Uniform Attraction

So what’s wrong with hiring a guy in uniform? I mean at the very least we know that he’ll show up on time, be neat and well groomed, and be respectful to the President. I think Mike Hayden is a great choice for CIA chief, don’t you?

The news is barely 24 hours old and already the lines are drawn on 4-star Air Force General Micheal Hayden being tapped by President Bush to become the new Central Intelligence Agency chief.

Yesterday the talking heads were slamming the choice saying that Hayden's military background will have him playing footsie with the Defense Department in no time flat.

I like the fact that he has a military background. I like the fact that he served in Bulgaria developing human intelligence. I like the fact that John Negroponte likes him and John McCain likes him too. The President calls him supremely qualified. Sounds good to me....so what's the beef?

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at May 8, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #146217

The “beef” is that he’s successful; he gets things done. Congress doesn’t like anyone that (actually) gets things done. And, who cares about congress thinks, they are a bunch of inept, bought-off goons that don’t know squat about CIA or intelligence gathering. Gen Hayden is a good choice…

Posted by: rahdigly at May 8, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #146219

I don’t have a problem with the new guy, but I think they’d be better off appointing someone they can sacrifice later as this prostitution scandal starts getting more attention.

Posted by: iandanger at May 8, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #146226


There is nothing wrong with Gen Hayden. The problem is that the CIA is a civilian intelligence arm and the Director has always been a civilian for a reason. This choice represents one more step in the militarization of our government.

Posted by: Dave at May 8, 2006 1:25 PM
Comment #146227

Can you say Military Junta?

Posted by: Rocky at May 8, 2006 1:30 PM
Comment #146228


You realize that other military people in the past have held that job,right?

The issue is the NSA wiretapping and his connection to it,and the left trying to link the two together.Competence has little to do with the discussion,I think.

Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at May 8, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #146230

Bush should of nominated John Kerry to that position. He’s a politician, former “war hero”, a democrat that’s critical (if not crazy insane) of the President and he’s soft on terrorism. Perfect! Let’s sign him up. Ha! Ha!

Posted by: rahdigly at May 8, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #146236

DCI while they were in the military? Not since Korea.

But you’re right, this discussion isn’t about competence. It’s about priorities, purpose, learning from past mistakes, and the future. Even if you want to be at war forever we must end this reinfestation of groupthink.

Posted by: Dave at May 8, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #146238

The problem with a military man is that it is not a Klinton pick left in office after the election.

you know that Klinton despised the military.

Bush’s main mistake was to leave in place key Klinton people. Bad mistake. He won and should have cleaned house.

Posted by: lm at May 8, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #146242

Does anyone remember what happens when civilians run a war? McNamara, LBJ; oh I’m sorry that is when Democrats run a war. My mistake, the commander in chief is sometimes held by an ex-military person turned citizen, politcian.

You do realize that this war on terror will go on for a long time. If we do not fight where they are then they will come to us I promise.

Are any of you prepared to fight this war that seeks to kill you without a second thought?

Posted by: lm at May 8, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #146246


The point here is this guy is an “intelligence” guy…a guy who has spent a career defending our country.

To me it does not matter what he wears,uniform or not,so long as he does the job.

Frankly,I like the Negroponte-Hayden duo a LOT

Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at May 8, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #146247


DCI while they were in the military? Not since Korea.


Stansfield Turner was a U.S. admiral and Director of Central Intelligence. He was Commander in Chief of Allied Forces Southern Europe (NATO) from 1975-77, directly prior to being named CIA director February 8, 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. According to Wikipedia, he retired from active duty on December 31, 1978, meaning he had been CIA director for over a year and a half.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 8, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #146248

“Yesterday the talking heads were slamming the choice saying that Hayden’s military background will have him playing footsie with the Defense Department in no time flat.”

Is that too much of a stretch for you?

Posted by: Rocky at May 8, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #146250


“If we do not fight where they are then they will come to us I promise.”

You can’t spell Clinton and you want us to trust you?

Posted by: Rocky at May 8, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #146251


“The President calls him supremely qualified.”

The President called Harriet Miers qualified.

