General Hayden’s Pot Odds
I tuned in just long enough to catch this beaut of a line from NSA boss General Hayden's Senate confirmation hearings Thursday as new CIA chief:
"The math was pretty straightforward," Hayden said. "I could not not do this."
I almost burst out laughing to hear the General use this phrase to describe his decision in October 2001 to go ahead with the now notorious NSA domestic surveillance program. Bear with me and my peculiar hobbies, but that is a line I have used on myself many, many times. And that I have also heard many, many times. And always at a table of No Limit Texas Hold'em poker.
Let me explain: Sometimes when your're holding a less than great hand and a lot of people have already placed a lot of chips in the pot, you do that same "straightforward math" in your head that Hayden referred to. You figure that for X amount -- say a $100 bet-- you stand to pick up the $400 or so in the pot. You figure at worst, your hand is a 3 to 1 underdog. But you're getting an abstract mathematical edge with 4 to 1 odds... the so-called "pot odds."
The next thing you tell yourself: "I cannot not do this." Last time I engaged in this self-manipulation was just a few days ago. A big pot in front of me, maybe about $600, I was holding an Ace-King. The flop had come out a rainbow 8-J-4.Â
Repeating to myself that I could not not do this, I pushed "all-in" with my stack of $192 in chips. To my shock, I had three callers. The turn and river cards came 10-King. The guy in Seat 7 had a pair of Kings in the pocket. I got creamed. After all, I was the underdog.
Moral of this story: No crime committed when you take a risk with your own money and squander it. But just who designated General Hayden to do the math with our civil liberties? Or more to the point: what the hell was he talking about anyway when he said he "did the math?"Â He figured that the damage to our rights was worth the intelligence that could be gathered? How'd he make that calculation?
No need to answer. Hayden sure didn't have to. Excuse the ongoing poker metaphor, but at Thursday's hearings the Big Kahuna with the shades, the I-Pod in his ears, the monster stack, and the shamelessly aggressive style of betting and winning every pot while holding some pretty pathetic cards was, indeed, General Hayden. The other players around the table, the motley collection of Republican and Democratic Senators from the ill-named Intelligence Committee occassionally huffed and puffed and postured but consistently got their bluffs called by Hayden. You could hear the Senators' hands folding shut like the clatter of teeth.
Senators Feingold and Wyden made a few bold attempts to bet into the General and to take him down but, overall, Hayden aptly outplayed the rest of the table. Which isn't saying much, considering the dismal record of these elected officials to show any heart or courage.
The rest of the game is sort of anti-climactic, isn't it? The General will walk away with all the chips, confirmed by the committee and then by the full body of the Senate.
Spencer Ackerman, meanwhile, lays out the reasons why Hayden is the wrong man for the wrong job at the wrong time.Â
May 19th, 2006 at 4:39 am
Marc, government employees do similar things everyday in every department with the lives of our citizens. Why not? By taking drastic actions or sometimes doing nothing, they stand less chance of hurting their jobs with their bosses (their main objective) than any possible or remote problems coming back from the citizens whose lives represent their chips.
Working in the tax area, I have people who come to me who are earnestly trying to pay their taxes, but their jobs and credit get ruined by an IRS employee who slaps liens and levies by “following the guidelines.” I have many friends with the IRS who are great people, but they will, as a matter of course, take drastic actions rather than use common sense and determine whether or not those actions actually help and how those actions might, in fact, impair a taxpayer’s ability to repay their debt.
Of course, this is dealing with the government’s money, so they can be harsh. But this same mindset follows in almost every area, if not all, of the bureaucracy. Singling out this particular situation shouldn’t impugn on the individual in the crosshairs as much as it should on problems and failures with civil service and the way government works in general.
Have you ever had to do “stupid things” to keep your job?
May 19th, 2006 at 6:36 am
Hayden obviously brings to the position of CIA chief, the same level of competence we’ve learned to expect from all Bush appointees.
May 19th, 2006 at 8:20 am
Here Woody talks about the pitfalls government linear thinking, which I call the dolphin caught in the tuna net syndrome, and then defends the linear thinker. Amazing.
May 19th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
An excellent illustration of how bad things have gotten:
Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves.
May 19th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Jake York, I wasn’t taking up for him. In fact, I was being critical of and explaining government and the motivation of its employees–not that this means you. Big government can be bad whether conservative or liberal.
—–
Why didn’t Patrick Henry get world support before he made such a statement and incited rebellion? We should have passed one resolution after another until King George III gave us freedom. Would the U.S. founders have met a “global test?”
