hayden's love of the private

perhaps gen. hayden, pres. bush's pick to replace porter goss as cia head, is already dead in the water. for some reason, no one has noted that hayden would be the second military man heading the cia (the no. 2 at langley already is), and, sources tell me, this is not allowed (there is already a suggestion that hayden would retire; surely a case of following the letter but not the spirit of the law). but in case the go-hayden crowd is strong, it might be noted that hayden "contracted with MZM Inc. for the services of Lt. Gen. James C. King, then a senior vice president of the company ." (CIA Nominee Hayden Linked to MZM, By Justin Rood - May 8, 2006)

those of you following the small print will note that mzm's links with republicans were exposed in the cunningham indictments (aka hookergate) and mzm was quietly bought by veritas capital (which is up to its eyeballs in monetary dealings with the republicans), which itself has made a small fortune buying-and-selling dyncorp. now the point here is not that king was dirty; i assume he was clean (again the letter not the spirit of the law). it is that his entire history with the military is one where he is a strong advocate of privatizing the military/security end of the government. Thus, from 2001 we have the following:

• The director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, the Pentagońs photographic intelligence service, is under fire from Congress over questionable privatization efforts. Eleven House members wrote...to question the photo spy agencýs program of directly converting government employees to private contractors -- often at greater expense to U.S. taxpayers.
• NIMÁs director, Army Lt. Gen. James C. King, was supposed to carry out a cost-benefit study as part of the privatization program. But Gen. King instead exercised an option allowing the agency to forgo the cost study if the agency selects a contractor that is 51 percent owned by an American Indian tribe.
• An Alaska native-owned company, NJVC, is expected to get the contract for computer support and other services in September. (May 18, 2001, Notes from the Pentagon, by Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough)
  

nothing wrong with a new-found love of american indian tribes, of course. but mzm and dyncorp have made millions in no-bid contracts from your dollars to fund private "peacekeepers" (aka mercenaries). state terror is bad enough, but, following hobbes (thomas, not calvin and...), we make a contract with the government for them to have a monopoly of such force, not to parcel it out to others. consider for a moment when dyncorp makes an agreement with court militias in somalia or the shiite militias in iraq to keep the peace, meaning to keep their costs low? where is the security of you and me? and where is the security of our boys still fighting over there? we don't elect any of these people. so let's ask a few more questions about where hayden/king would take us.