This one's for you MikeB
I think our long since past debate is pretty much settled here. I'm already anticipating nausea and dizziness from the masterful spin you'll be manufacturing.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/05/go_mike_ hayden.html
Go Mike Hayden<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> Yesterday in his appearance before the Senate, this active duty general, this high ranking government official, this career intelligence officer, this nominee to be CIA director straightforwardly criticized decisions and actions of the Bush administration, even gingerly suggesting a truth that everyone on the planet except for the occupants of the White House already knows: The Iraq war is a disaster and a diversion undermining and not enhancing any potential American action to stem global terrorism. Gen. Michael V. Hayden’s refreshing candor in an administration that can not bear to acknowledge any mistakes or take responsibility for any errors makes his unequivocal defense of NSA domestic collection all the more credible. Let’s hope that the Bush administration comes to rue the day it nominated Hayden to be CIA director. How many times have we heard a serving Bush administration official actually admit a mistake, criticize a government effort, point to a false direction? When Gen. Michael V. Hayden called the tenure of Porter Goss at the CIA “amateur hour on the top floor," or when he criticized a Rumsfeld inspired ad hoc intelligence office set up in the aftermath of 9/11 to “find” Saddam Hussein links to al Qaeda and build the WMD case for Iraq, they were small but rare and delicious moments. Hayden then went on to say that the CIA was bogged down dealing with day-to-day wartime support in Iraq and Afghanistan – the agency has built its largest overseas station in Baghdad since 2003 – saying that much of what the agency is doing could indeed be better done by the military. The intelligence community, Hayden said, was too focused on the immediate and not enough looking to the future. It was an ever so subtle criticism of a core Bush administration position that <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq and Afghanistan are THE fronts in the war on terrorism. We may have made them that, Hayden seemed to be saying, but throwing the preponderance of resources into these battles merely perpetuates a culture of satisfying immediate needs while neglecting a longer term and broader view of the challenges posed by radical Islam. Unstated but indisputable is the implication of this view: Our ongoing wars “against terror” in Iraq and Afghanistan are themselves triggers for global animosity and more terror. It was in particular his response to questions about his criticism of the intelligence shop set up by Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, though, where Hayden provided a glimmer of insight and hope about a better future. Feith’s small team was let loose to mine every snippet of raw intelligence collected over the years to pull together "every possible ounce of evidence" against Saddam Hussein, and they proceeded to elevate unconfirmed rumor and discredited reporting from questionable sources while dismissing finished analytic products and professional judgments of long-time analysts. Using this method, Hayden said, it is easy for anyone to build an ugly and convincing case against even the most innocent targets. "I got three great kids, but if you tell me, 'Go out and find all the bad things they've done, Hayden,' I could build you a pretty good dossier," he said. "You'd think they were pretty bad people because that's what I was looking for and that's what I built up. That'd be very wrong, OK? That would be inaccurate. That would be misleading." How much influence Feith’s shop ended up having is still an open question, but the process of demonization had a profound impact. Prey to a kind of celebrity gossip stream of intelligence and blind to any balanced picture that might suggest a different course of action, the administration convinced itself that containment was not sufficient with Iraq. Far more importantly, post 9/11, the same mentality has been applied to al Qaeda. The Bush insiders have lapped up every piece of intelligence affirming a conclusion that terrorists threaten the American way of life, that they are only a hair away from obtaining WMD. A more balanced assessment might be to conclude that there are only a few thousand terrorists out there, angry, motivated, evil, but not an army worthy of overstatement. We could create a self-perpetuating intelligence stream that reinforces the notion that we are in a fight to the finish against an implacable America-destroying enemy. But a more balanced view is that these extremists can be contained and ultimately undermined through a more low key effort, through less rhetoric and more strategy, through less war and more clandestine work, through a quieter, slower, less bombastic effort that doesn’t itself serve as the stimuli for recruitment and expansion of the enemy. Hayden says he intends to improve CIA clandestine operations while reforming the analytic side of the house. He pledged to "reaffirm the CIA's proud culture of risk-taking and excellence." He spoke of reinvigorating the “traditional CIA realm of strategic intelligence” and called for “high-quality all-source analysis" There was one statement of Hayden’s that I completely disagree with. It is one that I also think reflects a Beltway attitude of someone who lives in Washington and spends all of his time around the secret world. Hayden said it was time to move past “the archeology of every past intelligence failure and success," including those related to 9/11 and the WMD intelligence (and other) failures on Iraq. CIA officers, he said, "deserve not to have every action analyzed, second-guessed and criticized on the front pages of the morning paper." I disagree. The nation is confused and highly polarized over these matters and over the real threat of terrorism and what to do about it because the Bush administration itself has been lost since 9/11. It overreacted to 9/11 itself, imagining that al Qaeda was more of a threat to AMERICA than it really is. It blinded itself on Iraq, as much misleading itself as the American people about the immediate threat of Saddam Hussein. It has become bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, as much fighting for American honor of not losing as it is fighting to defeat terrorists. If Michael Hayden can see the light and make even a small contribution to reversing this course, if he can open up the intelligence agencies just a little to the public, if he can avoid the corrosive effect of responding to every immediate fear and rumor, it he can develop a balanced view of the future freed of a 9/11 and WMD nightmare, he could be the most important government official since the end of the Cold War.I think Mike Hayden’s opinion on these matters is far more credible than your’s or mine (although he seems to be reflecting exactly my position).