Sorry. I really like Patrick Henry, even though there is a good chance that I would have been a Tory back then. I wouldn’t have gone to Canada, though.
May 19th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
You know some Tories were tarred and feathered? But I have suspected that would be you back then because “big government” back then meant King George III, so I have no doubt you would have remained loyal.
The patriots were the disloyal radicals. So glad we could clear this up once and for all.
May 19th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
I guess I stick up for all the King George’s–from the III to W. Anyway, I’m glad the patriots prevailed. British food is terrible, and hot tea in the South is a little unbearable.
I haven’t checked any news today. But, I suspect that Hayden is going to sail through. He’s probably got less mud on him from his military experience than do most political appointees–even Democratic ones.
May 19th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
“I guess I stick up for all the King George’s–from the III to W.”
And that’s the news from Georgia…
May 19th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
I post on this blog because I have tremendous respect for the proprietor (who frequently argues against his interest and that of his associates, the mark of a morally serious person) and because I am neither a conservative nor a Republican, but geez, at some point I have to say enough is enough.
Can the professional American Left do anything but say no? If General Hayden is not the right man or woman for the job, then who is? My question is not rhetorical. I try really hard to keep an open mind. I want a CIA Director who contributes to the killing of our enemies with far greater efficiency, exactitude and humanity than any who has come before. Who might that be?
May 20th, 2006 at 1:42 am
Why everyone sits with rapt attention watching this garbage is beyond me. Of course he will be put in office – because all this supposed probing is just complete nonsense!
I hope the CIA dies a deserved death of agony, and if not death than neutered obscurity. The national security interest is not mine, and if you look carefully at it not yours either. Let the whole “intelligence” community burn.
May 20th, 2006 at 1:43 am
Oh, and throw the FBI on in the fire while we’re at it.
May 20th, 2006 at 2:48 am
Samuel, I think Virgil means the answer to your question is:
NO
May 20th, 2006 at 8:37 am
“Who might that be?”
Mike Scheuer.
May 20th, 2006 at 9:43 am
“I want a CIA Director who contributes to the killing of our enemies with far greater efficiency, exactitude and humanity”
And I want Superman to protect me…
I’d settle for a CIA Director who gathers intelligence with efficiency and exactitude, can accurately state the substance of the Fourth Amendment, recognizes that all power in the American system doesn’t flow from Executive caprice and isn’t a political hack who’ll continute to make every mistake that CIA and counter-terrorism veterans like Bob Baer, Richard Clarke and Michael Scheuer have revealed have been standard operating procedure in this administration. That rules out Porter Goss, Hayden, and more than likely anyone else who could possibly be nominated by this President.
I apologize for not having a shortlist of veterans of the intelligence community who have the right combination of experience, good judgement and independence from the brazen politics and opportunism of these hacks who are currently attempting to cobble together coherent policy.
I’d rather be a naysayer than an obedient, mediocre kiss-ass – which is what we’ve had running the CIA. I will also fault Clinton for appointing Woolsey and Tenet, two of the least competent CIA directors in American history (until Porter Goss came along.) Hayden might be an improvement over these guys at the level of competence, but he’s proven himself to be ignorant of the Constitution – both in theory and in practice, which should be one of the basics of eligibility for a major post in government. The name that comes to my mind for CIA head would be Richard Clarke, who has proven more prescient than most others at his level on the terrorism issues that bedevil us. But I’m too much of an acknowledged idiot – an admission which makes me less dangerous and/or randomly moronic than TGLD or Patrick, because of the self-awareness involved – to come up with the best candidate.
(Most of the knowledge I have of the CIA comes from reading Baer and Scheuer, and I’d tend to trust any experienced insider with the CIA head job who had the confidence of the kind of operatives and analysts they represent – the professionals. Neither one is a political hack with a careerist’s sensibility – nor do either of them conform to some partisan “left-right” paradigm. For all of the action they’ve gotten on the left based on their insights into the failures of the Bush administration, they’re both pretty scary guys – each in their own way.)
Patrick, pry your lips off of BushCo’s butt before you throw stones at your strawman “left”. It’s hard to see real live targets down there where you spend most of your time.
May 20th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Why didn’t Patrick Henry get world support before he made such a statement and incited rebellion? We should have passed one resolution after another until King George III gave us freedom. Would the U.S. founders have met a “global test?â€
That may be the most thoroughyl nonsensical thing you have said – and that’s saying a lot.
