."  He went on to state that there are no "natural breaks" left, that is anywhere where we could make significant gains without significant cost in blood and treasure.  The first election is Iraq is an example of the type of natural break he was referencing.

He admits that our intelligence report on Saddam was wrong (he was Director of the National Security Agency at the time).  He partially blames relying too much on older intelligence without new intelligence to support it, and said that now the U.S. intelligence community is taking time into consideration when making judgments in their confidence in intelligence reports.  Which is wise, but not something that we should have needed the intelligence failures pre-Iraq to learn.

He refused to confirm or deny that we have stepped up strikes against al-Qaeda in Pakistan due to concerns that our ability to do so will be reduced by the negative results for President Musharraf in the recent elections in Pakistan.  He did, however, talk some about the situation in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, or AfPak border.  He stated it presents (clear and present) danger to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the West.  He stated he believes Osama Bin Laden is there, and that if there is another attack, it will originate from that region.  Al-Qaeda has been able to create a safe haven, and has been able to bring in Western-looking operatives for training.

I would like to make a few comments on the above.  This supports the assertions Obama has been making that we should focus more on Afghanistan than Iraq (while al-Qaeda is present in Iraq, they do not have the strength there they do in the AfPak region).  It supports his assertion we should have built relationships with Pakistani leaders other than Musharraf.  Our failure to do so may negatively impact our ability to hunt Bin Laden in that region.  The danger of profiling was also highlighted, as there is an opportunity for al-Qaeda to circumvent measures aimed at Arabic-looking travelers by recruiting non-descript operatives.

The CIA does not believe that Osama Bin Laden is operational involved in al-Qaeda, but is rather an iconic figure.  I think this highlights the value of capturing Bin Laden, rather than simply killing him.  Killing him will create a martyr for the Islamic-terrorist community, and will not cripple them operationally, if he is in fact more of a figurehead.  By capturing and trying Bin Laden, however, we can work to reduce his influence.

Director Hayden mentions a very large number of al-Qaeda operatives are Egyptian.  The American public needs to understand the list of countries producing terrorists and with some ties to these terror groups is much longer than just Afghanistan and Iraq, and includes U.S. allies (most notably Saudi Arabia).  It is no way remotely feasible to invade each of these countries, nor would that be effective.  There assistance in helping us root out al-Qaeda is absolutely necessary.

He points out the disaster of President Musharraf's hands off attitude towards al-Qaeda activity in the AfPak region.  While a heavy military hand is not normally desirably, or conducive to long-term economic success, in this case the lack of one allowed al-Qaeda and the Taliban their "safe haven."

Tim Russert read the following quote from Lt. Gen. John Kimmons on new guidelines from the U.S. Army field manual:

The new U.S. Army manual bans torture and degrading treatment of prisoners, for the first time specifically mentioning forced nakedness, hooding and other procedures that have become infamous since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. ...

It also explicitly bans beating prisoners, sexually humiliating them, threatening them with dogs, depriving them of food or water, performing mock executions, shocking them with electricity, burning them, causing other pain and a technique called "water boarding."

This applies to the Army, not to the CIA.  Per Director Hayden, the CIA has not water boarded anyone in the past three years and only three people in the life of their interrogation program.  So the DOJ is fighting for a method that the CIA itself does not see fit to use.  I inferred he did not feel comfortable with water boarding, regardless of previous legal opinions.

He makes a good point when he argues that the CIA should not be limited to what the Army feels confident training young soldiers to do under minimal supervision against lawful combatants, in a transient battlefield situation.  The CIA's situation is distinctly different, with highly trained agents, a controlled environment, and a specific goal to obtain valuable intelligence.  He welcomed whatever box the government chose to put the CIA in, but argued it should not arbitrarily apply the standards of another organization (in this case the Army).  While I believe the box should be tightened, I agree that the standards should be CIA specific.

Russert played a clip of Cheney arguing for expanded power and secrecy immediately after 9/11.  I really believe we had two of the worst possible people in the Oval Office at the time.

Director Hayden stated all the calls monitored as a part of the post-9/11 wiretapping program were international calls.  He dodged a question of whether any innocent people were targeting.  He believes Iran is still pursuing nuclear weaponization.

At the end of the interview, Director Hayden made a statement that I had not heard before and that I believe is very important.  He said that Saddam had a nuclear and WMD program that had been halted for many years, but before he died he admitted "he maintained the illusion because he wanted the world...to believe he still had these weapons."

•  Questions, Comments, and Cusswords n/t

  by Sir Walter Raleigh on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:47:35 AM PDT

•  The man did not do his cause any good

  If anything Hayden made me worry even more about what he has done behind closed doors. His answer on why he decided to provide Insurance to every employee really made me want a full scale investigation off every damn thing they have done over the last 7 yrs. I do not believe we, the people, should be paying the cost of insurance for their lawlessness.

  by SmileySam on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:56:03 AM PDT

•  Nice Diary

  I just posted a diary that picks up on your closing paragraph:

  "At the end of the interview, Director Hayden made a statement that I had not heard before and that I believe is very important.  He said that Saddam had a nuclear and WMD program that had been halted for many years, but before he died he admitted 'he maintained the illusion because he wanted the world...to believe he still had these weapons.'"

