Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Hayden as CIA chief

  1. May 9, 2006 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I see Hayden as part of the problem. In a news conference the other day, he reiterated the "trust us" argument for warrantless wire taps.

    IMO, anyone who supports this position is dangerous and has no business running the CIA. I also agree that this is no time to mix military with civilian offices. Even if he resigns, he is too close to the military power structure, which only adds to first objection.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. May 9, 2006 #2

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yah, we really don't need the military and the CIA to be on the same page, that's dangerous thinking. :rolleyes: That's almost as scary as a former sheriff being head of the F.B.I.
     
  4. May 9, 2006 #3
    I always thought that the CIA was kind of like the milltary but it's a offically a civilan organiztion.
    Doesn't the CIA spy gather intellgence for the milltary?
     
  5. May 9, 2006 #4

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes, the CIA and military have had varying degrees of difficulty working together (and the military people i've known directly and indirectly say its way beyond "difficult"). I personally see all these problems with civilians/politicians heading military matters having these kinds of solutions. Look at all the hub-bub about Rumsfeld. Everyone goes nuts at him because 10 of some 10,000 generals get ahold of the NY times and cry foul and people still think a military guy in a governmental job is a bad thing?
     
  6. May 9, 2006 #5

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Pengwuino, can you name 10 retired generals who worked under Rumsfeld during this term that have spoken up in support of him ? Don't be fooled into thinking the generals that aren't saying anything are fans of Rummy.
     
  7. May 9, 2006 #6

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Don't be fooled into thinking that 6 must represent the majority
     
  8. May 9, 2006 #7

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No warrentless wiretaps. There is no honest reason, there is no necessity.
     
  9. May 9, 2006 #8

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    "There is no terrorist threat in America" :rolleyes:
     
  10. May 9, 2006 #9

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There's certainly more evidence that this is a majority opinion than a minority opinion, or do you have those ten names I asked about ?

    But that's not the point. I'm not just agreeing with their opinion. I'm agreeing with thier conclusions based on real events that they've retold. I've read at least three independent pieces written by three different generals (one of whom is not even among the generals calling for Rummy's resignation - because he doesn't wish to get involved in politics) with significant overlap in the points they raise, to believe that they all decided to just tell a bunch of lies for their 15 minutes minutes of fame.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2006
  11. May 9, 2006 #10

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114522916171427157.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060417/D8H1O0J00.html

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/11/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html?section=cnn_topstories&eref=yahoo

    You got 6 there, i got 6 or 7 or who knows how many here. See how much of a waste it is? Let alone the semi-military circulation of a countless # of generals approving of his job. The NY times didn't front page it though....

    So between the 2 of us, we have around 20 maybe? Do we really want to waste our time with 7000? Everyone has their opinion, no one knows what everyone thinks.
     
  12. May 9, 2006 #11

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The existence of a terrorist threat is not a reason to circumvent judicial oversight. And if it was, there is a legal way to do that - it takes an act of Congress. One has to wonder what the President meant when he swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".

    But then, one also has to wonder what the President meant when he said this :

     
    Last edited: May 9, 2006
  13. May 9, 2006 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Did you have a point to make or are you merely appealing to the simple minded?
     
  14. May 9, 2006 #13

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, you've completely missed the point. This isn't about what the generals opinion of Rumsfeld was, as much as it is about events that they've recounted that clearly point to micromanaging and mishandling the operation. You can bring along a hundred character witnesses that support Rumsfeld, but that does nothing to eliminate the accounts of a couple of people that point out serious flaws in his handling of the war effort. Heck, even one of the people (in your second link) who has written in support of Rumsfeld said "He micromanages."

    Or do you think the planning of the occupation of Iraq was brilliantly performed ?
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2006
  15. May 9, 2006 #14

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Your first post was a challenge to Pengwuino to find generals whose opinions are in favor of Rumsfeld.

    In your second post, your opening salvo reiterated that challenge.

    If Pengwuino is "missing the point" by answering to your challenge, then just what the heck have you been doing?


    And the ironic thing is that Pengwuino was even telling you that tallying opinions is a waste of time!
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2006
  16. May 9, 2006 #15

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Which he answered. And that's fine, but it is still unrelated to the second (and pertinent to the question of Rummy's competence) point I am making.

    But the rest of that post made it clear that that was not the pertinent point. Or did you miss that ? The first point was merely to address the assertion that "6 does not constitute a majority of 1000". Heck, you couldn't make any sense of an opinion poll if you say that 5341 is not a majority of 200 million.

    Making two different points (perhaps not too clearly) - one of which, you've chosen to ignore, and the other, you've misunderstood.

    1. 6 does not have to exceed 5000, to be representative of the majority opinion of 10,000.

    2. My opinion is based on accounts of specific events retold by some who I do not think are lying.


    Yet he used exactly this to discout their opinions in the first place - that the tally was a small number compared to the total. What is ironic is that in supporting him, you've discounted the point he was trying to make.

    And in any case, I wasn't tallying opinions to the end of forming my own. I was only pointing out the correct way to tally opinions.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2006
  17. May 9, 2006 #16

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Meanwhile, back at the CIA -

    Intel Vacuum: CIA's Top Three Spots Vacant
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5394057
    I heard this interview. It seems the situation is pretty bleak regarding the intelligence gathering capabilities at in the intel community. :rolleyes:
     
  18. May 10, 2006 #17

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, I'm ignoring both of them. For what I'm trying to say, their actual content is irrelevant.

    You said you were "making two different points". You admit that Pengwuino's post was actually answering one of your two points. So you can hardly accuse him of "missing the point".


    That's the trouble with making multiple points -- they are all fair game for response.


    P.S. I think you misread Pengwuino's meaning -- as far as I can tell, he was never arguing (at least in this thread) that the majority of generals support Rumsfeld.
     
  19. May 10, 2006 #18

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The defense of Rumsfeld is pretty much summed up by Gen. Peter Pace's comments, "People can question my judgment or his judgment, but they should never question the dedication, the patriotism and the work ethic of Secretary Rumsfeld."

    Unfortunately, it's the judgement of Rumsfeld that his critics are attacking, not his dedication, patriotism, or work ethic.

    The four that do say Rumsfeld is an effective Secretary of Defense focus on his transformation of military. To be honest, Rumsfeld is good at doing the things a Defense Secretary should do.

    His problems crop up when he steps over the line into the areas of expertise where he should be relying on his generals.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Hayden as CIA chief
  1. No commander in chief (Replies: 15)

  2. Commander in Chief (Replies: 15)

Loading...