Politicians prove lack of understanding
In the topsey turvey world of international intelligence, our politicians show their inept understanding of what it takes to run such organizations. The debate is on who should and should not be in charge of the CIA.
A leading Republican came out against the front-runner for CIA director, Gen. Michael Hayden, saying Sunday the spy agency should not have military leadership during a turbulent time among intelligence agencies. Why not is a good question. Here is a man who has spent years in the field of intelligance gathering. Yet because he is military it should disqualify him.
Members of the Senate committee that would consider President Bush's nominee also expressed reservations, saying the CIA is a civilian agency and putting Hayden atop it would concentrate too much power in the military for intelligence matters. A false assumption by politico's. The fact he is military means the chance of him running a tighter ship with fewer Valerie Plames and other leakers who seek self gratification by betraying this country with self seving intrests. By being from the military and haveing a distinguished career like his he has a better understanding of the needs that are to be met. Setting goals and following through on achieving these goals.
If Hayden were to get the nomination, military officers would run the major spy agencies in the United States, from the ultra-secret National Security Agency to the Defense Intelligence Agency.
"You can't have the military control most of the major aspects of intelligence," said Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who is on the Senate Intelligence Committee. The CIA "is a civilian agency and is meant to be a civilian agency," she said on ABC's "This Week."
A second committee member, GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, added, "I think the fact that he is a part of the military today would be the major problem."
Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., mentioned fears the CIA would "just be gobbled up by the Defense Department" if Hayden were to take over.
See right there is the problem. By putting a military person in charge certain elected members of governbment are afraid that they will loose their person power of persuasion on the CIA. Bringing up fears of a possible military coup. False statments of the military taking over all the governments intel agencies. The truth far from this. If Gen. Hayden is approved the stars will be removed from his shoulders. The CIA will still be controled by a political oversight commitee that will as always play politics with the countries security. The fact that by having a military man in charge who understands the inner workings of the different agencies and able to smooth over and around certain interagencie territorial pompusness would be a plus .... not a hinderance or a bad thing.
Bottom line it boils down to the fact that elected officials will more then likely loose their personal p.c. control and adgenda pressure on stirring the agency on their adgenda and not the best interest of the nation.
A leading Republican came out against the front-runner for CIA director, Gen. Michael Hayden, saying Sunday the spy agency should not have military leadership during a turbulent time among intelligence agencies. Why not is a good question. Here is a man who has spent years in the field of intelligance gathering. Yet because he is military it should disqualify him.
Members of the Senate committee that would consider President Bush's nominee also expressed reservations, saying the CIA is a civilian agency and putting Hayden atop it would concentrate too much power in the military for intelligence matters. A false assumption by politico's. The fact he is military means the chance of him running a tighter ship with fewer Valerie Plames and other leakers who seek self gratification by betraying this country with self seving intrests. By being from the military and haveing a distinguished career like his he has a better understanding of the needs that are to be met. Setting goals and following through on achieving these goals.
If Hayden were to get the nomination, military officers would run the major spy agencies in the United States, from the ultra-secret National Security Agency to the Defense Intelligence Agency.
"You can't have the military control most of the major aspects of intelligence," said Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who is on the Senate Intelligence Committee. The CIA "is a civilian agency and is meant to be a civilian agency," she said on ABC's "This Week."
A second committee member, GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, added, "I think the fact that he is a part of the military today would be the major problem."
Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., mentioned fears the CIA would "just be gobbled up by the Defense Department" if Hayden were to take over.
See right there is the problem. By putting a military person in charge certain elected members of governbment are afraid that they will loose their person power of persuasion on the CIA. Bringing up fears of a possible military coup. False statments of the military taking over all the governments intel agencies. The truth far from this. If Gen. Hayden is approved the stars will be removed from his shoulders. The CIA will still be controled by a political oversight commitee that will as always play politics with the countries security. The fact that by having a military man in charge who understands the inner workings of the different agencies and able to smooth over and around certain interagencie territorial pompusness would be a plus .... not a hinderance or a bad thing.
Bottom line it boils down to the fact that elected officials will more then likely loose their personal p.c. control and adgenda pressure on stirring the agency on their adgenda and not the best interest of the nation.
