Charlie Rose

magisterludy  08/06/2009 10:58 AM Report

this guy is a spook and id like to give him some truth serum and ask him about 911, he probably ordered it

anderson smith  07/28/2008 01:55 AM Report

I bet you a millions dollars he polishes it!

This man is jesuit trained. Check his education on wikipedia.

________________________

Anderson smith

<a href="http://community.widecircles.com" rel="DoFollow"> Wide Circles </a>

disheartened now and   12/14/2007 10:49 PM Report

Some cogent posts. Prior three among others. Please read, THE END OF AMERICA, by Naomi Wolf. It's timely and spot-on!

B. Adams  11/02/2007 02:13 PM Report

What is the difference between a war and a law enforcement action? General Hayden, in full military regalia, was adamant that The War on Terror is not metaphorical, but a "real shooting war." It is not a question of law enforcement, he insisted repeatedly. Whereas law enforcement is constrained by the judicial system, war is not. By insisting on war, Hayden can bypass much of the justice department when it comes to covert operations, interrogation techniques, rendition, detention, and so on. But why would he want to circumvent Justice? Is he opposed to the very idea of justice? That can't be right. I don't get it.

JP Heagerty  10/25/2007 05:50 PM Report

...was not the President's exact quote yesterday concerning Cuba..."Leaders answer to you, the people..."...should he not heed his own advice?

Christopher Bouchard  10/25/2007 04:49 AM Report

It is a good interview but when the General hesitates discussing interrogation techniques such as those that shock the conscience (ie does not want to discuss waterboarding) on the basis that the enemies will train to resist these techniques; he, on the other hand, discusses the techniques that do not shock the conscience (ie telling a captive what the CIA knows, breaking down the cover stories that the â??enemy combatantâ?? is giving).

Would I appear cynical in resuming that the reason that he does not discuss the torture is because it would shock the votersâ?? conscience? It amazes me that Americans, (like Charlie Rose among others) are incapable of saying, we are a nation that tortures in the interest of national security and national interest. This is the moral hurdle that the US faces which affects t position in the Middle East. It is the Abu Grahibs, the rendition, the torture that hurts the USâ??s stature as an exemplary democracy. Seriously, would anyone deny the US is now in about 20-25th place in the world in the ideal democracy to live in? It used to be top 5.

Note: I did find extremely clever the example the general used of giving an example military training methods as a threshold to the level of pain one can inflict in interrogation. There is only one way the US can get out of this, create an interrogation manual like the army does. I think of the dozens of methods available, an Al-Qaida operative cannot train for all of them. The really reason they do not discuss the torture is that if the CIA states which torture techniques are used, there will be a public outrage. This to me is very disturbing. I understand the mandate of the CIA but it has to understand that the US constitution can only be interpreted one way. The fault lies with the Congress which is not checking the executive by laying down the rules and impeaching if they are not obeyed.

Mike Logan  10/25/2007 12:23 AM Report

I too am ashamed I mean here we all live in a soul that was forecfully taken from the natives who are now virtually wiped from the earth. But that doesnt bother me now and nor does it bother any of my ohter brothers are the local bathhouse but this assulet on innocent barbers and cooks in the middle east who are being scooped up and tortuerd at the behest of american goverment is a total and UTTER shame! SHAME ON YOU AMERICA! SHAME SHAME SHAME! how dare do we expect to continue our standered of life with cheap prodcuts from communist countries and oil for less than 100 dollars a barrel while we betary our morals like this HOW! I wish we could go back to the day of the noble Carter adminstion where the lines for gas were down the highway but our moralty was unquestionable!CARTER FOR PRESIDENT IN 08! JOIN ME MY FELLOW Sociaist libareal friends join me for the restortation of the great republic built on small pox infested rugs!

Berne Mills  10/24/2007 10:41 PM Report

I am a Canadian, and I would like to add my two cents worth. As a Canadian I am ashamed of my countries' contribution to some of the

renditon techniques alluded to by Michael Hayden. A Canadian journalist, Naomi Klein wrote 'The Shock Doctrine' which came out in September. Ms. Klein points out a Dr. Ewan Cameron at the University of Montreal did experiments on patients that were funded by the CIA to "erase and remake the human mind". These techniques included electro-shock and mind-altering drugs. I must say I was depressed for several days after reading this book.

