The MSM appears to be cheerleaders for Hayden

[journalist3072]

Am I the only one who is troubled by these headlines coming from the MSM:

"Hayden Looks Good to Go for Confirmation"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12867675/


"CIA nominee appears headed toward confirmation"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/19/hayden.hearing.ap/index.html


What happened to the days of critical reporting by the media?

Their "lead" on this is that Hayden is almost certain to be confirmed.

Where are the reporters who are willing to take the Senators to task for what they DIDN'T ask Hayden?

For example, the one question I wanted someone to step up and ask him (which I think no one did) was why did the NSA fail to do same-day translation of the Al Qaeda communication they intercepted on September 10?

I've been waiting for a Senator to step up and ask Hayden what good does it do the United States to listen in on Al Qaeda's calls, if they aren't going to translate them in a timely manner?

Yet, from what I can tell, you see no one in the MSM talking about this angle of the story.

[napi21]

1. I watched the hearing, and I think the guy is OK.

He's the only nominee for anything that was reasonably open and honest when answering the questions. I know, my first instinct was "if Shrub nominated him, he must be bad", but I don't think so after watching and listening to his answers.

[journalist3072]

3. So, I ask this with all sincerity and respectfulness

You don't have a problem with the fact that he was at the helm of the NSA on September 10, 2001 when they intercepted the Al Qaeda communication, and failed to translate it that day?

Sorry to keep harping on this, but I think it's important.

On September 10, 2001 the NSA intercepted communication between members of Al Qaeda where they were saying "the match begins tomorrow" and "tommorow is zero hour."

However, they were not translated until September 12, the day AFTER the attacks.

And so I keep asking: what is the point of intercepting their communication, if you don't translate it promptly?

They should have done same-day translation.

[napi21]

4. It's a valid question. I think many things were not done prior to 911

because everyone in this Country, including me, were in a nothing really bad is going to happen here" mode. Nothing really major had happened in a very long time. The most recent at that time was Oklahoma. Maybe it shouldn't happen, but people lapse into a sense of the status quo. All these agencies are maned by people, and they are not exempt from that same feeling.

You're right in asking what is the point of intercepting communications if you don't know what they are saying, but that's MY argument against the telephone spying. With millions or billions of phone numbers, what is the point? What are they really going to be able to do with all that info? There aren't enough employees in NSA to make that assessment.

[journalist3072]

5. From what I've heard some people say

There were not enough linguists staffed at NSA, who spoke the language that the members of Al Qaeada spoke, and thus they didn't have the staff to translate it.

But IMHO, that still doesn't give NSA a pass.

If they didn't have enough linguists on staff, then I think it was Hayden's responsibility to go to George Bush, and Congress, and whoever else he needed to go to, and say we need more linguists ASAP.

He should have been going to Capitol Hill everyday, if that's what it took, to get more linguists on staff.

That's my problem with him, and that's why I'm so troubled that he hasn't been asked that question.

[Dudley_DUright]

2. Even Joe Conason has written an article in Salon titled

"Don't punish Hayden for Bush's sins". Normally, I agree with Joe, but not this time.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/05/19/hayden_cia/index.html?source=salon.rss

[Gabi Hayes]

6. great thread here on the PERJURER Hayden. also mention of past CIA

chief's perjury: Richard Helms

http://forums.ariannaonline.com/showthread.php?t=41546

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/...s-for-800-alex/
Digby finds a telling quote (or lack thereof, to be accurate) from the National Press Club appearance by Cheney-promoted "front runner" Goss replacement candidate Gen. Michael Hayden:

Gen. Michael Hayden refused to answer question about spying on political enemies at National Press Club. At a public appearance, Bush’s pointman in the Office of National Intelligence was asked if the NSA was wiretapping Bush’s political enemies. When Hayden dodged the question, the questioner repeated, "No, I asked, are you targeting us and people who politically oppose the Bush government, the Bush administration? Not a fishing net, but are you targeting specifically political opponents of the Bush administration?" Hayden looked at the questioner, and after a silence called on a different questioner. (Hayden National Press Club remarks, 1/23/06)

.............

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More about what a liar Hayden is. Ignorant? I think not. He knows exactly what he's saying and doing.

Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/26/hayden-broke-law/

Former NSA Director Hayden Lied To Congress And Broke The Law



The Bush administration has pulled out all the stops in attempting to defend the NSA’s warrantless domestic spying program. After speeches by President Bush and Attorney General Gonzales, Deputy Director of National Intelligence and former NSA Director General Michael Hayden took another crack at the defense in a speech on Monday. He’s not exactly the ideal choice to restore the administration’s credibility.

As Think Progress documented back in December, Hayden misled Congress. In his 10/17/02 testimony, he told a committee investigating the 9/11 attacks that any surveillance of persons in the United States was done consistent with FISA.

At the time of his statements, Hayden was fully aware of the presidential order to conduct warrantless domestic spying issued the previous year. But Hayden didn’t feel as though he needed to share that with Congress. Apparently, Hayden believed that he had been legally authorized to conduct the surveillance, but told Congress that he had no authority to do exactly what he was doing. The Fraud and False Statements statute (18 U.S.C. 1001) make Hayden’s misleading statements to Congress illegal.

Hayden’s fate lies with the tale of another spymaster, Nixon-era CIA Director Richard Helms.

Testifying under oath before a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1973, Richard Helms claimed that CIA was not involved in attempts to overthrow Salvador Allende of Chile:

SEN. SYMINGTON: Did you try in the Central Intelligence agency to overthrow the government of Chile?

MR. HELMS: No, sir.

SEN. SYMINGTON: Did you have any money passed to the opponents of Allende?

MR. HELMS: No, sir.

By the time Helms was called to testify again, CIA activities in Chile had become public knowledge. In 1977, Richard Helms pleaded no contest to charges of lying to Congress and served a suspended sentence.

Four years passed between Richard Helms’ false testimony before Congress and his guilty plea. Hayden’s congressional lying occurred in 2002. It’s now four years later. Time to fess up, General.

– Morton H. Halperin and Michael Fuchs

has the M$M mentioned ANY of the above?

of course not

will they?

don't hold your breath

what about the freaking DEMS in the Senate???????

don't they care AT ALL about Clinton being impeached for supposedly lying?

why to they ignore EVERY SINGLE example of these creeps' mendacity during their nomination hearings?

[Hugin]

7. Sure they are... Ever heard of Operation Mockingbird?

The proof is in the pudding.

Naturally.