Why was Hayden in uniform for the AQ threat speech?

[spotbird]

NEW YORK -- In a rare public address CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden warned of new attacks by al-Qaida:


"Our analysts assess with high confidence that al-Qaida's central leadership is planning high-impact plots against the U.S. homeland."


Hayden's unusual public address was made at his request at the Council of Foreign Relations.


The newly minted CIA chief also took the unusual step of making his appearance in military uniform, though as CIA director he is not on active military assignment.

The text is from Newsmax, but that Hayden was in uniform is likely true anyway. It strikes me as so strange, what is the message?

[NoPasaran]

1. Maybe his suit was at the cleaners?

:shrug:

[SoCalDem]

2. Dictatorships usually like a heavy militaristic appearance..

Notice how the "General" part of attorney general is tossed around..

General Ashcroft
General Gonzalez..

General, in that sense, is like the "general" store or "in general"..not like Eisenhower, yet they still use it :grr:

[daninthemoon]

3. Wait till you see bushler's new uniform next week. Armband and all.

[JDPriestly]

4. Is this to demonstrate that the CIA is now a part of the military

I don't understand how this works? How can Hayden be a military officer but speak independently his own mind about intelligence matters? As a military officer, is he not under strict orders from the president? As a CIA officer, doesn't he have an obligation to render an objective opinion that does not necessarily reflect the president's view? I'm not suggesting that a CIA officer can speak or act without following the president's policies and without coordination with the president, but shouldn't the standard for independent thought and speech be higher than that of a military officer?

This is very troubling to me. How can we rely on Hayden's statements if he is speaking as a military officer with an obligation to obey the president? Hayden is supposed to be telling Bush the truth, not mouthing what Bush claims is true.

[spotbird]

6. Read the speech

the subject wasn't the threat from AQ, it was an argument to limit what little press freedom remains.

It is truly frightening.

http://sev.prnewswire.com/aerospace-defense/20070907/DC0261007092007-1.html

[spanone]

5. it's called political theater, like a president sneaking into a war zone.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

7. Hayden always wears his uniform in public. I find it disturbing. eom

[Captain Hilts]

8. I actually think that wearing his uniform is the honest way to depict himself.

And I don't really have a problem with a military fellow holding that job.

[Spazito]

14. Gosh, I am shocked at your perspective, not really

You are consistent, I will say that.

[kenny blankenship]

11. It's disturbing and extremely inappropriate

the CIA was created in part to give the civilian government, Executive and Legislative, its own source of intelligence distinct and apart from the military. By tradition, our Secretary of State is also a civilian, but Bush signaled his lack of interest in diplomacy aside from the gunboat variety by nominating Powell, a former General who had served in uniform as Armed Forces Chief under the previous Admin, and a known warcriminal. So it is in keeping for Bush who violates unwritten traditions of civilian government to put civilian agencies like CIA under uniformed military officers. The Nazis did this kind of militarizing of civilian gov't agencies, too.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

12. I agree whole-heartedly. eom

[Captain Hilts]

15. What about Carter's CIA head? He was recently retired.

The line's a dotted one and always has been.

At least Hayden is honest about being active duty.

This would not be a problem if we could trust the DoJ to protect us, which we cannot. THAT's the problem.

CIA and the Defense Dept. intelligence have different focuses.

[kenny blankenship]

17. what about it? Carter put a Navy Academy classmate of his in the post at CIA

to be loyal to him, instead of elevating someone from within the Agency, which at that time was universally described as "troubled" --not to mention presumed hostile to Democrats, what with the recent Church Committee investigations of their activities. And don't think CIA didn't raise a stink about it.

So you can find exceptions to every rule. BFD. You could, if you were more industrious, have discovered that the tradition of the Sec. of State being a civilian has been violated before Bush, too. Al Haig who was a former Army General, was Reagan's Sec. of State. (Nor was he the first) And Haig's tenure in that office shows WHY the civilian tradition for the State Dept. post is so important.

Everywhere in the world, all through history the greatest enemy of civilian governments is the military, their OWN militaries. The reason the CIA is supposed to be civilian in character is to give the civilian government its own set of eyes on the world, so that the military, which is historically a hostile rival to civilian authority will not simply be able to lead the government where the military wishes it to go either by "seeing" what isn't there or by blinding the civilians to what can be seen. It is a GENERAL rule and goal, not a written, enforced, law of the land. One of the things this country has done well--yes, well, when compared to most other countries-- is to keep the professional military separate from the civilian government. It is a good rule to observe to keep soldiers soldiers and out of diplomacy and civilian intelligence as well as out of civilian policing functions. The written and unwritten firewalls separating military and civilian functions in our government have served well to dampen the ambitions of military leaders. Now rattle off the list of Generals in wars who have become President for me, like I know you will. That's fine. I never said that the rules worked all the time. I say that if it were not for the rules segregating military and civilian functions, every goddamn President from Jackson onwards would have been a General and probably would have achieved the Presidency while in uniform, and half of those through coups d'états. Up til now, by comparison with the rest of the world, we've been doing pretty good keeping our civil government civilian.

