Hayden and the CIA

President Bush recently nominated Air Force General Michael Hayden for the top CIA position, a move that has upset folks on both the right and left. The only problem is they have no legitimate reason to be upset. General Hayden is a great choice for the top CIA position, mainly because he knows the intelligence community so well. Of course, this doesn't stop Democrats or Republicans who are facing re-election from questioning the nomination. Most of the dissatisfaction has come from two main points:

The first complaint is the one that comes from the left and bemoans General Hayden's piloting of the NSA's 'Domestic Spying' program. Consequently, Democrats have threatened him with 'though' questioning; and, I'm sure the thought of 'tough' questions from Ted Kennedy has the 4-star General shaking in his boots. Seriously, are the Democrats stupid enough to believe that President Bush (read Karl Rove) would overlook the fact that Democrats will be upset over Hayden's lead role in NSA spying and, thus, question it intensely? The President obviously hasn't overlooked this, instead he must feel that the General is not only capable of handling these questions but will be stellar in doing so. This is why every 5 minutes someone on FOX News is wondering whether the President is "looking for a fight". Of course he's looking for a fight, because he wants to challenge the Democrats on this issue. The only question is whether the Democrats will be foolish enough to play the White House's game.

The second major concern, that Republicans and Democrats both have, is that Hayden is "a military man leading a civilian agency". The hilarity here is watching these politicians try to defend their reasoning behind this opinion. In interviews it usually goes like this:

Interviewer: Do you think Gen. Hayden is qualified for the job?
Sen. Whoever: Yes, and I think that he would be in the top 3 on everybody's list, both Republicans and Democrats
Interviewer: Really?
Sen. Whoever: Oh, absolutely. No one questions his qualifications for the job.
Sen. Whatshisname (from the opposing party): Yes, I agree with you on that Sen. Whoever, he's well qualified for the job.
Interviewer: So, you both seem to like this guy, will you be voting to confirm him?
Sen. Whatshisname: No, not at this point, I have some questions I want to ask him first.
Sen. Whoever: I'm not really sure that putting a military man in charge of the CIA is the right move.....

And the interview goes on, as the Politicians try to explain how and why they don't, 'at this point', plan on voting for a guy who is "supremely qualified" and "one of everybody's top choices". C'mon, where is the logic in that? If he's the best man for the job, give it to him; it really isn't that complex.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not Michael Hayden can restore confidence in, and smoothly and successfully run, the CIA; and, by Congressional officials' own admissions, this is something he can definitely do. Oh, and lastly, I have to give President Bush credit. For all his faults, he is very good at selecting and appointing people for everything from the Supreme Court to the CIA.