"A vote to confirm Hayden is equal to admission of complicity in criminal activity".

So we can count a good number of the democrats as being accomplices then, right?

Ya know, one could see this letter coming (and many more to come) the day Bush made his choice for this job. Any name that was placed in nomination by Bush would have received the same response from the liberals.... pathetic.

The LTE writer attempts to blame Gen Hayden for what he calls irresponsible intelligence gathering prior to 9-11. He unfortunately fails to give any evidence of what failed intelligence that the NSA gave during that time. Perhaps Mr. Ferrel has his intel agnecies confused or else doesn't know what he is talking about. It would appear that the only intel information that Mr. Ferrel has is the misinformation that he reads in the paper or hears on TV.
I knew General Hayden when he was a young 1stLT at Offutt AFB and was priviledged to know him also when he served at Andersen AFB, in Guam following his assignment at Offutt.
I believe he will make a good leader for the CIA. He is one tough nut and puts up with no nonsense. He's just what the doctor ordered for the CIA at this time.
While the NSA lost a great leader who will be hard to replace the CIA is fortunate to get a man of his caliber.

neoCON,
The writer makes the point that both Democrats and Republicans, who voted for Hayden are equally guilty. Your separation anxiety from George W. Bush is approaching dangerous levels. I suggest you find yourself a "successor" to your current hero before you face even deeper problems.

Your level of thought, I must admit, IS entertaining.

A day late and a dollar short for this LTE. Already a done deal. Please move on to the next attack du jour.

Hayden seems much more qualified than Goss ever good have been .. the first question I have is why was Goss even nominated when much better candidates were availabe - witness Hayden. The answer is clear - Positions were filled based on partisan alignment vs. actual ability.

The mirror question goes to All Ye Who Supported the Presidents Choice of Goss:

"Porter Goss is a leader with strong experience in intelligence and in the fight against terrorism. He knows the CIA inside and out. He's the right man to lead this important agency at this critical moment in our nation's history," Bush said.

... to which many so called "pathetic libs" said "Porter Goss Who" and many now-proven defacto-pathetic others once said "Bush won, get over it.

If the pathetic shoe fits, wear it.

I repeat: ANY name that was placed in nomination by Bush would have received the same response from the liberals... very pathetic indeed. This is all they have. To sit on the sidelines and bleat about pre-9-11 while the leaders are busy taking care of the business of intelligence gathering.

It's fun to watch,but it grows tiresome after a while to know in advance what they will say - even before they say it. Kinda like knowing what the next line is in a movie.

"It's up to Congress to change that course by taking substantive action against the criminal status quo."

Sounds like this "former member of the intelligence community" was just one more of those career bureaucrats at CIA who supported the status quo that was a long time part of the intelligence problem and not a part of the intelligence solution.

Isn't it amazing how the BashBush crowd can get their message across without even mentioning the President? And don't you admire the N&R for new and inventive ways they go to in order to get the almost daily BashBush LTTE in print?

Kudos to all!

For all of you that fall on your swords for Bush, the old saying that comes to mind: "Bit Dog Barks First"!

Portor Goss had been a former CIA
officer and had been responsible for a portion of the South American operations. He had done a respectable job in that capacity. He was known for getting the job done. He was known for being able to weed out malcontents, which he did in that capacity. He seemingly had the capacity to root out problems and get things back to operating smoothly.He left after 10 years due to health problems(illness) contracted during his 10 year tour with the agency. His resume is probably the reason he was chosen for the position as Director of the CIA. He came in at a time of upheavel within the agency and basically was told to weed out those who can't do or don't want to do the job. In otherwords the malcontents within the agency of which there were several as seen by the resignations within a short time after Goss' appointment. Given the fact that, as a congressman, he had also been on the committee that oversees the agency and it's budget nad operations it would seem that he was a good choice for director. Why did he leave so abruptly? One senerio is that he had finished the job that he had been assigned, that is of getting rid of the malcontent's and bureacrats within the agency. The other is that there was a coup instigated by Negroponte, head of National Security. After some research I beleive that it was a bit of both. Was the he best for the position? Probably not but just as in a game of cards (hearts for example) you have to sacrifice a good card inorder to later play the top card and win the game.
As far as his politics within the congress. I liked the man because he introduced a bill calling for term limits for congress.

