Why is it a bad idea to have a military person like Michael Hayden in charge of the CIA?
547419
Well the main debate centers around the fact that Hayden is a career military man and the Central Intelligence Agency is a civilian agency.  The CIA is not a branch of the military and furthermore, Hayden used to be the head of the National Security Agency, which is 9 times the size of the CIA and they are in charge of foreign and domestic spying, codebreaking, etc.  Meaning Hayden would likely have signed off on Bush's wiretapping of certain American citizens that caused such an uproar just a few months ago.  It's a bad idea because it will militarize a civilian agency and install a man who isn't all that popular to begin with to a very powerful position as the head of our foreign intelligence branch.
936309
You can never predict these things.  When Aspin (a highly regarded head of the House Armed Services Committee) was appointed as Secretary of Defense I thought that he was a good choice.  It turned out that he was not up to the challenge of actually running the DOD.\n\nBTW - he did not resign because of the election results.  The most probable reason was the editorials in the military newspapers that showed that he had lost the confidence of the military leadership.\n\nRumsfield's biggest failing was the fact that he was too smart.  As a result he thought that he knew better than everyone else.  This was perceived as arrogance.  \n\nAs a result of his attempting to implement 'new strategies' he sent too few soldiers into Iraq in the very beginning.  He felt that we could do the job with fewer soldiers by being faster, better trained and better able to adapt to a changing battlefield.  This would have worked fine if Iraqi society had not collapsed - thus leaving the country without police, or any government services.  Without a large number of troops to fill in the gap - the civil society of Iraq collapsed and we are still putting the country back together.
827420
You clearly don't understand the concept of terrorism, which is to terrorise the masses, not the people who have the CIA protection teams.\nYou are thinking of assassins.
10076
I don't know, but I hope so in this respect:  The CIA (based on our experience during WWII for the need for information) has the responsibility to gather freely available information from around the world from newspapers, speaches and interviews, etc. and analyze it so that our leaders (The President and Congress) can make informed judgements in establishing Policy rather than go on bias and inuendo.  As do most major powers the CIA may also use operatives to obtain critical information.  The CIA is never responsible for policy, only informing it.  And mistakes may reasonably be made since good information is withheld from world leaders and hard to obtain.\n\nMany people who have seen too many (bad) movies believe that we would be better off reacting to world events without the CIA evaluating tons and tons of data.  But that would be like sticking our head in the sand like an ostrich.\n\nIncidentally that false notion about ostriches came about when someone held an ostrich's head under sand then released it while filming.  Playing the film backwards gave the wanted illusion of "sticking its head in the sand."  The point is that even an ostrich is too smart to do that, and we should not do that either!\n\nOur country is free to support or not support any particular leader using diplomatic means, and sometimes sanctions if necessary.  We certainly do not always receive full support for our desires.
373815
Come on, how many 'natural' disasters were there this year?  You think they've all happened in the US and middle east by coincidence?  Its meteorologic warfare and its a top secret program lead by the CIA.  You may have missed the fact that the entire garrisoned 82nd airborne special operations division was deployed to keep martial law during Katrina as part of a coverup.  Its a global conspiracy but the government won't let you know about it.  They tested the weapons in our own waters first but it backfired, come on man, can't you see?  Its obvious, george bush, and cia, martial law, black helicopters global meteorologic catastrophe's.  And this is just the beginning.  What they really want is global control.  The government now has the ability to declare war on its own citizens, using these weather weapons.  Its all part of the plot to keep the citizens poor so the ruling class can stay in power.  The same conspiracy has been going on since the US was founded, but only now do we have the technology.  Think about it, never ending war in the middle east keeping us in a state of fear, natural disasters across the globe to keep us poor, illegal wire taps to keep us in check, and all of it to keep us dependant on the government and focused on our economic situation.  Its probably the end of days, and the masons, and illuminati, the anti-christ, its all here man!  The same people who got kennedy assasinated, secret weapons contracts, and where do you think the technology came from?  Its been hidden since roswell in the 50's and just now we figured out how to use it.  The aliens have been here, and all of it is part of the coverup.  I'm telling you man and don't think you're safe after reading this.  The CIA already has me bugged I know, they're monitoring my emails.  THey're all out to get me man.
238181
Y'know I often wondered the same thing after it first happened. It isn't a well kept secret that there was no love between the first Bush and Perot. The fact that Sr. was once head of the CIA meant he must have had some sort of access to ANYTHING Perot would have done bad in his past.
