Gridlock over Hayden CIA Appointment

The Wall Street Journal provides a list of quotes on the subject of President Bush's appointment of General Hayden to lead the CIA.

Below you will find an excerpt of three quotes that sum up the contradictions of my own position on the matter. As I see it General Hayden is probably uniquely qualified to lead the CIA based on his military experience and his recent post running the NSA. Its very difficult to find much more experience than General Hayden has.

That said, I'm believe (talking beliefs here, personal introspection etc. so you may disagree or not, but its just my belief system your entitled to your own) that a General should not transfer directly over from a military post to a civillian post. I like having a government run by civillians and not by Generals, even though I have known and respected several generals personally. I want this position to have a line drawn at some point. If General Hayden had retired and worked in the public or civil sector for a few years, then Great! This is not the case and as such I think the position should go to someone else.

Then there is this nasty business about domestic spying programs. Having worked in situations where my work was held in check by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, I am extremely troubled by the violations that have been alleged, and I suspect are likely to be accurate. General Hayden and President Bush would have both been individually responsible for these violations no matter what the circumstance. The buck should have stopped at each of their desks. It did not and I feel this is an aggregious violation.

I don't think that a leader that did not have the backbone to stand up and defend the constitution by following its laws should be put into a position of leadership at the CIA, where people serving our country are on the front line fighting to protect the constitution. You can't have an intelligence chief breaking the intelligence laws or allowing it to happen. Even if the President did give the order, the General should have resigned in conflict. Which in my view would have then made him imminently qualified to be the head of the CIA.

Alas, he did not and based on his poor exercise of leadership, he is not.

WSJ.com - Reactions to Bush's Nomination Of Gen. Hayden to Lead CIA: "

Reactions to Bush's Nomination
Of Gen. Hayden to Lead CIA
May 8, 2006 2:17 p.m.
Statements in response to President Bush's nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency
* * *
"To send a signal of independence from the Pentagon, Gen. Hayden may want to consider retiring from the Air Force. That would put to rest questions about whether an active duty military officer should lead the CIA at this time."
--Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine), chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
* * *
"He understands intelligence and he's a good leader that can guide a large organization through change. We have to rebuild our human intelligence capabilities and I believe Mike can help us continue on that path. It shouldn't surprise anyone that some of our nation's finest leaders come from the United States military."
--Rep. Heather Wilson (R., N.M.) who chairs the House Intelligence panel that oversees the NSA
* * *
"During his time as director of the National Security Agency, Michael V. Hayden implemented an illegal domestic spying program in clear violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. ... The Senate must not confirm anyone to this important post who would break the law to spy on American citizens."
--Ralph G. Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way