There are many books; Jeremy Scahill's 'Blackwater' and Chris Hedges''American Fascists' to name two that paint a very dismal picture of the U.S. Seymor Hersh is apethetic and Clive James feels we

are entering an age of neo-barbarism. And of course Noam Chomsky

has been trying to wake up Americans for along time.

"America! America! Wherefore art thou America?" The America of the "American Dream", the dream of the founding fathers?

It seems that once the balance of "two super powers" was gone America has taken the unilateral position as sole guardian(?) of the world and answers to no one and snubs its nose at the rest of the world and the concept of the United Nations.

As someone above mentioned it is shades of Orwell's '1984'. I am dismayed by how naive Americans are about their own politics and about the rest of the countries of the world. Is it any wonder that George Bush asks, "Why do they hate us?"

Unlike many cynics above, I have come to view the whole matter

as a period of evolution for the planet. The planet came back after the 'Ice Age' and the 'Flood' and it will again, with or without us.

Paul  10/24/2007 07:18 PM Report

Charlie.

Why don't you invite one of the foremost American intellectuals, Noam Chomsky?

You invited him long ago. Don't be afraid.

Paul  10/24/2007 07:18 PM Report

Charlie.

Why don't you invite one of the foremost American intellectuals, Noam Chomsky?

You invited him long ago. Don't be afraid.

Cogito ergo doleo   10/24/2007 07:03 PM Report

Firstly, no democracy can prevail for long with a secret organization within its structure. The checks and balances between the branches is compromised with the secret organization answering (only at its discretion) to the president. The absurdity of this is magnified by imagining two more such organizations for the remaining two branches to restore balance. God forbid! ppppppppppppppppppppppppp paragraph ppppppppppppppppppppppppppp Secondly, the methods are so demeaning and degrading to our nation and our reputation around the world that the net merit and value of the organization is negative. In short we would be better off without it. [The book, "A legacy of Ashes," demonstrated this with the CIA conspiracy with the Kennedys to assassinate Castro that in effect boomeranged; and the unforgivable CIA implant of Pinochet in Chile. - A scurrilous organization. pppppppppppppppppppppppp paragraph ppppppppppppppppppppppppp Rendition for example is so anathema and 'renders' us as dissembling, naive, disingenuous and insulting fools. Our claim that we do not torture and in the same breath admit to sending captives to a foreign country that is known world-wide to indulge in torture, is so specious and fatuous our credibility is flushed even deeper into the world toilet. ppppppppppppppppp paragraph ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp Lastly, "The End of America," by Naomi Wolf should be required reading for all CIA personnel and prospective agents. Not smart enough to end with a snappy sign-off. Lamely let's try: don't throw the baby out with the bath water; or what have you gained if you lose our soul and the whole country; or if we become as our enemies, haven't they won? Ask Christine Axsmith, who blogged against waterboarding, and was fired from the CIA (from Naomiâ??s book). pppppppppppppppppp paragraph ppppppppppppppppppp Despite your over-valued Republican M-I complex sense of singular patriotism, youâ??re merely one of many misguided administration despots with the unfortunate power to drag our once proud nation further into the quagmire of just another failed empire.

Patrick  10/24/2007 05:04 PM Report

I very much appreciate Mr. Hayden talking to Charlie, and doing so in a way that was frank. I think, however, there is a major problem that circles around all of this and it is the following. This country was founded in opposition to unchecked power. This cultural trait is a very deep part of the American personality. The type of "war" we are said to be engaged in does not - at least the American people have yet to be asked by their political leaders - require the American people to sacrific very much. Not all "wars" or military actions or whatever by democratic countries will require the mobilization of the population, nor would that be prudent. But when a democratic country such as ours - with its deep resistence to unchecked power - engages in these sort of military actions there needs to be some sort of institutional mechanism to communicate to the American people the idea that the power being used by the government to carryout these actions remains accountable to them (the people). The natural institutions for this purpose are the Congress and the judiciary. But unfortunately, the judiciary presents difficulties because of the procedural constraints it entails and Congress presents difficulties because of the role the opposition party may play in that institution. Thus, as is the case with the current administration, there is an unwillingness to allow Congress or the judiciary to act as the check on the executive's power. And here is the rub - the American people, as I said, have a very strong natural distrust of uncheck executive power. So, if Congress and the judiciary aren't going to work as means to transmit democratic legitimacy to the executive use of power, other institutional checks need to be created which can act as a go between the president and congress and the courts. With out some such institutional mechanism the strong executive, which this president and many others think is necessary in the world we live in today, will be viewed as illegitimate, anti-republican, and simply unamerican. By the by, please stop using the word "homeland" for crying out loud! A more unamerican word is hard to imagine! Hayden was wise to use instead the word "republic," since that is what this country is supposed to be, and it is in those ideas about republican constitutional government upon which its legitimacy rests. Patrick

