What to think?

I was on my way to dinner in Ahwutukee Friday night when I heard that Porter Goss had resigned at CIA. Hugh spent an hour on the subject, and I sat and listened intently as I re-aquainted myself with Phoenix's evening traffic.

His guests didn't have much favorable to say about the story. I was struck by their agreement however on the need for a strong Secretary of Defense and Pentagon intelligence:

HH: Let me give you both about 30 seconds. How important, with the turnover there, does stability in the office of the Secretary of Defense become, Jed Babbin?

JB: It is absolutely essential. The Secretary of Defense is the only one now who has a steady hand on the intelligence function. Rumsfeld through the quadrennial defense review is doing a lot of good things to increase the DOD Humint capability, bring all of the other assets into play, and I think if all things were not equal, that the Senate could get involved and change some things around. It might be better at this point to transfer more functions into CIA.

HH: And Frank, the three names being circulated to AP tonight for CIA are Frances Townsend, David Shedd, or Mary Margaret Graham. Do you have a reaction to any of those?

FG: I don't. The only one I know personally is Fran Townsend. She's I think a capable woman who is doing a good job as the homeland security adviser to the President. Probably would do a better job there than in, as I say, a euchred position at the CIA.

HH: And Frank, you share Jed's assessment on the importance of the stability at the Pentagon now?

FG: Well, it's not just stability, of course. It's that we've got a very good man who is doing a great job at a critically important time, and I think all of that's even more true today as a result of this change at the CIA.

Fast forward to the early part of this week and we have the announcement of a new DCI appointee, General Michael Hayden. The criticism to this point is that putting a military-man at the head of the only civilian intelligence agency sends a bad message, namely that intelligence is now under the control of the Pentagon. Sound like an argument you might have heard before?

In the meantime, now the WaPo reports that Hayden's appointment would be part of a tag-team deal: In a highly unorthodox move, the White House disclosed the plan shortly after President Bush's formal announcement of Hayden's nomination in the Oval Office, in hopes of reassuring those worried about too much military influence over the intelligence community.

Under the plan, Vice Adm. Albert M. Calland III would be replaced as deputy director by retired CIA official Stephen R. Kappes, who quit in November 2004 in a dispute with then-Director Porter J. Goss.

The moves are part of a concerted effort by the president's team to recover ground after several key Republicans expressed reservations about Hayden's nomination over the weekend, citing his military background and involvement in warrantless domestic surveillance. Most damaging to the White House was criticism by Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the House intelligence committee chairman, who called Hayden "the wrong man at the wrong place at the wrong time."

Hugh on yet the other hand, lauds the nomination of Michael Hayden (odd given the discussion about John Negroponte's contribution to the mess at CIA on Friday night):

A very good choice by President Bush, and not just because of General Hayden's obvious competence, but also because the selection again proudly asserts that the NSA program to conduct surveillance of al Qaeda abroad contacting its operatives in this country was not only the right thing to do, it was completely within the law. President Bush is not afraid of this debate. He welcomes it, and he should.

Here's the AP's opening take:

President Bush on Monday chose Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to lead the embattled CIA, re-igniting a debate over the domestic surveillance program that he once ran.

But Russ Feingold plus the fever swamp plus old media does not "a debate" make. Thirty tenured law profs, a few angry bloggers and Barbara Boxer can't "re-ignite" anything. In fact, the confirmation of General Hayden will again affirm that the NSA program was not only legal but necessary, even as the debate over the nomination once again alerts the American people to the fact that there is a serious party and a silly party when it comes to the war.