  'Ya reckon?

  by Florida Politics on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:59:16 AM PDT

•  More than a dodge...

  He dodged a question of whether any innocent people were targeting.

  This was much more than a dodge. What he said, essentially, was that they weren't innocent so much as too smart to get caught with the techniques being used.  

  Think this response through and you can see the danger it represents to civil liberties. Guilty until proven innocent.

  by indyjoe on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:08:05 AM PDT

•  I don't believe a single word....

  ...of what Saddam purportedly said or didn't say under US interrogation. In other words, I do not trust my own government to accurately relay information it has gleaned.

  by Bensdad on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:42:14 AM PDT

•  re Saddam and weapons:

  That he was allowing "the world" think he was armed to the teeth has been known for some time now. He was very concerned, apparently, that Iran might take advantage of Iraq's weakened state of affairs.

  by subtropolis on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:42:38 AM PDT

•  Hayden's lack of veracity and transparency

  On the issue of Sadaam trying to make Iran think had good, solid defense capabilities even after years of US sanctions, including fluffing on his bioweapons and nukes programs - it's interesting, and indicative of the US media and of the disingenuous behavior for years of the Tenets, Rices, Haydens etc. that you are only hearing this now.  I remember people trying to raise it before the invasion, and that kind of info has also been stated in some of the books that have been out for a long time.  I'd have to look to double check by I am pretty sure Risen's, Suskind's and Packer's books all mentioned that.

  IMO, he makes both a terrible point and one that defies fact if he said:

  ... the CIA should not be limited to what the Army feels confident training young soldiers to do under minimal supervision against lawful combatants, in a transient battlefield situation.

  To start with, one of the whole points of the Bush administration has been to make sure that "our war" can't be construed to involve "lawful combatants" and indeed, our military has been used for the purpose of not only buying people off of warlords and criminals, but also engaging in massive roundups of civilians. And intelligence is routinely being gaterhed not, "on the battlefield" but in facilities.

  To follow through on the analogy Hayden seems to have raised, though, what he appears to be saying is that if you have a combat situation, and someone taken on the field, with the need for a dramatic on the field interrogation that may within moments save lives --- those guys need to have far more shackles on what they do than the CIA, which may have bought someone and disappeared them to a blacksite or picked up a German because his name was "el-Masri" and decided to disappear him into torture for a while just to see what's shakin.

  He's wrong, in both the factual and the moral sense of the word.

  As to the "only waterboarded 3" representation, Hayden has a history of wearing his uniform and fibbing at will and on whim.  Why woud he be believed?  He wasn't even the one that the direct reports would have come through at the supposed time.  That would have been Tenet.  Has anyone had Tenet testify under oath that only three instances were involved?  And does he mean only three people the CIA personnel drowned - but they assisted and set up many others for that treatment via contractors and their friends and pals in Egypt, Syria etc.?   Basically, I think he means that there was a direct, in the files, record on at least three and so that's what he'll admit to and say.

  This is the same man who baldly stated in press conferences that there was no datamining and driftnetting going on in 'teh program" and yet now all we hear about is how they need the datamining capabilities that they have been utilizing - iow, he wasn't "forthcoming" before.

  And in the "just three times" focus on waterboarding, Hayden is not addressing at all what Bush and the CIA did to, for example, Maher Arar or Khalid el-Masri or, for that matter, what the CIA ever did with KSM's wife and his 6 and 8 yo children they both took into custody and, per Suskind's book, tried to use to coerce statements.

  Hayden's focus on the waterboarding, too, evades answering questions about, for example, the reported death of a least one cia "detainee" who was frozen to death.  Golly - we really need to make sure that the CIA can calmly, methodically, with no pressing need or purpose, freeze a man to death, but we need to make sure that soldiers on a real battlefield with real combatants who might be able to give info on a booby trap set in a house, etc. - they can't threaten the battlefield detainee?

  Doesn't make sense.  I also would be very interested in a) Hayden's underoath description of those "international calls" (I would lay money that they did not involve calls where, as FISA requires, there was probable cause that at least one part of the call was an "agent of a foreign power" and I also don't believe that the emails intercepted were ever all "international" in aspect.  

  I remember Hayden, prior to the program revelations, testifying before the 9/11 joint committee and saying that the NSA was following the same strictures post 9/11 as it had been pre9/11 and encouraging Congress to consider changing the rules.  All while he and Bush had already changed the rules and he barefaced misrepresented to the nation what was going on.

  I also remember Hayden flat out saying in an interview that there was ONLY a subjective reasonability standardin the fourth amendment - he just refused to accept or agree that there was a warrant and probable cause standard.  

  He's not a good man and I don't believe him.

  by Mary2002 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:59:17 AM PDT

•  Interrogations...

  I cannot believe that we don't have people who are smart enough and good enough at what they do that they can't get information except through torture.  Your call for the rules to be CIA-specific may be OK but I  still think that they should not be allowed to anything the Army can't do.  After all, these folks are supposed to be specialists, right?  If they are so special, why can't they get what they need without the ham-handed "techniques" of torture?  I'd also argue that because the CIA is much smaller and more insular than the Army, they need more regulation, not less.  

  by luckylizard on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:39:36 PM PDT