House Republican Intelligence Chairman, Pete Hoekstra, doesn't think so...

U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said, "This appointment ... signals that we are not that concerned about having an independent intelligence community independent of the Department of Defense."

Hoekstra said civilian government policy makers "need to get [intelligence] in an unvarnished way through a civilian, not through a military, lens."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/...den/index.html

Could it get any better? Me thinks not!

As a side note, the Republican party continues to slowly and publicly implode, at a time when they need to come together, if they are to maintain control of Congress and the White House. More good news at 11

__________________
Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.
Sigmund Freud

I still want to know why he left in the first place.

There's some ulterior reason, I know it.

__________________
You can never have enough check cashing, wig shops, nail salons, hair braiding, cell phone, gold plated jewelry and sneaker stores in Philadelphia!!!

Take a stand. Today, I will do better.
http://www.hotghettomess.com/

No.

I thought it was mostly over a turf battle between Negroponte and Rumfseld (and CIA). Apparently, Rumsfeld has been given the authority to usurp both the CIA and the NID, to do some things on his own. I'm sure that's just part of it. I heard that it got pretty heated, and, bascially, Bush stepped in and said that Rumsfeld could do what he felt necessary to accomplish the very broad and ambigous objectives of the "war on terror".

He appears to be the most powerful cabinet officer; however, many feel that his power is corrupting him along with his decison making ability, and that he's basically walking around thumping his chest.

BTW: I find it quite odd that he feels so cocky given that we're losing in Iraq. After all, doesn't that have his seal of approval all of over it? And, has he not failed, miserably?

__________________
Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.
Sigmund Freud

He's not going to remain a general is he? If that's the case, I think its very inappropriate. However, I don't feel that we should rule people out for the position based on their current positions.
The question should be 'is he qualified? and how will his background affect the work he does?' I wouldn't totally rule out those in the military, they could be the best choice for the job.

I'm curious who's agenda is being satisfied by obfuscating the issue with the debate over whether a military officer should run the CIA.

The precedent is long passed set. Including Mr. Goss, and Acting Director John McLaughlin the CIA has 20 Directors. Of those 20, 4 were Admirals (including the founding Director) 2 and were Generals. Additionally, 7 others served in uniform prior to heading up the CIA.

You may have a point here, however, there has been a trend in the Bush admin. to consolidate power in the Defense Dept. Some feel that this could be dangerous...something about absolute power. Don't forget that his soon to be former boss is, well, Rumsfeld. Given that reality, how comfortable will he be challenging him on key intelligence issues?

Based upon that dynamic, I do feel that it is a legitimate issue to consider.

__________________
Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.
Sigmund Freud

In a recent news report, it appears that the Gen. is angling to keep his stripes...

__________________
Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.
Sigmund Freud

Interesting editorial in the Washington Post today

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050801509.html