Posted by: Rocky at May 8, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #146252


Well,yeah,actually.By that I mean this guy (from all appearances) appears to be a qualified intelligence professional.

All of a suddden he must be in cahoots with someone because the President appoints him.

Actually,ANYONE the President appoints would be objectionable to the politicially annointed,I think.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at May 8, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #146253

Oh, so now (all of a sudden) there’s criticism for spelling?! Nice. Just debate the issue, Rock…

Posted by: rahdigly at May 8, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #146255


The President deserved to be clubbed on that one….very dumb move.However,no one is questioning Hayden’s ability to do the job…only the fact that he either wears a uniform or was involved with the wiretapping thing.

Personally I think it’s going to be a fishing exercise by Pelosi,Dean,Reed,et al.

Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at May 8, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #146257


YOU try typing with talons.haha.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at May 8, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #146258


I don’t question the man’s credentials, I question the motives behind the decision. Bush hasn’t shown the best of judgement lately.

Posted by: Rocky at May 8, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #146259


I didn’t see that in Wikipedia. Even if accurate, doesn’t that mean he recognized the reason for seperations of power? “Doomed to repeat history we are” said Yoda. But then, I like Turner. Isn’t he the guy who called Dick: “Vice President for torture?”


You can go live in a military dictatorship if you want to, but I’d rather take my chances with a civilian democracy. There is no trust here, none. To repeat, this is all about purpose and priority…
Up until Bush II, no matter how divergent I was from a Presidents policies I always believed he was doing what he thought best for America. With this Chimp I’m convinced he’s doing what he thinks is best for himself and the GOP. Party First! Just like in the PRC and the old USSR.


I hope Rocky didn’t hurt your feelings.

Posted by: Dave at May 8, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #146260


I’m not sure what you mean by “doesn’t that mean he recognized the reason for seperations of power?”

Turner came back from overseas expecting a new commission, or perhaps being named one of the Joint Chiefs. If Bush is wrong for naming a military man to DCI, then so too was Carter. If Carter was okay to do so, then so to is Bush.

I haven’t thought long and hard about the issue, but Hayden seems to have a strong career in intel, and I’d rather have that than someone without the background.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 8, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #146262


“If Bush is wrong for naming a military man to DCI, then so too was Carter. If Carter was okay to do so, then so to is Bush.”

Please don’t tell me you think the political atmosphere is the same now as it was then.

This administration has done everything in it’s power to scare the people in this country shitless.
Dispite all attempts, are we really more secure than we were under Carter’s watch?

Posted by: Rocky at May 8, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #146265

The President, VP and Sec. of State are all “civilian”, but those have all been held by former military. By today’s (hypocritical socialist) standards, George Washington could not be President I suppose.

Posted by: David C. at May 8, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #146267

The last President to appoint a military head to the C.I.A. was Jimmy Carter. Oh wait, he was a Dem. It’s only bad if a Republican does it.It’s all about qualifications. Nothing else should matter. This country needs the most qualified person available, not one who can win a partisan ‘beauty’ contest.

Posted by: pige at May 8, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #146268

David C,

“By today’s (hypocritical socialist) standards, George Washington could not be President I suppose.”

Was Washington an active member of the military when he took office?


“One of Washington’s most important contributions as commander-in-chief was to establish the precedent that civilian elected officials, rather than military officers, possessed ultimate authority over the military. Throughout the war, he deferred to the authority of Congress and state officials, and he relinquished his considerable military power once the fighting was over.”

I would guess that means no.

We have had plenty if Presidents that had been military, some good, some not so good.

Posted by: Rocky at May 8, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #146270


By all means we should take into account today’s political and social climate. We know that our intelligence operations have performed poorly within the past 5-10 years, and we need to ensure that we improve their functionality.

My information was specifically towards Dave’s assertion that no military man had been DCI since the Korean War. If the political climate today calls for a non-military person to head the CIA, then so be it.

I think the climate calls for putting the best person in the job, and Hayden has rather impressive credentials. Is there someone from the non-military ranks who you’d prefer?