MPR:

Porter Goss left quickly because #3 - supreme ladies CIA man Dusty Foggo - was tied to Cunningham (maybe Abramoff too). Rumor is Goss may also be imvolved, but as a minimum it was felt Goss should have known his right-hand man was dealing with the devil.

http://www.harpers.org/sb-loss-of-goss-3025720.html

"Goss’s once-surprise pick for the CIA’s number-three post ... has acknowledged attending parties thrown by Brent Wilkes, the defense contractor who allegedly bribed Cunningham ...

THAT's why he left so sudddenly.

You real sure of that JDR or just throwing out SWAGS. Folks in DC attend a lot of parties given by a lot of "unacceptable" individuals.I can remember a few past presidents and their wives who did the same. That within itself does not make them guilty.
Keep guessing JDR and keep up the copy and paste one day you might convince someone other than yourself that you know all the answers to all the political and world problems rather than just having an opinion as most of the rest of us do.

Well you know the people, MRP, but I say if it really was Negroponte, it would not have been so abrupt.

Tenet got the Metal of Freedom - perhaps if Goss gets one too, I'll back down, but until then - where there's smoke there's fire.

From the Left (strong Foggo / Goss allegation):
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/415304p-350961c.html

"CIA Director Porter Goss abruptly resigned yesterday amid allegations that he and a top aide may have attended Watergate poker parties where bribes and prostitutes were provided to a corrupt congressman."

From the Middle:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june06/shield_brooks_05-05.html

"No explanation for his leaving, abruptly, hastily arranged ceremony in the Oval Office ..."

"The.. No. 3 man .. lifelong friend of Mr. Wilkes .. the defense contractor who was involved in the bribing of Duke Cunningham [and} according to the investigators .. sponsored ... rather lavish parties in hotel suites."

And from the Hard Right (no Goss tie, I concede)
http://www.americasnewspaper.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=F2DC2C637DFD45C6B6FE85E3F27E98DD

==

Where there's smoke - there's often fire.

"... initial reports have suggested that Goss left the CIA after losing a bureaucratic turf fight against John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence. But if Goss had a good explanation for his decision to bail, he could have shared it - even on a Friday afternoon. And if the reason is just old-fashioned anger over losing some of his power, he could have orchestrated a smoother transition. What led to his abrupt resignation should not be a top secret."

William Kristol (no left wing commie):

"I don't believe he [Bush] was dissatisfied, necessarily, with the job Porter Goss was doing so I think something happened," said FOX News contributor and Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol. "If George Bush had been planning to make the change, he would have had a successor to announce ... {Caps are mine} THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT EMERGED IN THE LAST FEW DAYS ... this was a huge surprise and was not anticipated 24 hours ago."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194419,00.html

One more JDR analysis - admittedly worth less than a used plug of tobacco ...

Goss resigns late on Friday May 5th - (taking no questions from the Press). Hayden is Nominated Monday Monday, May 08, 2006.

I guess there's two ways to look at it - perhaps they had Hayden lined up all along, but perhaps also there really is a bit of slime.

JDR, it is probably the latter. However, the slime is Hayden! The only hope of even remotely cleaning any of the slime will not be until 2008!

Shalom

The only problem I have is that he's a high-level military man running a civilian agency.

Thanks for the information mrp and jdr.

Darryll, You know nothing about the man yet you judge him.What facts do you use to call him slime. What is it that you are always preaching? Judge not, lest you also be judged.

Jesus Christ could have been appointed by this president Darryll and you would find something negative to say about it.