Steve Helmer  10/24/2007 11:37 AM Report

The man behind the story. Events move so quickly, Gen Hayden is someone we all saw pass muster, to get appointed, but we never truly met the man. He is fascinating. We surely have to listen hard, not take the words at face value,but I'd say we can be grateful for all that Hayden brings to the table. He is enormously astute and articulate, and seems genuinely AWARE of the criticism of intelligence operations--and takes this counterpoint seriously, even WELCOMES the hard ball give and take between people who may "honestly disagree." This phraseology is not window dressing, I think. He seems earnestly and honestly doing his best to serve the country well, through helping policy makers make informed decisions. It is refreshing and encouraging to see this kind of serious professionalism and open dialog where the past years have witnessed so much "public relations" by administrators with deeply rooted pre-conceptions and agendas--ideologues and politicos. Gen Hayden sets a new standard we will hopefully continue to build on.

bobby glazer  10/24/2007 10:44 AM Report

charlie, charlie....no mention of the subliminal effect of showing up wearing his general's attire....are we supposed to get used to having military personel in civilain jobs.....i think we should require the "War President" as "Commander and Chief" deliver all addresses to the nation in full military dress, chest full of metals, as other

"Great Deciders" have in Iraq, Pakistan, Italy,,Chile,Argentina,Cuba,

China, Russia....etc..

John L  10/24/2007 09:53 AM Report

Gen. Hayden and the people he serves are a bigger threat to a future worth having than any terrorist group. Like any true believer who is convinced that his reprehensible actions have greater moral justification than the reprehensible actions of his "enemies," but who also knows that decent people will reject that claim if it is made plainly, his only recourse is obfuscation and misdirection. "If the American people only knew what I know...but I can't tell them the details, because if I did I wouldn't be able to protect them." "I won't tell you what constitutes torture, but I assure you that we're not torturing anyone...or at least no more than a third of the hundred people we're detaining." "I believe in a free press, but damn it, if they were good Americans who supported this war, they wouldn't undermine the program by publishing information that's sure to make other Americans (and those pesky Europeans) question our methods." "Trust me." Sorry, General, I don't trust you, I don't believe you, and I don't want you doing what you do in my name. If anyone was questioning the wisdom of making a uniformed military officer director of an intelligence agency meant to advise policy makers, Hayden has given you the answer. His facial tics and vacant eyes bother me far less than his amorality. Shortly after September 11, Arundhati Roy wrote that George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden did not represent the only two choices for the future. The truth behind that insight was on display throughout this interview with one of BushCheney, Inc's middle managers.

cogoto ergo doleo  10/23/2007 09:03 PM Report

Here's a thought sure to repulse the good General's sustain-the-jinoism-at-all-costs sensibilities. (The M-I lobbyists have already made a humongus down payment.) Pull completely and immediately out of Iraq and even hope for the forecasted chaos and reduced oil flow.

The benefits from say $8 to $10 per gallon gasoline would start immediately, where they would perhaps never do so otherwise. Conservation would be immediate; innovations would begin materializing (watching Nova on energy innovations as I write). Carbon 'footprints' reduced pronto. The only drawback OPEC would eventually lower the price to recapture the market. With luck we would continue conservation of fossil fuel use. It's an ill wind . . . .

Carol J  10/23/2007 07:24 PM Report

General Hayden has the right to have facial movements, as well as not disclosing information that might help the enemies of the United States of America. He is well informed and made is feelings known about answering questions. He did give us explanations, if you listened to what he said. I guess you can say I am a person who does not believe in telling all to all.

The Wabbaloo  10/23/2007 06:59 PM Report

Loved the way Gen. Hayden countered Charlie's "gotcha" attempts with facts. Also loved how Charlie conveniently ignored the fact about the Clinton administration's rendition numbers. Facial ticks aside, I think the General did great. He knew Charlie would be asking all those questions and he came prepared with facts. Charlie was obviously hoping to do his superiority dance, it he just couldn't do it - HA!