The fact that Hayden is military should not disqualify him from the position, any more than it did not disqualify Stansfield Turner from the position. It should be part and parcel of his resume, and should be considered duly, but not unduly.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 8, 2006 3:47 PM
Comment #146276

There is no beef with him being in the military, though the position is supposed to look out for civilian interests. I guess the title of your post could have been “Why don’t people trust Bush to look out for their interests?”, but then everyone would be lauphing so hard they wouldn’t be able to type in replies.

I say people, rather than Democrats, because it’s not just Democrats that are insulted by Bush’s choice, it’s Republicans too. In fact, Republicans were the first to voice objections. They don’t object really to his being from the military (though it’s a bit like making the president of the PeaceCorps a General). They object that he doesn’t even bother feigning an interest to respecting civilian authority, which in this case is part of the job.

Then there’s the matter of why he was chosen, which is for political reasons, not the interests of this country. He has no experience in the type of intelligence the CIA does. He was chosen because in order to confirm him Democrats will have to question his role in the NSA wiretapping efforts. Bush wants a showdown on the governmnent’s right to wiretap civilians at will. Not really in the spirit of what’s best for the country right now, since the legality of this is going through the courts now anyway, or a good reason for picking someone to head our CIA. As per usual, there’s other things he should be concentrating on rather than trying to distract people from the rising costs of gasoline.

So you can get ready for your next post about “Why are the Democrats against the government spying on anyone at will? I like it.”, because that’s the conversation Bush wants you to have, and I have no doubt, based on the posts here, that you will be a good little robot and do exactly what he wants you to. After all, the above posts are still blaming Clinton for Bush’s mistakes, harping on how bad a president Kerry would have been, and waxing masturbatorily over men in uniform, so it’s clear you guys don’t have a thought outside Bush’s talking points.

Again, for Bush this isn’t about the country, it’s about you. He wants to pull your puppet strings and get you talking about how Democrats don’t like the military and apple pie and want to pamper terrorists. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for him to choose someone above reproach, with the right experience, who could work with Democrats, but that’s not how Bush wins political battles, which are the only kind of battles he seems good at winning. He wins by raising campaign issues mid-presidency and getting you to go on a Blog and start talking about Clinton.

It’s nearly impossible for me to believe he takes this war seriously when instead of fighting he continually decides instead to play political football. So why don’t people like his choice? Because unlike you some of us don’t like being manipulated when this country’s future is on the line.

Posted by: Max at May 8, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #146280

Max’s comments are proof that in-breeding is bad for the human race. Projection is an awful thing to do in a discussion. Bush is playing political football with the war in Iraq? What an idiotic statement! Of all the people involved in the war, Bush has played the least football with this issue. He made the decision and he has stood by it. Republicans have been more than happy to say they supported it, but continue to play football with appropriations bills. Democrats have played political football with this since day one. Remember Kerry’s “I voted for it before I voted against it” comment? Classic Kerry! The sad thing is that the main stream media lets the Dems get away with playing politics with the war. Prime example is how Bush handles Iran now. With Iraq, Dems said Bush did not have enough support in the world and did not give diplomacy a chance. With Iran, he is letting the EU have too much imput. That is political football with the national security of our country. Imbeciles like Max keep this intellectually vapid discussion going when we should be focused on winning the war on terror, not the next election.

Posted by: Tom Seaver at May 8, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #146283


A very good post with an opposing point of view.

As you may or may not know,this is my first “official” post on Watchblog.

David invited me to post on this side and I accepted because maybe this robot has something worthwile to say every once in a while.Worst case is that I may get a few writers to think for a few seconds before rejecting out of hand what I say…which is ok by me too.

I have been following Hayden since the NSA wiretapping thing broke several months ago,and I think he has the right temperment for the job.From what I have read about the guy,that posting in Bulgaria was a cram course in intelligence meant only for the most skilled.

Now,as far as the politicial ramifacations…I don’t know about that.Maybe you’re giving the President a little too much credit here on that issue.I think he wanted a change,and made it,period.

I like what is happening lately.Rove marginalized (at least out of view politicially),Condy Rice putting a terrific face on at State,and Negroponte a wise choice as intelligence czar.