Yellowdog, most of your better intel people, not directors that I am speaking of, but the best intel people were military both active and those who left the military for the agency. For some it worked better not being in the military and for some of the higher ranking individuals it worked to their advantage. Higher ranking I speak of Colonel's as a rule.
Unfortunately these were many of the people that left the agency in 95 and that time frame. They got tired of trying to work on shoestring budgets and with one hand tied behind their back so to speak.
It was unfortunately also a time that a lot of the bureaucrat types got kicked upstairs and we can see the results of that today. As I spoke regarding JDR's post Goss got rid of many of those when he came on board. He had no use for that type of individual and they knew it. You hear some now railing against him and making accusations that they have no real facts to back up their false bs with.

I really like the one JDR, about Goss and an aide attending poker parties where bribes and hookers were provided for a congressman.(note congressman) See how easy it is to tell a little of the truth but make it seem more than what it is? Why , if they have any evidence didn't they say hookers were provided to Goss, his aide and a congressman. Was it because it was an outright lie and they would have been sued for liable? Ya got to learn to read a bit between the lines JDR and stop believing all this farleft bullfeathers they use to tickle butts of those who don't want to know better.

See again from the middle, no actually accusations only you are left with a piece of truth but no real truth or statement concerning Goss. A friend of a friend, wow that's a bit of a stretch. I am acquainted with "little Joe Bonanno's " , son of Joe Bonanno's, but that doesn't make me Mafia either now does it.

As far as the right goes and his deal with Negroponte. It was actually Negroponte who disliked, not openly but in reality, Goss. They had been connected before Goss was appointed to the CIA. It seems that Goss was as a rule being promoted or given accolades above and belong what Negroponte was receiving. Now when he was appointed as National Director for Intel , he could turn the tables on Goss. There are some who are saying or at least hinting that this is what happened. Another small group is hinting that Goss medical problems may be part of the problem. He became ill while serving in the CIA, some said he was poisoned, others that he contracted a serious viral(perhaps) illness and it has flared up again. It happened before and he resigned the CIA due to the medical problem.
Will we know? Yep in time but don't go looking for anything real fast or something that will amount to a hill of beans.

mrp, you know not of what I speak. You did not consult me before making the comments. I believe that yellowdog states it very clear.

And as for judging, is that not what was done to me?

Lastly, I doubt the the malcontent in the People's House would have nominated Jesus the Christ. That One is far more liberal than the Rs could handle!

Plus, Jesus the Christ would not even consider himself in the running for such a position. That would be counter to who he is and proclaimed. I cannot even believe that I put forth the effort to even respond to those comments either!

Shalom

Oh , I see. I must now get permission from mr high and might pious Pope Darryll before responding to him . Stick it Darryll, you are just like anyone else on here and I will respond any dang time I wish to. You don't like it, go play in the sand pile.

You judge the man without even knowing anything about him except what little you read and that is flaw at best as I point out in my post to Yellowdog and to JDR. I beleive Yellowdog made the statement along the order that Hayden was a military man going into a civilian post. Now just what part of that constitutes being a slime, Darryll? Or perhaps anyone connected with the military is slime to you. Could that be it Darryll? You just don't like us military type folks who have paid the price so you can express your pathetic, ignorant comments on a blog ? We had a code Darryll of never leaving anyone behind, alive or dead. In your case I would make an exception.

No , I made no judgment of you , just made a statement that you would find something to complain about no matter who it was if it came from this administration. I base that on factual previous statements made by you, or perhaps I should say whined by you.

Oh and just how do you know that Jesus would not be open to such or how do you know that He is too liberal for this so called "malcontent"? (here you go judging again) Are you now claiming to speak for Him? Have you suddenly become the chief spokesman for Him? Have you suddenly been appointed Jr. god? Was that from illumination or just a brain hiccup, Darryll?

You love to wrap your self in your righteous robes and dare anyone to challenge you.
Remember what was said about those righteous robes, "they are but as filthy rags". You have a problem boy and need to get some help or get over it one.

Thanks for the responses, MRP. We won't know for a while what really happened, and I confess to thinking the worst - but that is a reflection of my complete lack of trust for those in power.

I've always been this way (questioning authority), but adding to that is my complete lost respect for this Admin' - and that is a malignant combination.

http://www.hopkintonschools.org/hhs/library/watchout.html

Loss of Respect:

HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson gives a speach in Dallas where he tells the audience that an advertising contractor was refused a contract because the contractor told Jackson, “I have a Problem with your President”.