General Hayden did very well explaining the difference between the Army FM for Interrogation and how it is not the "end-all be-all." Charlie seemed to gloss right over that as well, if I'm not mistaken. Seems that the General's answers took the wind out of his sails - on multiple occasions as well.

Sounds like many of the comments here were made by people who were hoping to "gotcha" the General as well. Seems like the press loves to do that as well - no longer a game of objective reporting, but of making someone from either side of the aisle squirm just so you can say to your other journalist buddies that you got so-and-so to squirm. The General's comments about the press are right-on. When the press publishes that kind of information, it does hurt the war effort. And when someone commits a FEDERAL CRIME and leaks classified information to someone, the person in receipt of that information is guilty. Kind of like receiving stolen goods. Not as bad as doing the stealing, but near to an accomplice after the fact. The press has helped people commit Federal crimes, and those members of the press should be held accountable. No 'get out of jail free' just to keep the 1st Amendment satisfied. A crime is a crime. If a leaker thinks a law is being broken, there are organizations (Inspector-General, Dept of Justice to name just two) who handle these kinds of things.

Get over your hatred, and lose the chip from your shoulders. All you folks who protest just to protest need to forgive your parents for treating you so badly, get some self-confidence, and be a productive person.

GailEiffel  10/23/2007 05:28 PM Report

I felt as if I were watching the last episode of The Sopranos, but all that was missing was the black screen. What was with the abrupt ending and so early? I'm hoping that the conversation continues tonight before Jeffrey Toobin's on.

PD  10/23/2007 05:14 PM Report

Say,Charlie Rose are your ears "burning"?

After reading some of the comments posted on your message board I have reached the conclusion that some people in America don't trust this current "regime"!

But,I still think that you should have people from both parties (administrations) on your show.Even though I don't agree with this current "regime" policy.(policies)

P.S. I hate to say this but, that man Hayden kind of look like a "duck" from a cartoon!

By the way, great question Steven!

Jeanne Storm  10/23/2007 04:33 PM Report

Glad to see so many others noticed the facial ticks- I became so interested in watching for the next one that nothing he said really impressed me- especially after just seeing Jon Stewart's interview with Meryl Streep about her new film RENDITIONS. Also, remembering Frank Rich's article in last Sunday's NY TIMES, mentioning the people connected to Blackwater now working on Romney's campaign, as well as Hillary Clinton's. VOTE FOR STEPHEN COLBERT!!

Jeanne Storm  10/23/2007 04:33 PM Report

Glad to see so many others noticed the facial ticks- I became so interested in watching for the next one that nothing he said really impressed me- especially after just seeing Jon Stewart's interview with Meryl Streep about her new film RENDITIONS. Also, remembering Frank Rich's article in last Sunday's NY TIMES, mentioning the people connected to Blackwater now working on Romney's campaign, as well as Hillary Clinton's. VOTE FOR STEPHEN COLBERT!!

Ryan  10/23/2007 04:12 PM Report

Parity-- People all too often lower the value of dissent or distrust with the current administration, or any administration for that matter, to a partisan level. So let's put that aside

because I'm not one of those people.

My problem with this administration is largely about incompetence. The inability to execute anything without understanding the consequences. The age of acting as a world superpower, a blunt instrument, if you will, is over. Like Friedman wrote, "The world is flat". Economies, powerful economies are growing all over the planet.

Competing and surviving peacefully in this landscape requires multi-lateral cooperation. We must strive for this in every conceivable way. We have every right to defend ourselves against any terrorist group that attacks us. With regard to the CIA, and comments in my first post, there's a gaping absence of trust about the practices of each Federal agency affiliated with the Bush administration. I've watched everyone who's testified before congress over the last seven years. Including Hayden. Betraus. Gonzales. Parsing words, evading questions, going around FISA laws, extending executive privilege so government officials don't have to testify, and so many missing documents, accidentally erased emails.

Can anyone really say that the definition of rendition or torture, or invasion of privacy hasn't changed in the last three decades? It doesn't matter to me who started the concept of rendition. What matters to me is how lawfully these things are being practiced today.

Robert Cadalso  10/23/2007 03:25 PM Report

I heard Mr. Rose canceled Valery Plame to interview Mr. Hayden. As if we are going to learn anything!

We don't ever get to hear the truth from criminals.