Look:this morning the polls had Bush’s approval at 31% due in part to him losing his own conservative base.When push comes to shove,and those curtains are drawn at the voting booth,I think they will hold their noses and still vote Republician.

Meanwhile,the President can do his bit and continue to appoint competent people to profoundly important positions,as is the case here.

Posted by: Sicilianeagle at May 8, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #146287

Congratulations on your first post. You’ve been contributing here for a long time, so it’s nice to see you’re now doing some editorializing. But I mean what I say about Bush playing politics with the appointment. It would be one thing if only Democrats are criticizing the choice, but Republicans too?

Posted by: Max at May 8, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #146289
Bush is playing political football with the war in Iraq? What an idiotic statement! Of all the people involved in the war, Bush has played the least football with this issue.

You mean other than having manufactured the reasons for going to war in the first place?

Posted by: Max at May 8, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #146296

Sicilian Eagle!!!!!!!!

Let’s get one thing straight, my agreeing with you does not make me any less of a Democrat. That said I agree with you (damn it).

I think that A) it brings certainly a better morale to the agency than the idiocy of Goss and B) It smacks of actual professionalism coming from the oval office (weird). I wouldn’t piss on Bush if the man were on fire but I think that an Air Force General with over twenty years of experience in intelligence is an exceptional choice (and obviously quite a shocker coming out of the G.W. Bush administration). I would have expected Bush pick another nutball or some heritage foundation idiot corpo-crony—but this? If he came out Friday an said he was going to appoint Judge Judy to head up the agency it would have fit more with this man’s appointmental thinking.

Now, how do we get rid of Negroponte and Chertoff? And then somehow replace them with other good and respectable nominees. Then a good Secretary of State and Defense Secretary—the sky’s the limit. Profiteer Dick Cheney could be replaced as well!

Posted by: Novenge at May 8, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #146311
” The President calls him supremely qualified. Sounds good to me.”

After appointments like Rumsfeld, Gale Norton, David Safavian, Harriot Miers and Michael Brown just to name a few, you’ll pardon me if I don’t share your blind trust of Bush’s judgement.

Posted by: Matthew at May 8, 2006 5:35 PM
Comment #146312


Bravo for agreeing with me.Now,who shall we vote for in ‘08…McCain or Guiliani? :)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 8, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #146313


That’s my son’s name.You’re not him,are you?I could swear he was a republician….

Seriously,I promise to do a piece on my favorite administration character…Donald Rumsfield..very soon.I gotta go out and buy a new helmet first though….

I take it that this pick (Hayden)doesn’t upset you then?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 8, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #146314


“I think the climate calls for putting the best person in the job, and Hayden has rather impressive credentials. Is there someone from the non-military ranks who you’d prefer?”

As I said before, I don’t question Hayden’s credentials.
That said the post he is nominated for has been, whith the exception of Turner, a civilian post.

If Hayden truely wants to quash all of the objections, let him resign his commision, and take the post as a civilian.

Posted by: Rocky at May 8, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #146316


I dont yet know enough about this particular choice to make a clear judgement in either direction. I do think he should hang up the uniform if he gets comfirmed. If not, will he be subordinant to Negroponte or other higher ranking generals? It would also be a important gesture (yes, these things matter) to his civilian employees. I realize we have had some military CIA heads in the past but it would be better to have a citizen in charge. Okay, Carter appointed one, fine, but just look how well that turned out for him. Ouch!!

Posted by: Matthew at May 8, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #146326

sorry rocky, that is how it is spelled in Russia. you know where he went when he couldn’t cut it a oxford and went for his future training. you know when he dodged the draft and then got a pardon from carter so he could be a citizen again.

I know it is clinton. sorry if I hurt any feelings as I know most libs run on them.

Posted by: lm at May 8, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #146332


“sorry rocky, that is how it is spelled in Russia. you know where he went when he couldn’t cut it a oxford and went for his future training. you know when he dodged the draft and then got a pardon from carter so he could be a citizen again.”

It wouldn’t be funny even if it was true.

Frankly, I don’t see how it adds to the debate.

