Influential Democrat asks Obama to keep spy chiefs
The comments in Wednesday's Congress Daily by U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, a Texas Democrat, run counter to the views of his likely Senate counterpart, who has called for a new team.
Reyes said he had recommended to Obama's transition team that CIA Director Michael Hayden and Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell be kept in place for at least six months.
"There's got to be some continuity, and the leadership of both the CIA and the DNI is going to be pivotal to keeping us safe and secure," Reyes said. "I made a recommendation that they stay on during the transition so that there would be a period of time that there would be overlap."
"I know that they're considering, they're weighing the options," he said. Reyes' spokesman did not immediately return a request for comment.
Silvestre Reyes is a cosponsor of HR 676, so I would like to cut him some slack, but this is outside of enough. We just had an election. People voted for Democrats in part because voters wanted an end to torture and domestic surveillance.
If you want Obama to dump Hayden, tell him so.
Do you live in Reyes' district? Please tell him to uphold his oath of office and oppose Hayden.
Is your Representative a member of the House Intelligence Committee? Ask them to oppose Hayden.
Feinstein has called for new intelligence leadership. If you live in California, please thank her. Do you have a senator on the Senate Intelligence Committee? Please tell them that we need new intelligence leadership.
- DCblogger's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Silvestre Reyes Believes...
in protecting Silvestre Reyes. I don't think the Fourth Amendment enters into it.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
continuity
Before I even got to the word I knew I was going to see it the piece. "Continuity" is one of the words in the Villagese language that doesn't get enough attention, but it's used more frequently than many think.
It's going to take a helluva lot of work to clean up the CIA, so the least they could do is change the leadership. CIA reform is one of the other things that rarely gets talked about. It's easily one of the most change-resistant government agencies in our system. What's so scary is that it's gotten more and more independent of the government since its inception. Their little 'apology' session, last year was it(?), simply isn't enough.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
Reform Starts with the American People
Porter Goss was put in by this administration to "reform" the CIA and he nearly destroyed it. Rumsfeld and Cheney were also big on "reforming" the agency, which generally meant making sure it came up with whatever intel they wanted whether it was accurate or not. Whenever the CIA released anything reality based, it was attacked for being a bunch of weenie analysts. I think it was Jane Mayer who reported that one of the reasons Cheney is so paranoid is that he now reads unfiltered intel, which is mostly garbage and needs a good analyst to sort it otherwise its useless but terrifying.
None of which means the CIA doesn't need attention, but I think in some ways its an easy agency to kick. It's small and it doesn't report to any department so as an internal political matter it doesn't have the protection that, for example, the FBI does. As a result, often times the CIA is blamed for failures that are bigger than just it.
I think what we really need to do is look at the national security apparatus in total, which includes the DIA, NSA, FBI, CIA, DoD, and others, and figure out how and why it failed (and it did fail - it failed to stop 9/11, it failed to plan for and execute two wars competently) and make the necessary changes. Not to go all Andrew Bacevich on you, but those changes start with us demanding a more modest, realistic approach to foreign policy from the President and Congress. So long as Presidents want to assassinate foreign leaders or dummy up intel to start a war, the CIA will need "reforming." Until we start to ask the right things of all of these agencies, including the CIA, they will need reform.
BTW, I suspect a large reason why Hadyn has so much support is that he's not Goss (or Goss's best bud Foggo). It's kind of like going from a husband who beats you every day and cheats on you to one who just cheats on you. The new guy seems like a prince simply for not beating you.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Not so benign
I'm not so sure I have the same benign view of the agency as you do, or that they are ever a victim of much of anything. I don't adhere to the total conspiracy theory-laden views of the agency, but I think they are a much more influential force than you think they are, and I think the "family secrets" they released back in July of last year kind of proves (or, let's just say that they more than hint at) that they are often the initiator of shady dealings, as opposed to simply reacting to the whims of a president. No government agency so independent is ever benign.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
Didn't Say They Were Benign
I just don't believe they do it independently of the rest of government. The CIA director is a presidential appointee. Congress confirms him or her and appropriates a budget. The culture there didn't just happen and the awful things they've done I don't think were done in a vacuum. I can believe that occasionally the agency has done things on its own or that policy makers didn't know the details, but I don't buy that all of the bad things it's done are simply the acts of a rogue agency. It's happened too often.
Take a look at the link you posted. The second example, Project Mockingbird, where they spied on Americans - "the wiretaps were conducted with 'the coordination' of then Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara." Doesn't sound rogue to me. Or take the first example, it's not crazy to think the CIA's efforts to kill Castro were sanctioned by President Kennedy.
Or take the current scandals torture and wiretapping. The CIA isn't sending people to secret prisons and torturing them on their own. It's doing it with the support and blessings of the president.
Same thing for the NSA and wiretapping.
Which is not to defend Hayden or the CIA. The correct response when you're asked to do something unconstitutional or illegal is to refuse. It's just that while there are plenty of people culpable in the torture and wiretapping at the CIA, it isn't limited to the CIA and is sanctioned by higher authorities than the CIA. In addition to the President, Vice President, Attorney General, you could also probably add Congress since it's done little to nothing to stop it.
That's what I mean about it going beyond the CIA. And since it goes beyond the CIA, it can't be fixed by reforming the CIA. Because the problem isn't just what the CIA does, it's what our leaders want them to do. I'd also suggest that the CIA is appears to be more independent than it is so that our leaders aren't held accountable for the things it does.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Attributing too much
I think folks often attribute too much agency to the president when talking about particular agencies and even many departments. I think at least in modern presidential history, while the powers of the president have been increased, they've only been increased in certain areas and over certain agencies and departments. It's been my view that the ideology and culture of the DoD and CIA are particularly insular (shady, maybe even sinister) and largely immutable with a mission in place before a new president ever arrives. It just so happens some presidents seem to fit better into their existing structure than others, not the other way around.
Agencies and organizations, rather public or private, built around secrets are always susceptible to to flipping the master-servant script. Let's just put it this way, an incoming president needs the CIA, on the other hand possessing the power of the secret means that the CIA needs the executive much less than the executive needs them. They have their ways of side-stepping the executive.
Too meta, maybe, but the CIA thrives more off of "continuity" than just about any other agency. Any agency that is the keeper of secrets is bound to be more independent than an agency not focused on that mission.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...