Jacob Vonk  10/23/2007 03:19 PM Report

On Monday, Hayden made a specious justification for the administration's sanctioned interrogation (aka torture) techniques: that they are the same as practices that are a part of Navy Seal training - so how could they be torture. Well, of course, closet conservative Charlie, who veritably rolls over for any representative of this administration (and has allowed his program to become a forum for several such represenatives to beat, unchallenged, the drums for war with Iran), couldn't find his way to point out the obvious flaws in that argument. One, a Navy Seal trainee goes through Seal training voluntarily and has some reasonable assurance that whatever he/she is subjected to in training will not result in his/her death. Two, the training is just that, training, i.e., in the Seal's interest. Being rendered to another country involuntarily and subjected to practices that are definitively only in the interest of the interrogator would be comparable exactly how?

Unfortunately rising to the obvious is not Charlie's strength in any way shape or form. Of course, it could be his famed inability to just sit and listen without interrupting - maybe he just missed the obvious because he was too busy thinking of his next interjection.

Either way, what a complet disappointment this show has been in its coverage of the current administration.

TABS  10/23/2007 03:14 PM Report

General Hayden doesn't appear to enjoy being so circumspect, however the responsibilty that he bears requires that he is so. General Hayden was a man being very carefull to naviagate his way through a political minefield in his answers. However if one listened very carefully to him he did reveal some very interesting information about the activities of the CIA and its intelligence activities, however in the interest of national security I can't reveal that information.

for parity  10/23/2007 02:21 PM Report

Ryan -- Is your anger about the issue of rendition and associated risk of torture associated with it, or is your anger solely partisan politics? In other words - are you as upset about the team that set up the policy and used it first, or the team that continues to utilize it?

If you don't understand my question, you can glance at my earlier post, here on this thread.

Charlie Rose seemed genuinely surprised by a few historical revalations from Gen. Hayden. This is sad. Facts are facts. It's only because our media has done such a good job of protecting the D's, the Clinton's, etc. that we all are so unaware of so much.

Peter B  10/23/2007 01:47 PM Report

Let's assume that everything General Michael Hayden says about detainment and rendition is true -- there is valuable information to be obtained concerning threats to our national securety, and that no 'torture' takes place. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is, who gets detained or rendered. In this interview, Hayden repeats over and over, in one form or another 'Trust me, the people we hold are really bad guys.' WHO SAYS SO? General Hayden? Geroge Bush? A third level analyst at the CIA? When a government official can point a finger at you and declare you to be a 'bad guy' (enemy of the state) and lock you up, essentially forever, America is lost. It is said they don't do this to American citizens. How would you know? To paraphrase -- I didn't speak out when they came for the Arabs, and I didn't speak out when they came for the Athiests, then they came for me. My friends, America might very well be lost already.

tony kiernan  10/23/2007 01:38 PM Report

This is the guy who was the head of NSA during 9/11 and WMD Iraq. NSA, our most sophisticated intelligence gathering service brought us 9-11 and Iraq.....now General Twitch expects us to give him a break while heading CIA......Do they actually let this guy out to manage and lead people at Langly or do they jus keep him locked up in the "plotting" room with a direct line to herr Chenny. Dr. Strangelove anyone?

ryan  10/23/2007 01:33 PM Report

In the context of 8 years of deception, Bush war propaganda, unprecedented executive power and extension of executive privilege,

Hayden seems astonished that we Americans, along with every other country in the world,

cast sweeping assertions about what the CIA is REALLY doing.

If he's that out of touch with the conscience of America, we're in serious trouble.

He downplays rendition and enhanced interrogation techniques by saying it's only been applied to a hundred or so detainees.

Isn't a violation of one detainee's human rights enough to be outraged?

And what of secret documents uncovered in 2005 that revealed most of what injustice has been going on in the CIA?

Hayden says emphatically "That's history!"

Hayden told Charlie Rose that America, unequivocally has the best intelligence agency in the world, by far.

Yet when asked about whether or not the CIA is aware of any terrorist cells operating in the U.S., he says "Well, we don't know".

Where's Osama Bin Laden? They don't know.

He's invisible.

Ironically, Hayden wants the CIA to remain invisible to.

Jan Davison  10/23/2007 01:10 PM Report

Justice, justice where art thou? Does General Hayden think we believe him? What a disgrace.