BTW, why is it we don’t see you and rahdigly in a discussion at the same time.

Must be an alter ego.

Posted by: Rocky at May 8, 2006 7:03 PM
Comment #146337

to the Mighty Eagle, here’s to you, and have many, many , blogs to come.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at May 8, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #146345

What’s the problem with having a “Military” figure at the head of the CIA? I thought liberals “love” the military?! Aren’t they against war, yet for the military?!!

Huh, libs make this so(oooo) easy…

Posted by: rahdigly at May 8, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #146354

Sic Eagle, the beef is in the words of a great American here who became a Republican President named Dwight David Eisenhauer, who admonished and warned against military control of civilian government apparatus.

If Republicans have forgotten the strengths of their past great leaders, we are in real trouble if they remain in power.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 8, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #146363

Seven of the 17 men (not counting Hayden) to serve as DCI were active duty flag officers (Admirals or Generals) at the time of their appointment. But I don’t see the difference between an active duty general and a retired general.

Just because they take off the uniform doesn’t mean they stop thinking or acting like a general in whatever position they occupy, whether it be a CEO of a private company or director of the CIA or Secretary of State.(Marshall and Haig.) And even after “retirement” (General officers and admirals never really retire. They continue to serve at the pleasure of the Commander-in-Chief.), they maintain close ties to the military leadership.

I think fears about military juntas and the militarization of the government are unfounded and unjustified.

The discussion should be focused on Hayden’s qualifications for the job, not his uniform.

Posted by: vietnam_vet at May 8, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #146367

David Remer, Sicilian Eagle,

Another thing crossed my mind, and that is that Hayden also has the clout to disagree and even put up a fight with The White House, Negroponte, and as he apparently has done before, as claimed, the Pentagon on certain issues. I think he might actually make a good defender of what is traditionally a civilian government agency (albeit the CIA was originally founded by General “Wild” Bill Donovan).

Sicilian Eagle,
—Joe Biden in ‘08, showboat as he may be, that’s where my vote is going if at all possible.

Posted by: Novenge at May 8, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #146368

What a funny world it is when Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) opposes a nomination by President Bush and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) wholeheartedly supports it.

So Rahdigly, once again, provides us mildly entertaining non-truths to shift the conversation.

As has been made abundantly clear abovethread, Hayden’s military status is at most a tertiary issue. What seems to be quite apparent is that there are people on the right and left that are concerned with Hayden’s possible work at the NSA on domestic warrantless wiretapping.

It is possible, repeat possible, that Hayden was involved in a program that broke the law. That’s a legit topic for his confirmation hearing, and I believe it would be aired.

What amuses me to no end is how the right-wing chatterers hailed Goss’ nomination as the best thing since depleted uranium. From the Washington Times:

“The unique background of Congressman Goss will serve him well as he meets these and many other challenges while directing our intelligence community,” said Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan.”

But now Goss is out, under what I hope each and every one of you will achknowledge are highly irregular circumstances, and now we’ve got the new best choice ever.

To be honest, I don’t know that this nomination matters a whit - Negroponte and Rumsfeld call the shots.

But I encourage the Red side to keep in mind that Hayden’s military status is a red herring - the real issues are the circumstances of Goss’ departure and Hayden’s alleged role in warrantless domestic surveillance.

Posted by: Arr-squared at May 8, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #146371

vietnam_vet, general officers have a lifetime of training and mindset conditioning that in some small but significant number of ways, differ radically from civilian based thinking and problem resolution. The military general officers accept limited freedom and autonomy to a command structure which is not shared by civilians who are more defensive of personal freedom, and negotiation without threat of violence as the final arbiter.

The military operates on efficiency standards of mission success and obstacles to either mission success or efficiency are to be overcome. But what happens when personal freedom, or individual choice, or rights under the Constitution become obstacles to a military leader holding a civilian agency head position? The Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor demonstrated for us what happens then.

There are exceptions on both sides, of course. Dwight D. Eisenhauer was one, who despite his military career preserved his civilian mind set and ideals. But, as a rule, his warning is to be disregarded at great peril to the nation’s future.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 8, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #146373

Novenge, given 6 CIA heads in about as many years, if you think he will stand up to, and fight the White House and remain in his position, I think you need to rethink.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 8, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #146376

Hey SE, you got your own column — cool!