When however you see those firewalls between civilian and military de-materializing and you hear people calling them outmoded and quaint, it is time for serious concern and even fear. I don't read in the history of the Carter years a record of pervasive militarizing of society and civilian gov't agencies by the Chief Executive, in fact it seems to have been a general trend in the opposite direction, away from the militarization of the Nixon Era. His appointment of Stansfield Turner may have been good or bad viewed from different angles, but it was not part of a general strengthening of the Executive into a near Dictatorship under a military chain-of-command model of discipline and authority. What has been going on under Bush, however, exemplified by the retention of uniform by DCI Hayden, and the restructuring of the entire law enforcement base of the country under a consolidated and militarized National Security apparatus does resemble the look of an approaching dictatorship.

[Captain Hilts]

22. Must you be so abusive and vulgar and profane?

"If you were industrious." I don't need to be: George C. Marshall was one hell of a Secretary of State. Actually, as Sec. of State, Haig had serious problems with Reagan's belligerent polices towards Europe, among other things. That's why he resigned. I believe he held the post for less than a year.

As someone who has spent years studying totalitarian and authoritarian governments, you are preaching to the choir.

I just don't see Hayden as being nearly as big a problem as an ineffectual NSA - Rice - and Sec. State - Powell - letting chickenhawks run roughshod over our foreign policy and domestic rights. And this would all be moot if we had a Dept. of Justice we could trust. Hayden is small potatoes.

[spotbird]

23. Did you read his speech?

It's scary.

[Captain Hilts]

24. Yes, and it I don't like it either. But he is doing the President's bidding...

and whoever sat in that chair would be giving the same speech.

It's President Bush's fault. HE scares me.

[JDPriestly]

28. I wonder whether the leak that endangered lives was the leak about Plame.

[Captain Hilts]

16. Yes and no.

The CIA's intelligence gathering has a different focus than the Defense Department's.

I, too, would prefer a civilian to run the CIA. But the fact that Hayden is active duty Air Force is the least of my problems with him.

And none of this would be an issue if the Department of Justice would make an effort to protect our rights. And the Congress to see to it that they did so.

[bridgit]

9. after america's acquiescence to preemptive war while sitting before a nation...

of flickering broadband screens, Chinese toys & Levi', and innocent death by the hundreds of thousands what's a little military uniform here & there :shrug:

[coalition_unwilling]

19. Your comment captures almost 100% of what has transpired in

the Empire in the past 6 years.

To which I might only add Pogo's aphorism: "We have met the enemey and it is us."

Edited to add "Thank you."

[bridgit]

21. there it is, i knew i left something out...

x( still :hi:

[peacetheonlyway]

10. that asshole promised at his confirmation hearing

that his being in the military would not sway his loyalties or his
duties as head of a CIVILIAN office.

bastard.

when the military took over the CIA, i'm damn confused why the 20 year veterans with distinguished abilities to nail anyone didn't take this guy out.

he is a disgrace to the CIA and to America.

It's not only NOT RIGHT for the head of a civilian intelligence agency to wear millitary uniform, it shows that we continue to pursue world problems with a hammer instead of the nuanced brilliance of a trained intelligence force. there's no question that the military taking over the CIA was the final straw in cementing this as a fascist military controlling corporations controlling the US government controlling it's own spy agency.

huh, where are all the patriotic former CIA guys who know this is a perversion of history? besides Ray McGovern, where are the folks who can save us?

[coalition_unwilling]

20. Hayden amply illustrates the notion that 'military intelligence' is

an oxymoron.

[peacetheonlyway]

27. i love it..

my most proud day was when I called into Cspan radio the day of his confirmation hearing, and told them I was very worried about Hayden, that his left shoulder twitched every 2 seconds and that he blinked his eyes commensurate with studies about liars who do similar things, and that the twitching shoulder made me think he had psychotic tendencies.

how many people can get away with calling the CIA chief a psychotic and get away with it???

i'm certain the day they apprehend me, there are 2 people who will be in the room waiting to ream me, Butthead Hayden, and Choicepoint executive Doug Curling, both of the same self delusions of grandeur, both more lethal than hitler.

[Bitwit1234]

13. Darn, remember when an Iraq veteran

was in uniform and was coming out against the war. And Fox news and coulter were bitching about it.

[Avalux]

18. He sees no distinction between military and civilian service - unconstitutional.

The guy's a creep just like the rest of the hubris-loaded Bushies. What Constitution????

[librechik]

25. you know, I don't remember ever seeing him not in uniform

I bet he's insecure about his teeny weeny peeny.

[burythehatchet]

26. same reason Chertoff had a cramp in his gut about a coming attack

because Richard Cheney is busy.

[mmonk]

29. Did it look like

this?



or this?