The HUD Boss said he told the contractor, "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president?"

So this get's reported by the local media:

http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2006/05/08/daily36.html

... and the embarrased HUD Secretary THEN say's - hey it was anecdotal.

http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?content=2006-05-10statement.cfm

===

Now maybe this has been going on forever and "everyone does it" - but naïve me says here's powerful guy giving a loud and clear message - anecdotal or otherwise: Follow The Leader without question or you will be punished in the pocket book.

This is only one example of why I no longer have respect - perhaps it's Fool Me once - shame on you, Fool Me Twice - shame on me.

Here's the original link (the one above is a follow-up story):

http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2006/05/08/story1.html

JDR,

I respect your position on many things. I too have a natural bent towards questioning authority. Got me in trouble when I was younger, but now it serves a purpose.

I heard an interview this morning with a guy who was an admitted Republican. He was asked about this latest military fallout where it is suggested that innocent Iraqi civilians were murdered by Marines. He said something along the lines of "I may be a republican, but I'm not a kool-aid drinker (I think referring to the Jim Jones suicide pact)"

I liked that quote alot. I like Kool-aid but I'm not going to drink it just cause somebody tells me to drink it.

YD:

We certainly don't know the whole story on the Marines ... it may be a bogus story, it may have been innocent collateral damage, or it may have been the gyrenes just going nuts.

That's a neat phrase: "collateral damage" .. it means "we didn't meant to kill pregnant women and the children, but these things happen in wars zones")

Here's my take - First and by coincidence, I was reading this morning about Pat Tillman - the poster child of that nasty element - Integrity gone south - way-lower in priority than the administation's Message Of The Day. See also Private Lynch.

Here's my Second take - I'm actually OK with it being "collateral damage". In a war zone things happen, and you try to do as little as possible but nothing's perfect. The issue is, when going into war you'd better know it's gonna happen, and you'd better have the support from all that'll have to stomach it .. imho Wolfy, Perle, Rummy, and the rest of the PNAC struck out on both counts.

Unfortunately, the Iraqi's are no longer OK with "collateral damage" - they somehow have lost what little sense of humor they had. America has touted "Pin-Point Precision", using high technology "Shock and Awe", and frankly, an awe shucks doesn't play well there any more.

JDR,

Thanks for the response. Pat Tilman was just a tragedy and I still can't see why things weren't dealt with openly to begin with.

I know bad things happen in war. From everything I've read, the prevailing explanation for the dead Iraqi civilians is that it was retribution or Marines Gone Wild in the heat of the moment or just accidental collateral damage.

Unfortunately, this is war and awful, awful things happen in war. How many women and children have been killed by insurgent/terrorist bombs?

I hate that this is going to be politicized by people with something to gain personally. It is a tragedy and I'm very sorry for these victims and their families.

I do think that all the groundwork is being laid for us to pull out in a significant way before the next presidential election. Whether or not that is a good idea will remain to be seen.

Yellowdog you said it right. This will be politicized by those who have no clue and by a few who perhaps know or knew but have seemed to have forgotten what war is about and the horrible things that can and do occur.

People who have never been in combat just do not know what it is like. They do not understand the immense stress and stain that one comes under. They do not understand that when something occurs and you and your buddies are a part of it then there is not time to calculate who was responsible. If you do, you could be dead before you finish the thought. Unfortunately in war, when incidents such as these Marines were involved in occur, your first reaction is to protect yourself and those around you. Unfortunately there are occasionally innocents nearby who are killed and or injured.

Hell will be raised over this but little will be said about the bombers who daily kill innocent women and children. Those who do such will only seek to blame the US and the service men involved in any such occurrences.

"Hell will be raised over this but little will be said about the bombers who daily kill innocent women and children. Those who do such will only seek to blame the US and the service men involved in any such occurrences."

Bingo. Too bad you were not advising the Bushites - might have saved us all some grief.