455292
I think it is more a case of people are afraid of him than loyal, though he probably has a cadre of loyal bodyguards too.  Iraq is roughly the size of California and a mix of deserts and mountains with some fairly sizeable cities, it is probably difficult to keep track of a small group of foreigners who frequently move around.  In addition to fear Zarqawi has cash to spread around which probably helps keep him hidden as well.  If he were caught I don't think he should be executed right away, he probably is a veritable gold mine of intelligence if he can be made to give up the info.
616093
Because the men he leads has to trust him enough to obey his commands, he has to make the decisions to send them to their deaths, and he has to face the consequences of the orders he gives.  It is the role of an officer to be these things for his men.  Without these things, IF he were ABLE to do his job, he wouldn't be any GOOD at it. \n\n(Yes, I'm using male pronouns, but my husband is combat mos and there are only men in his unit, so I simplify.  I know there are women officers and soldiers.)
529129
It seems like in this day and age, with the pictures of the president's children known to all, having them in a combat situation would be a liability.  Did you see the west wing where the president's daughter was kidnapped and what it did to the leader of the country?  Putting a child at risk to be taken by the enemies may not be the smartest idea to enable strong governing.
376086
I don't think the CIA has the staff for this.  And based on some of the things we've tried & failed, I'm not sure they have the skills, either. If they did succeed, however, I think it would be Abu Ghraib (sp?) all over again.  America would certainly look bad -- invading a country (again!), kidnapping (still illegal, last time I checked), forcing them to do things that they find morally offensive -- how could we possibly claim the moral high ground on this?  Also, I don't think it would change any Muslim's view of their religion, though it would certainly generate a lot of hostility against the USA.
516716
I wouldn;t deny that someone like Bill Gates presence would definatley have an influence on me. But the fascinating thing is about the nature of such an influence that makes it so influential? But then would Bill gates office security guard act in the same way that we would? With time this security guard having seen him passing by and in and out of the office would eventually become numb to the aura of influential presence relative in the media sense. Seeing him face to face he would notice the texture of his skin facial features and wonder what the hype is all about. So i suppose the media would then play a strong role in influencing our perception. T.V and pictures by their very nature deprive us of any sense of informed consent. And it would be at the point that we would be most suspectible to such an influence. At the end of the day Bill gates probably values some of the same things for his own children than a father in afghanistan. We can often ( which includes you and me) be swayed into defining reality based on our experiences. With our experiences moulded based on our perception. And spending half our lives infront of the a T.V we would have little left to hang on to control our own perception.
801984
I think that the CIA probably knows more than the White House does about Iran, and if the White House is smart, they will listen to the CIA, and hopefully they will continue to have an open dialogue with Iran. As we learned with Iraq, war is not the way you deal with rogue states.
833974
Most of our worst enemies were educated here and many trained by the CIA. The true Bush legacy. This is no secret, the press is just afraid to remind people of it.\n\nIran was sold billions in weapons by the Reagan administration (Ollie North), G.H.W.B. said that he (former CIA director) was "out of the loop".
558649
I have never heard of the CIA having any checks and balances on their authority.  You tell me: If no one is watching you, would you break the rules?  There is a strong possibility unethical tactics are perpetrated by the CIA, but how would we ever know for sure?
160659
I was going to say that Traitor may be too strong of a word for this however, after thinking about it Ive changed my mind.  As a former Vice President one would hope he would have had a little more respect for America, the administration and our armed services.  In times of war the last thing we need is a former VP giving the enemy ammo to use against us or fanning the fire.  This could lead to added hostility and attacks on US troops.  If that is the case we have Al Gore to blame.
1041137
Ever read any of Tom Clancy's books - his insight into government and how it works is so good the govt. has tried to hire him.  9/11 happened for many reasons - we back Israel, we are the sole super power, many people are raised knowing us only as the Great Satan.  When they asked terrorist prisoners why, none of them knew.   We were always a target.  The timing, however, in my own individual opinion (and what i've learned from clancy's books as well) - is that we had half the government blatantly saying they were not going to back Bush/ saying on national tv half the country hated him.   Well in the terrorist countries, this means civil war or a coup is coming and we looked weak, divided.  We were but only in opinions.  I think they struck then because they thought they would cause a civil war (the kind that happens daily in some of their countries).   We were sending them a message we were weak and divided.    Ultimately though there's only one reason a terrorist terrorizes - is because he/she wants to.   Truly that's the only motive any criminal really needs.
1016945
Very interesting.  \nThe CIA has always been a morally amiguous organizition which serves the government not in the interests of right and wrong but in guaranteeing US military might throughout the world.  Ex-Nazis were probably used to make connections and guarantee some flow of information.  \nI especially like that the article points out the sentiment of the war on communism took precedent over right and wrong within our government, however slanted a view that is.