Shouldnt Bush be impeached for spying on US citize

[Occhidiangela]

I just read a nice little article that sums up perfectly what I've always thought about the Iraq war and the CIA's involvement. I know this topic isn't "new" news per say (which is why I attached the info. here), but General Mike Hayden worded his speech so eloquently, I felt the need to share it. I was flipping back threw the archives until I came to an appropiate post to hitch this little link onto.
<div align="right">[snapback]110335[/snapback]</div>

Arkin's disagreement commentary is a crock, typical know nothing tripe. Hayden's assertion that the CIA needs to be doing its work without being on the front page of The Post is dead right. Arkin's assertion that a spy agency can be an open source effort flies in the face of how spy agencies work: they are only effective when you (and most particularly their targets) don't know what they are up to until they have pulled off their missions success.

This puts a great burden on Congressional oversight behind closed doors, which Congressmen and Senators don't like to do. It isn't something they can brag about or point to in public, nor bring up in open debate on the floor of their chamber for money / patronage struggles.

That said, I wonder if Hayden can successfully do what he says needs doing. CIA has become a favorite whipping boy du jour since 9-11, regardless of what Feith, Goss, and others have done to screw up the National Intelligence Estimate. Getting the heat lamp off will require a few hurricanes, so DHS and FEMA can be the whipping boys while Hayden tries to get CIA working at what it used to do pretty well: spying.

I also wonder at the discussion, this late in the game, of the War on Terror being that quiet, long term, low key conflict. That is what I assumed it would be when the term War on Terror was first used, and what it should have been. Quiet knife work, payoffs, et cetera.

Occhi