May 20th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
[Hit post too soon]
The point being that Patrick Henry made that comment when faced with the choice of living with his freedoms curtailed. Patrick Roberts made the comment that it is better to live with fewer freedoms.
Such is the message of the Republican Party these days.
May 20th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
I can’t believe that you took me seriously–on the other hand, I should have expected that.
May 20th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
You’re right. I shouldn’t take you seriously.
May 20th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
With all due respect (and most views of the CIA voiced here deserve none), what CIA are you guys looking for? I thought my eyes were deceiving me when I read some of the entries, but than I blinked, and I realised my eyes could be trusted once again.
One wants an accurate hit man, and the other wants one that recognizes the fouth amendment? Just for the record, the CIA does not serve you, it does not serve the interest of the rank and file of the American people. Surprise, suprise – it serves the “national Interest,” but perhaps you folks are tight with Exxon? Maybe you are all corporate heads of multi-national corporations and the jokes on me?
You want to enshrine an organization which is responsible (in some form or other) for the deaths of millions of people? What honorable intention do you think resides in the bosom of such individuals? I know, I know, you think they are all patriotic paragons. Perhaps you can look to the NSA that brought such reports as the terrible “communist conspiracy” south of the border that resulted in the use of death squads. Really people, where do you come up with this type of maudlin bullshit?
I suppose you believe that they have secretly shutdown numerous terrorists that “almost” got us. All I have to say is when the next “incident” hits our land I hope you watch what takes place carefully – because spying on millions of Americans has absolutely nothing to do with stopping some terrorist threat.
Perhaps if things go well your great grandchildren might be able to experience some of the freedom this country once experienced – in a pig’s eye! If you want this fast track to police state to stop your going to have to apply some good old fashioned participation called citizenship. However, that necessitates dropping your consumer toys and abandoning your spurious views of these organizations and exercising some serious costly participation, active and vocal resistance is the only way to reverse this course. The moonbat loonie has spoken.
May 21st, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Mr. Virgil Johnson takes the cake and is the most statistically likely person on this thread to live in Manhattan, Berkeley, Madison or Ann Arbor, where people are smarter. The CIA is not, has never, and will never serve the interests of the American people. CIA: BAD! FBI: BAD! (Bonus points: J. Edgar put on the dresses but he hated the homos!!!!!!!!)
AMERICAN ELECTORATE: COMPLETE, ABSOLUTE TOOLS of RENTIERS, IMPERIALISTS AND EXTRACTORS OF THE SURPLUS LABOR VALUE AND THUS, DUPES. BAD!!!!
(Is there any chance we can slow this thread down so that I can study the collected works of Chairman Bob Avakian and report back?)
Mr. Liberty Dad: we seem to share some common concerns but have you considered changing your name to Mr. Social Justice Dad? You might get more dates. Social Justice, Good!!!!
Mr. REG: Youbetcha. If you want your side to govern then start thinking about governing, by making proposals about how to govern, by proposing people to govern. It’s not ankle-biting if you propose an alternative. If you don’t propose an alternative, than it is ankle-biting. If you deny and disavow responsibility for proposing workable alternatives than you can’t even hope to rise to the level of ankle-biting.
Dystopia: Bad! Utopia: Good!!!!
Some
May 21st, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Stott – as usual you are an ass. I named a NAME…but suggested that, gee, maybe there are people with more qualifications than me to appoint the next CIA head. Except George Bush obviously isn’t one of them, based on his track record.
So go shove your blather where it belongs.
May 21st, 2006 at 9:51 pm
And with the polls showing Clinton’s approval surpassing Bush’s in every aspect of governance, including national security, the suggestion that “my side” isn’t competent to govern is laughable. Except it appears you actually believe your own mindless crap.
May 22nd, 2006 at 6:06 am
“…polls showing Clinton’s approval surpassing Bush’s in every aspect of governance, including national security…”
Governance by popularity? Who is the ass reg? Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Amin, Hussein were all “popular” polls of the time. Reg, you gotta learn that words mean things. you just gotta.
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:29 am
That’s just an ignorant comment. Really…
Get a clue.
If you are going to compare the validity of a poll by Zogby in gauging popular opinion with the “elections” conducted by Saddam Hussein, you are really beyond hope. Just ignorant as all hell. My point was clear. You’re in the dumpster. “Pol Pot was “popular”. And you make a comparison between opinion of him with opinion of President Clinton’s job ratings. Give me a fucking break.
