Hayden nomination: Brilliant or stupid?

[mburbank]

I think it's given that nominating hayden to head the CIA is a deliberate, plitical strategy.

The question is, do you think it's a good strategy that will help W and company in the lead up to the November elections, or do you think it's a strategic error?

They are gambling that the public is okay with warrantless wiretapping, or 'terrorist surveilance' as they prefer to call it, and that talking about it makes the Democrats look weak.

I think they are embarking on a HUGE ass mistake. A number of Repubicans don't want to bck him beause he's part of the Negroponte powr block. Specter thinks this is an opportunity to force discussion of the NSA wiretaps, which he thinks (I'm guessing) are a threat to congress. So W doesn't even have the solid backing of his own people. Any chance of painting dems as weak on terrorism if they attack Hayden is going to stick to Republicans as well.

I think the lock step bunker mentality that served this administration so well for so long has entered a phase so crazy they honestly don't know when they are walking into another karen Hughes moment.

[sspadowsky]

Max, can you explain the "Karen Hughes moment" remark? I'm afraid my general disgust with the state of our government has caused me to lag behind.

[mburbank]

Not you sir, me. I had one of my many mini strokes. I do not mean karen Hughes. I meant Harriet Meyers, the woman nominated to be Supreme court justice prior to Alito, whom W's fellow Republicans torpedoed.

[Preechr]

I agree that it's strategic. Maybe they intend this to be wiretapping's "day in court." From what I hear, Hayden is very articulate. The key, I believe, is the reason Goss quit. Was he forced out, or did he decide to go? Was the decision made for policy or political reasons? I think the CIA, in the position it's in right now anyways, can go leaderless for a while with no harm done. It's war time, and the major threat during war is the war, which is run by the military not the CIA. Military intelligence has far more resources and capabilities than has the CIA, and the scope of their operations, based as they are smack dab in the middle of the problem, is as far reaching as is that of the enemy.

[george]

why not have people focused on the CIA awhile.

no other spooks out there.

none at all.

distracting us from something else.

[Kulturkampf]

Question...

How was the wiretapping illegal, again?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It's legality is in question, because the president went around the FISA courts to do it.

It's a matter of interpretation, one that Arlen Specter will hopefully bring into question soon.

On Hayden-- It's brilliant in that really stomach turning sort of way. Yeah, Bush has been referred to as the "campaigner-in-chief", but I would hope his appointments would be based on at least some experiential merit.

I think it's a risky political move, if putting the heat on the Dems is what he hopes to accomplish. I know security, security, security will be the last breath of life for the GOP this year, but they risk alienating a lot of Republicans in the process, between the NSA program and Hayden.

[mburbank]

Kev; Have you read anything anywhere by a respected legal scholar arguing that bypassing FISA is legal? I'm asking seriously. Because the only people I've read saying it is are people currently employed by the Justice department, many of whom are the ones who suggested that bypassing FISA could be gotten away with in the first place.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I've seen the pundit army argue for it, but even many of those who are in favor of the practice seem to think Bush should go through the process if it's necessary (b/c if it's so damn necessary, the FISA court would permit it).

I think the thing the president has on his side is the general public apathy over it. Bush, as you know, doesn't care what experts and media says. He cares about what his inner-circle says, and on this one, what he can get by the public. The public appears to be not too concerned about the spying.

[mburbank]

Yeah, but Kultys question (such as it was) was "What's illegal about it?" not "Who cares?"

My question to you was, are you aware of any serious legal scholars arguing that bypassing FISA if the President says it's okay is legal.

I've heard Gonzales say it is, but every opinion I've read on Gonzales arguments (The President has the executive authorty to bypass not just this law, but laws in general, during wartime, and even if he didn't congress authprized him to bypass the law with thier 'use of force resolution' and even if that was not the resolutions intent and congress never knew they'd done it, they did it anyway) Is at best flimsy as hell and at worst transparently wrong. I honestly haven't seen anyone who writes about the law (as opposed to just writting bout political stuff) say this argument holds any water at all.

It's only 'debatable' in that congress controls what will and will not be debated.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

My question to you was, are you aware of any serious legal scholars arguing that bypassing FISA if the President says it's okay is legal.

Not that I'm aware of, although it does have it's supporters. Ann Coulter is probably fine with it, and she's a lawyer.

I honestly haven't seen anyone who writes about the law (as opposed to just writting bout political stuff) say this argument holds any water at all.

Sure, but the argument has almost been stifled a bit by the political apathy surrounding it, which i guess was sort of my previous point. I think if the public was more concerned, you'd see more experts speaking out.

It's only 'debatable' in that congress controls what will and will not be debated.

Which is what makes this nomination really ballsy by the prez, IMO. It will specifically come up now during nomination, so hopefully the issue will be brought up again.

[mburbank]

I think it is ballsy, but I think this time it won't work. If they were counting on apathy, they'd be golden, and apathy may yet allow them to squeak by. But I think their strategy is based on kind of wishful thinking madness. They have been insular too long and nothing will pierce te bubble. Poll numbers in te thorties haven't.

I think they honestly believe that people are not just okay with and/or unconcerned about warrantless eavesdropping. They think that as long as they can get that 'terrorist surveilance' brand out there, people will be positively in favor of it and it ill rekindle Bush's popularity.

But if they talk about it too much (and they kind of have to, having nominated Hayden) they may end up facing a different brand. It's very hard to deny that the President broke and is breaking the law, and that hayden ran the illegal program. People do ike Terrorist surveilance. But they don't like a President who breaks the law.

W is laying it out there. Personally, I think he's pretty fucking cocky for a guy less than a third of the country thinks is doing a good job.

[Preechr]

Or is it that two-thirds of the country APPROVES of the job he's NOT doing?