Light blogging for the next couple of days as I return to the US for about 3 weeks. Thanks to having to use my return allowances, I’m stuck flying Delta, an airline I have no miles with and thus 0.0 chance to upgrade. Its going to be a long 12 hours to Atlanta.
Once I get some connectivity going, better posting to be sure. However till then, here is a question:
Why is General Hayden not being required to retire as part of the quid pro quo for taking over the CIA? It would seem to my small mind, that the President could defuse some of the criticism regarding this appointment ( who I think will be confirmed but not without a fight about Iraqi pre-war intelligence), especially from critics in his own party that have defended civilian control of the military during the Rumsfeld debate. Why add to the baggage that the Senate Republicans are going to have to carry? For Hayden, he’s already topped out salary wise. Taking a senior political appointee position as a civilian has to be a pay raise when combined with his retirement. Or maybe not if he has an ex-wife laying in wait. ( See previous post on how to fix that………). If the President wants this guy, fine, but why make the fight harder?
And while we are at it, why did Porter Goss resign? Does it really have to do with politics, or does it have to do with Watergate poker parties where they gave out more than pretzels and beer……..? Lots of speculation about that you know.
Ja ne. See you on the other side.