[quote=dude]
even gingerly suggesting a truth that everyone on the planet except for the occupants of the White House already knows: The Iraq war is a disaster and a diversion undermining and not enhancing any potential American action to stem global terrorism. [/quote]
Let me see if I understand you. You want me to debate with you not what Hayden said, but the spin applied to it by a long-time administration critic? And you seriously figure Hayden himself wouldn’t have a problem with the characterization given his testimony by this guy?<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
For example, your guy said “….Gen. Michael V. Hayden called the tenure of Porter Goss at the CIA “amateur hour on the top floor…", but the NY Time characterized it like this “He defended the retiring C.I.A. director, Porter J. Goss, who was forced out after conflicts with John D. Negroponte, the national intelligence director whom General Hayden has been serving as deputy.”.
Sorry, maybe when I stop laughing….
[quote=dude]I think Mike Hayden's opinion on these matters is far more credible than your's or mine (although he seems to be reflecting exactly my position).[/quote]
If only your link had to do with Hayden's real words....
BTW, to get a taste of where your guy’s coming from, check out this quote about the Bush administration; It overreacted to 9/11 itself, imagining that al Qaeda was more of a threat to AMERICA than it really is.
Innuendo does not equal fact.
When someone at the Wash Post interprets what Hayden seemed to be saying , uses snipped and possibly out of context quotes and then tries to present it as fact, the hackles rise.
I'm with Mike on this one. If you want to discuss what Hayden said, we should be discussing that; not what some jouralistic hack, who obviously has an ax to grind, has to say.
BTW: why couldn't you have posted that in the normal font. Now we will have all kinds of random fonts in the replys
William Arkin...now THERE'S a pillar of journalistic objectivity.
Dude, how can you claim victory in the debate by quoting the rantings of an hack like Arkin?
[quote=babbling looney]
Innuendo does not equal fact.
When someone at the Wash Post interprets what Hayden seemed to be saying , uses snipped and possibly out of context quotes and then tries to present it as fact, the hackles rise.
I'm with Mike on this one. If you want to discuss what Hayden said, we should be discussing that; not what some jouralistic hack, who obviously has an ax to grind, has to say.
BTW: why couldn't you have posted that in the normal font. Now we will have all kinds of random fonts in the replys
[/quote]
Say, BL, since Dude brought Arkin up (and since a "BUSH LIED!!!! tirade is somewhere in our near future) here's what he said in 2002;
Again, let me make my position clear: I believe that Iraq is a danger to its people, to the region, and to the United States. There is probably even tippy-top secret intelligence to connect Iraq to al-Qaida, maybe not specifically with regard to Sept. 11, but certainly over the years. No doubt there are al-Qaida operatives in Iraq today.
Don't you just know that guys like that just HATE Googe? Some comments will never, never die. Of course, even after saying that, he opposed the war, sort'a.
And I can't help but feel cynical about the fact that we are going to war to enhance the economic interests of the Enron class.
Later in the speech he says;
"... I believe that the war against terrorism is overstated. It is not the core United States national security interest today."
Now, ask me if I'm surprised that the LA Times employs this guy as their "military reporter".....
Oops, yeah this is an editorial piece by a bit of a hack I suppose. Still it suggests that Hayden is a critic of the Bush admin's approach to terrorism.....not much sleep last night.....I need a nap. Anyone have any other sources on Hayden's words? If there is any truth to this then I am very curious why Bush would nominate a critic, and would have great respect for Bush's decision if this is the case. It's always been my contention that Saddam was an impotent and worthless target relative to the "War on Terror", and it is tragic that we are wasting so much resource in Iraq.
Bl,
sorry for the font error. Like I said not much sleep last night....I'm a little hazy today.
[quote=dude]
Oops, yeah this is an editorial piece by a bit of a hack I suppose.
[/quote]
Yep, but no probs...
[quote=dude]
Still it suggests that Hayden is a critic of the Bush admin's approach to terrorism....
[/quote]
That's hard to believe, given the guy's IN the administration now.. if he was as critical as Arkin suggests we would have read about it places other than his blog.
[quote=dude]
Anyone have any other sources on Hayden's words?
[/quote]
The best I could find was a CSPAN video, but that would be torture to watch. I haven't found a written transcript yet.
Wow, seriously, Mike D is a internet fiend when it comes to research...
Impressive.
Duuuudeee, you just dont get it...
You voted for GORE and hate Bush. The truth is BUSH is gone in 2.5 years so get over it!!!
Bush stole the election... Bush forced us to war... Bush went to Iraq for oil.. Bush did it for his dad.. Does this make you feel better, Duuuuuddddeeeee...?
Ohh wait... Bush is responsible for oil prices...
Libs aka most hard core dems live a life of negative pessimism. The world does not like us... America stimulate hate... 10,000 troops will die marching into Iraq... Our military is to thin/week.. Our military reserves and guard cant survive.. The draft is coming... National Debt will destroy us... Outsourcing will destroy America.. Breaking the law is not illeagal if you provide us a vote... ITS THE END OF THE WORLD SO VOTE DEMOCRATIC... Funded by MOVE ON.org aka... Cindy "my son reinlisted" Sheehan, Michael "So I replace facts with my view" Moore and George "I hate BUSH" Soros.. Special thanks to Howard "the yealer" Deen, Al "Internet Inventory" Gore and Hollywood (those who know more then the educated and experienced)..
7GOD.....
I don't get what....the truth is that I voted for Bush not Gore. I voted for Bush on the premise that he didn't believe our military should be a "world police", he espoused compasionate conservative values (hah!), smaller federal government, lower taxes (he did deliver on this one) etc...... Needless to say I have been dissapointed and I believe that his leadership is weak and misguided. I would never vote for political leeches like Gore or Kerry (I didn't vote last election).
when you ASSume.................... well frankly I don't think you'd get it bud.
Source URL:https://www.wealthmanagement.com/forums/general/ones-you-mikeb