Military Leadership Running CIA?

Dennis Hastert mades some comments that he doesn't like the idea of a military general in charge of the CIA. He says the idea would bring the CIA too close to the Pentagon.

I wonder about this question. President Carter named Admiral Stansfield Turner as CIA Director in 1977. President Clinton named General Colin Powell as his National Security Adviser. What is the problem with naming Military personnel to "civilian" positions.

Methinks Mr. Speaker has someone else in mind to run the CIA and it doesn't really matter who the President names, if it is not Hastert's choice then he'll find something he doesn't like about it. I'll pay close attention to appearances by Brent Scowcroft in the press commenting on the President's selection of General Hayden. Something tells me he'll point to Hastert's comments as a solid reason to oppose Hayden.

Scowcroft was, afterall, the National Security Adviser to President's Ford and George H. W. Bush. As a uniformed man, was he not qualified for these critical appointments? Of course not. The idea that solely because a person is uniformed is reason enough to oppose them is nonsensical. Qualifications are important. Demonstrative leadership is as well.

We'll see how the issue plays out. It may just be that General Hayden is still active duty. Perhaps General Hayden will take the opportunity to retire from uniformed service to take on the roll of director of the CIA. He's already the Deputy Intelligence Czar. Is moving him to Director of the CIA a big leap?