"S/he's The President's Choice." Shouldn't That Send Up A Red Flag?

[stopbush]

I'm watching the TV today, and all of the bush apologists are calling his nomination of Hayden "the president's
choice," as if that means that the American people should give the nominee a chance.

Shouldn't the opposite be true?

After all, * has a history of nominating incompetent partisans for important posts (Condi, Rummy, et al). If I were
sitting on a nominating committee, I'd *start* at the position of "this is a mistake" and force * to prove it otherwise.

Doesn't the media/WH get that the country has moved past bushco, that they've stopped listening to him? If anything,
bush's overwhelming public characteristic has moved from "trustworthy" to incompetent. That's bound to rub off on his choices.

Thoughts?

[Canuckistanian]

1. So was Harriet Myers

Now we know just how incompetent and sycophantic she is.

[Poiuyt]

2. Sometimes I wonder if Bush is physically capable of nominating a good

person for ANY position. Either that or he picks someone just to piss off the Democrats (a la John Bolton)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

6. Genetically precluded from engaging in rational selection process

what an epithet

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. So was Porter Goss

[goclark]

4. So was a 7.5 Perch!

What a jerk,he could not pass a test for Pre School, how can they let this fool continue in office!

[Avalux]

5. I'm listening to NPR right now.

All the panel members are agreeing that Hayden is qualified for the position. That's what it's going to be about; his qualifications and not the fact that he's ethically challenged. They don't think his military background is a problem.

Seems to me from what I've heard so far, the media is enthusiastically backing Hayden's nomination. And like you, I don't get it either because the opposite should be true.

He's a dangerous man, and I believe his main role will be to give domestic powers to the CIA and concoct a super-sized intelligence agency by merging the CIA with what he started at the NSA.