Jan Davison  10/23/2007 01:10 PM Report

Justice, justice where art thou? Does General Hayden think we believe him? What a disgrace.

for parity  10/23/2007 12:50 PM Report

One of the commentators here queried, "Charlie didnt seem to happy with the answers he was getting." Ah.. there is a lot to that. Charlie Rose, at times seeemed shocked by the answers he was hearing. Charlie seemed shocked that the policy of rendition was not created by the Bush admin, and that it was in widespread use during the 90's. Well, Charlie - you and all Americans who are up in arms about this, and angry at the Bush admin. should be even more outraged at the Clinton administration for setting up the program, if you despise the program. What's with the national anger from the left side of the isle at this bunch in the White House, when by and large, the left side of the loud and angry left, is simply ignorant of much the same, before.

Even Al Gore was in on the act -- According to Richard Clark (loved by the left and listened to only when he speaks neg. of the Bush folks; never heard when he speaks of those before.)

RICHARD CLARKE - Snatches, or more properly "extraordinary renditions," were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government. . . The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

WIKIPEDIA - Thereafter, with the approval of President Clinton and a presidential directive (PDD 39), the CIA instead elected to send suspects to Egypt, where they were turned over to the Egyptian mukhabarat. This arrangement suited the Egyptians, who were trying to crack down on domestic Islamic extremists, and a number of the senior members of Al Qaeda were Egyptian. The arrangement also suited the US by enabling the interrogation of suspects without the intercession of the domestic legal process, using Egyptian methods.

See - it's all right there in front of us. We could have a national dialog and debate on these issues, but like the corruption of the Democrats (and Clinton's) in the 90's - the media keeps it all under wraps - and keeps the conversation only focused on the Repbulicans - always. The public is left ignorant and angry - and in the end, of little usefulness, because all they can do is blame.

It's not really caring about the issues; rather it's mostly about partisan politcs and bigotry - pure disdain and hate and intollerance for the other party.

Janus Fi  10/23/2007 08:35 AM Report

A 4 Start US Air Force general with a career in intelligence..Too bad Charlie Rose did not ask the General about UFO's...If anyone on earth knows the truth, I am sure General Hayden is among them.

Nimish  10/23/2007 07:52 AM Report

Not sure why the prog ended suddenly UNC-TV NC station, did not hear his last comments.

There absolutely not credibility for any folks from this administration. Besides, how pathetic is that they lament the very fact that NYT revealed the sources - the very thing we as US are proud of and sell it to rest of the world..

I wISH Charlie could have been more direct in saying we are not different then them if we justify rendition

JL Rheault  10/23/2007 02:38 AM Report

Who cares about whether Hayden is nice or creepy. It the whole growing machinery of the security-state collective that is creeping us out. Hayden is like a Pillsbury doughboy riding an elephant. I'm sure it runs him more than he runs it.

Cogito ergo doleo   10/23/2007 02:18 AM Report

Firstly, no democracy can prevail for long with a secret organization within its structure. The checks and balances between the branches is compromised with the secret organization answering (only at its discretion) to the president. The absurdity of this is magnified by imagining two more such organizations for the remaining two branches to restore balance. God forbid!

***********************************

Secondly, the methods are so demeaning and degrading to our nation and our reputation around the world that the net merit and value of the organization is negative. In short we would be better off without it. [The book, â??A legacy of Ashes,â?? demonstrated this with the CIA conspiracy with the Kennedys to assassinate Castro that in effect boomeranged; and the unforgivable CIA implant of Pinochet in Chile.\ A scurrilous organization.

***************************************

Rendition for example is so anathema and â??rendersâ?? us as dissembling, naive, disingenuous and insulting fools. Our claim that we do not torture and in the same breath admit to sending captives to a foreign country that is known world-wide to indulge in torture, is so specious and fatuous our credibility is flushed even deeper into the world toilet.

**************************************

Lastly, â??The End of America,â?? by Naomi Wolf should be required reading for all CIA personnel and prospective agents. Not smart enough to end with a snappy sign-off. Lamely letâ??s try: donâ??t throw the baby out with the bath water; or what have you gained if you lose our soul and the whole country; or if we become as our enemies, havenâ??t they won? Ask Christine Axsmith, who blogged against waterboarding, and was fired from the CIA (from Naomiâ??s book).

**********************************

Despite your over-valued Republican M-I complex sense of singular patriotism, youâ??re merely one of many misguided administration despots with the unfortunate power to drag our once proud nation further into the quagmire of just another failed empire.