What a funny world it is when Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) opposes a nomination by President Bush and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) wholeheartedly supports it.

Right, Arr. It looks like most of the Republicans posting here have no clue that Hayden’s nomination is opposed by their own party. No wonder Republicans keep getting elected — their supporters are ignorant.

The issue is the NSA wiretapping and his connection to it,and the left trying to link the two together.

SE, the two issues are linked. Democrats don’t have to try anything.

BTW, this is a brilliant move by Reid. By supporting the President’s pick, we get to keep hammering on President Bush’s illegal domestic spying and the “rubber-stamp” Republicans who allow him to continue using our Constitution for toilet paper.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 8, 2006 9:13 PM
Comment #146396

sorry rocky, must have hit a nerve. see klinton is a draft dodger who could not run for office unless carter pardoned all the draft dodgers. it was sorta like amnesty for the illegals. sorta touchy feely stuff libs love to exist on.

hate war, hug the military as they might not protect them. kinda like when john kerry murdered a poor vietnamese kid who was only trying to catch some fish for his family.

Posted by: lm at May 8, 2006 10:54 PM
Comment #146406


So in your attempt to smear Clinton by sending him into the arms of the Soviet Union, you get nothing right, including the fact that he was an active “draft dodger”.

The real truth is that like many kids with “friends” in high places, he benefited by getting defered.


“August 19, 1964 - Clinton registers for the draft
—[Washington Post Sep 13 92]
September 1964 - Clinton, age 18, enters Georgetown University
—[The Comeback Kid, CF Allen and J Portis, p. 20]
November 17, 1964- Clinton is classified 2-S (student deferment). This will shield him from the draft throughout his undergraduate years.
—-[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
February 16, 1968 - “The Johnson administration unexpectedly abolished graduate deferments.”
—[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
March 20, 1968 - Clinton, age 21, is classified 1-A, eligible for induction, as he nears graduation from Georgetown.
—[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
Comment: Bill Clinton was the only man of his prime draft age classified1-A by that draft board in 1968 whose pre-induction physical examination was put off for 10.5 months. This delay was more than twice as long as anyone else and more than five times longer than most area men of comparable eligibility.
—[Los Angeles Times Sep 02 92]
Summer 1968 - Political and family influence keeps Clinton out of the draft. Robert Corrado — the only surviving Hot Springs draft board member from that period — concluded that Clinton’s draft statement (the long delays) was the result of “some form of preferential treatment.” According to the Times, “Corrado recalled that the chairman of the three-man draft panel … once held back Clinton’s file with the explanation that ‘we’ve got to give him time to go to Oxford,’ where the semester began in the fall of 1968.
Corrado also complained that he was called by an aide to then Senator J. William Fulbright urging him and his fellow board members to ‘give every consideration’ to keep Clinton out of the draft so he could attend Oxford.
Throughout the remainder of 1968, Corrado said, Clinton’s draft file was routinely held back from consideration by the full board. Consequently, although he was classified 1-A on March 20, 1968, he was not called for his physical exam until Feb 3, 1969, while he was at Oxford.
Clinton’s Uncle Raymond Clinton personally lobbied Senator Fulbright, William S. Armstrong, the chairman of the three-man Hot Springs draft board, and Lt. Comdr. Trice Ellis, Jr., commanding officer of the local Navy reserve unit, to obtain a slot for Clinton in the Naval Reserve.
Clinton secured a “standard enlisted man’s billet, not an officer’s slot which would have required Clinton to serve two years on active duty beginning within 12 months of his acceptance.” This Navy Reserve assignment was “created especially for the Bill Clinton at a time in 1968 when no existing reserve slots were open in his hometown unit.”
According to the LA Times, “after about two weeks waiting for Bill Clinton to arrive for his preliminary interview and physical exam, Ellis said he called (Clinton’s uncle) Raymond to inquire - ‘What happened to that boy?’ According to Ellis, Clinton’s uncle replied - ‘Don’t worry about it. He won’t be coming down. “It’s all been taken care of.’ “
—[LA Times Sep 02 92]
Fall 1968 - Because of the local draft board’s continuing postponement of his pre-induction physical, Clinton is able to enroll at Oxford Univ.
—[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
February 2, 1969 - While at Oxford, Clinton finally takes and passes a military physical examination.
—[Washington Times Sep 18 92]
April 1969 - Clinton receives induction notice from the Hot Springs AR draft board. Clinton however claims that the draft board told him to ignore the notice because it arrived after the deadline for induction.
—[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
June-July 1969 - Clinton receives a second induction notice with a July 28 induction date and returns home.
—[Wash Times Sep 18 92]
July 11, 1969 - Clinton’s friend at Oxford, Cliff Jackson, writes, “Clinton is feverishly trying to find a way to avoid entering the Army as a drafted private. I have had several of my friends in influential positions trying to pull strings on Bill’s behalf.”
— [LA Times Sep 26 92]
Clinton benefited from yet another lobbying campaign in order to evade this induction notice. “Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton, who has said he did not pull strings to avoid the Vietnam-era draft, was able to get his Army induction notice canceled in the summer of 1969 after a lobbying effort directed at the Republican head of the state draft agency.” Arrangements were made for Clinton to meet with Col. Williard A. Hawkins who “was the only person in Arkansas with authority to rescind a draft notice. … The apparently successful appeal to Hawkins was planned while Clinton was finishing his first year as a Rhodes scholar in England. Clinton’s former friend and Oxford classmate, Cliff Jackson — now an avowed political critic of the candidate — said it was pursued immediately upon Clinton’s return to AR in early July 1969 to beat a July 28 deadline for induction.”
— [LA Times Sep 26 92]
Comment: Jackson’s statement is contrary to Clinton’s repeated assertions that he received no special treatment in avoiding military service. “(I) never received any unusual or favorable treatment.” [LA Times Sep 02 92]
August 7, 1969 - Clinton is reclassified 1-D after he arranges to enter the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas.
—[Wash Post Sep 13 92]”