Mike  10/23/2007 01:24 AM Report

I am surprised at my fellow Americans' distrust and cynicism towards Gen. Hayden. Where is the gratefullness for what is done within the law to protect us all? Do WE all believe WE have enough intel to stir up strife against OURselves?

Are we in the stages of decay as a people as President Lincoln stated may be possible, to the point of internal societal collapse? Will we as responsible citizens decide to move beyond childish, self-disolving, degrading, and down right uncooth banter? Let us hold each other accountable as best as imperfect people can, then let us stand together as a people dispite our imperfections. May God help us to do so.

JL Rheault  10/23/2007 01:20 AM Report

He is very articulate. And he is right that the fundamental question is whether one views this as a WAR. After seeing the Ken Burns series on WWII, seeing the same word (and sate of mind) used for the struggle against Imperial Japan and Nazi Europe applied to action against an unpopular wacko extremist cult just sounds sinister to me.

george  10/23/2007 01:15 AM Report

The argument that an official admission waterboarding is being used by CIA interrogators would permit al Qaeda to write training manuals to defeat it, frankly doesn't hold water. Mention of waterboarding is everywhere, I expect any day now to see a waterboard offered on eBay; surely al Qaeda is aware of the method. The secrecy by the CIA since its founding has been used frequently to protect its funding and officers against political criticism, often to the detriment of its mission. This latest political salvo by Gen. Hayden appears to have the same purpose, is afflicted with the same calculated secrecy, and bids us jump on the bandwagon of endless war, to replace the Cold War. The dark secret is that torture does work, but only if the subject possesses the information. You get something to corroborate, when before there was nothing. But who decides "this is a real hard core bad guy" vs. a mistaken identity? Did we need to legalize torture when we were losing hundreds of thousands of troops fighting WWII; or tens of thousands in Vietnam? If Gen. Hayden undergoes an hour of waterboarding administered by Charlie, I'll reconsider, and perhaps even believe the general's words.

Jane  10/23/2007 12:48 AM Report

Unbelieveable! Shall we all go on to the Caberet and ignore our governments actions? It all comes down to fear. If we are afraid, won't we do just about anything and call it justice?

Jeannie Dieker  10/23/2007 12:47 AM Report

General Hayden missed the point on why many Americans don't support the use of torture. We do not support it because any benefit gained through use of torture is outweighed by the stain caused to our souls.

jonzy  10/23/2007 12:08 AM Report

Maybelline, you got it right!

jonzy  10/23/2007 12:06 AM Report

My Goodness..what a strange interview. Charlie didnt seem to happy with the answers he was getting. And, General Hayden's body language was interesting. Did anyone else notice all those nervous tics, reaching for the water and not drinking it?!?! This was very very strange...one hour of bull****

maybelline  10/23/2007 12:05 AM Report

I was listening while this interview was going on. I turned to look when Charlie was pushing the issue of torture and was shocked to see this man's facial ticks. This is very disturbing. Did he always have this or has it resulted because of the hugely stressful position he maintains...upholds for President Bush?

How can this man sleep at night?

I looked up on the internet to see if there is any comment on his disturbance and could not find anything?? This is serious.

And finally I was surprised to realize on the internet that he has a wife. How can he be so false to the most intimate relationship you are supposed to have?

For all of these reasons and many more it has manifested itself in his facial tick.

This is a wonderful study. Someone should go into this in depth.

I am only a lay person.

Suzanne  10/23/2007 12:01 AM Report

The opening was there -- why, oh, why didn't you challenge him on WHERE detainees are being sent under rendition? Hayden had a great platform for his statement of confidence in our allies' respect for human rights, etc etc. But in practice, these folks have been shipped off to such human rights stalwarts as Egypt and Syria! I realize that this was a slippery interview, but it would have been easy enough to point out the human rights records, the experiences of some of the people who have subsequently been released after rendition and later torture and ask for an explanation or rather, a rationalization??

Steven  10/22/2007 11:46 PM Report

Why don't reporters ever ask where Osama Bin Laden is?

P. Cahalan  10/22/2007 11:36 PM Report

Congratulations, you really have helped the preemption cowards to sell their game. Thanks to you and our miserable MSM we will soon be a police state.

Reread Orwell and think about it for crying out loud.

rosco  10/22/2007 08:18 PM Report

Okay..lets see if General Hayden will tell us something new...

complexity  10/21/2007 01:04 AM Report

Definitely looking forward to hearing Michael Hayden.

-Waits for the video to be uploaded-