Posted by: Rocky at May 8, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #146409


There is a lot more on that web site that explains the situation, including a letter from Clinton to the ROTC, but I thought I had taken up too much space already.

Sorry if I took us off the subject.

Posted by: Rocky at May 8, 2006 11:56 PM
Comment #146428

I have often wondered if the “critique the message, not the messenger”, applied to those that were critiquing themselves.

Last night two posts up I commited not one, but two grievous blog errors.

1)I allowed myself to be taken off subject by someone I knew had an agenda, and

2)In my haste to play gotcha, I failed to read the web sight I refferenced all the way through, thus making myself look the fool.

To those of you that care, mea culpa.

To the agenda boys, have at it I deserve it…,
this time.

Posted by: Rocky at May 9, 2006 3:10 AM
Comment #146439

Hey Guys! Checkit out:

May 8, 2006 - The President Nominates Michael Hayden for Director, Central Intelligence:

Mike knows our intelligence community from the ground up. … He’s the right man to lead the CIA at this critical moment in our nation’s history.”


Wayback Machine time…

August 10, 2004 - The President Nominates Porter Goss for Director, Central Intelligence:

Porter Goss … knows the CIA inside and out. He’s the right man to lead this important agency at this critical moment in our nation’s history.”


So, my questions are: Is “inside and out” better than “from the ground up”? What about From The Sky Down? Isn’t that where the planes came from? Who’s really “The Right Man?” If it was Goss nineteen months ago, can it really be Hayden now? If it’s really Hayden (now), why was it Goss then? Is it possible that Hayden is Now as Goss was Then? And, if so, who will it be Next? Stay tuned, for another edition of Flip-Flopper In Chief!

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 9, 2006 6:12 AM
Comment #146504

Rocky, you have strength of character. Bravo. Care to share some of that with the White House?

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 9, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #146513

I have read all these post and have listened to many pundits on the TV and I have come to this conclusion. I have not changed my mind at all about what I think should happen.

I do not believe his military association should disqualify him. We should look at his ability to do the job. No one seems to questions his ability. I think the one other item that needs to be looked at is the wiretapping. If it turns out to be illegal (which I doubt) then he should not get the position. In fact i say anyone involved in illegal activity be it Republican or Democrat should go to jail.

On of my goals in life is to see people start to think for themselves using there own capacity not that of someone they saw on TV. the main problem with that is getting the proper information disseminated to the public. I know blogs have been a huge help but also a hinderence in that it is hard to know fact from fiction.

This I know we do need someone very tough to go inside the CIA and clean it out. I had hoped it was Goss but that did not work out. I look forward to vigourus (sp?) debate at the hearings.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 9, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #146526


Thanks for the kind words.


Do we really need to tear the place down to repair it?

We have all, in the last 30 years heard the call to have America run like a corporation.
Well, IMHO, Americans have suffered because of it.
This country isn’t a corporation, our population isn’t a product to be bought and sold, or hired and fired, at the whim of a balance sheet.

The CIA, is a civilian agency that has, occasionally (rarely), been run by active military personel.
Do we now expect it to be run as an arm of the DOD?
The methods of gathering of military intel and civilian intel have been, and should be completely separate, and different from one another.
As I said earlier, I don’t have a problem with General Hayden’s qualifications, I have a problem with the timing, and I have to admit that, justified or not, I am very nervous about the direction this country has been headed recently.

Placing an active General in charge of a civilian government agency raises issues that do nothing to calm my fears.

Posted by: Rocky at May 9, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #146529

The reason Hayden shouldn’t be an ACTIVE DUTY offficer is the command structure in the military. I think David Remer touched on it above.

As it stands right now the CIA is the ONLY intelligence agency not controlled by the military. It was designed that way for a reason. The reason was so that the Pentagon does not control it. It is the civilian counterpart to the NSA. Thats how it should remain. I happen to think that separation is very important.

If Bush wants to promote the guy who designed and ran our domestic survailence program, that’s his perogative. But I think Hayden should retire from the military to take the job.

Posted by: Matthew at May 9, 2006 1:31 PM
Comment #146531

I would agree with the concept of resigning from the military to run the CIA. The only problem with that is when you are in the military you serve out a term. I would expect him to finish what he has left on the term or that the government would grant it to him so he does not suffer any loss of retirement benefits that he would earn by finishing out his term.

I do think that the CIA has become a oversized bureaucracy that needs to be retrained and some people positions changed so that they can more effectivley meet the dangers that we have now.

what does IMHO stand for? sorry for my ignorance.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 9, 2006 1:46 PM
Comment #146538

In my humble opinion.

Actually I would feel better if he resigned his commision, rather than retire, thus cutting the umbilical to the DOD.

Posted by: Rocky at May 9, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #146551

I was simply thinking that he should be able to get his full retirement benefits. I understand the desire to have the ties cut. though I am a staunch conservative (which is different then republican) I like the separation as well.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 9, 2006 2:44 PM
Comment #146559


“I was simply thinking that he should be able to get his full retirement benefits.”

Government service has it’s own rewards.

The perception that the government of this country has become militarized is real.
I mean no disrespect to the military, they do a job that that is vital to the survival of America. That said I don’t want the military to run this country.
As I linked before, Washington himself resigned from the military to set the precedent that civilians should run the military, not the other way around.

Posted by: Rocky at May 9, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #146627

I guess we will have to wait until the conformation hearings to find out what is gonna happen. I have a feeling the dems are gonna grill him over the domestic spying operation. I hope they dont get too nasty about it. He was just following the (illegal?) orders of the President.

I just hope somebody at the hearings asks Hayden if he will resign his commission/retire or not. To me, that is the important question. I have heard morale is pretty low at CIA already. Having a general in charge of the civilians will not raise it one bit.

On top of that, the recent agency “poker parties with prostitutes” investigation that Porter Goss’s appointees were involved in, is not good either. I suspect that is the reason Goss was asked to resign so abruptly in the first place.

Posted by: Matthew at May 9, 2006 7:51 PM
Post a comment