That comment was pretty crazy even for the GM’sCorner clowns.
Your panties are so twisted by the failure of the little shit you’ve been shilling for that I think you must be losing your mind when you post such blather.
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:34 am
“Pol Pot was ‘popular’ ” was supposed to have about twenty-seven question marks after it. (“?????????????????”) It wasn’t meant as a “statement” but a quote in the context of being aghast that anyone could even imply such or make such a moronic comparison in reference to current opinion polls that show Americans favoring Clinton over Bush on every policy issue known to man.
May 22nd, 2006 at 3:36 pm
reg, you are such a moronic true believer. You post that we oughta back democrats because clinton is “more popular” than bush and then call me out?
In a subsequent post you said that you won’t respond to me unless you have had to much to drink and can’t help yourself… is that two scenes or just one? Either way, promise?
May 22nd, 2006 at 3:50 pm
You should be ashamed of yourself for posting such idiotic crap.
May 22nd, 2006 at 6:40 pm
FACT: Clinton was more popular during impeachment for idiotic partisan reasons than this Bush will ever be, short of when the buildings were still smoking. “Hey W watch this bin Laden guy, he’s trouble and getting bigger, here’s the files. Duh?
May 22nd, 2006 at 6:42 pm
“Who is the ass reg? Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Hitler”
False analogy Roper. And Godwin called.
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:47 pm
Mr. Virgil Johnson:
I get excitable and post things I regret, so I apologize to you for personalizing my mocking reply to some points you made. Unlike “Reg,” who posts anonymously on this blog because he uses fighting words as a matter of course, I aspire to argue without making personal insults.
You say that the CIA is responsible for the death of millions, that it should be eliminated and that national security should be of no concern to Americans. This kind of rhetoric goes over great in psudeo-radical circles (psuedo because no American radicals ever hit the barricades, much less give up their kush jobs working for the State or major American-based multi-nationals) but the majority of American voters reject all of your policy conclusions, as you have probably noticed.
The USA and the CIA, both, have much to be ashamed of. What country and what country’s intelligence service does not? So what? Assignments of historical and collective guilt are non sequitors. Talk to Germans who deplore the policies of Chimpy McHitler about that.
The CIA has killed Millions, has it? Prove it.
To the anonymous ad-hominizer who, for reasons of convention or polite social fiction we agree to gender as male and call “Reg.”:
You are correct on a specific point. I accused you of offering zero nominations for CIA director. You offered Richard Clarke, the guy who fought terrorism to such great effect under Bill Clinton and who personally released a plane-load of Bin Laden relatives.
On this point I was wrong.
I will stick with my wider point. When you don’t, “Reg,” spew ad hominem like a broken sewer pipe you spew hatred and contempt of people with whom and ideas with which you disagree like a broken sewer pipe. You are the living psuedonym of the Moveon.org, Howard Dean, Pelosi wing of the party, working overtime to keep the Lieberman,Clinton and Obama wing out of power. Beyond your hate for Bush, conservatives and Republicans you have nothing to offer. You are in plenty of company.
May 22nd, 2006 at 11:58 pm
Samuel Stott,
It is difficult for me to reply to someone who has lived such an obviously sheltered life. Outside of walking the killing fields of the earth personally, and speaking to first hand witnesses of tragic atrocities, I don’t know what else to say to you. Such thick hubris is born of willing ignorance, why don’t you read some easily available information from CIA insiders:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/John_Stockwell.html
When you get done reading lets talk, and I can give you more first hand information if necessary. I would rather do it this way, it is better for you to look at authoritative sources (because you believe in what this lethal system tells you with an absence of evidence to the contrary, except your own self-interest, the typical baseless and thoughtless language of the sheltered and privileged), than I will tell you what I know from hard facts and personal experience backed by indisputable evidence.
I should warn you that in the future be careful what you ask for, especially if you do not want to know. I have little patience for groundless pseudo-patriotic fideism.
May 23rd, 2006 at 8:35 am
Mr. Stott, just to clue you in a bit, Reg has been contributing to this site literally for years–preceding my arrival. His intelligent and insightful comments are among the main reasons why I visit this site regularly. If you were a respectful visitor and did your homework (i.e., listened before having spoken, gotten to know the regulars before hurling ad homina) you might have learned this on your own. I have no idea who you are, nor do I much care–I come here for the ideas, not for personal backgrounds of the contributors (though that tends to be a fringe benefit–I’ve been fortunate to meet some wonderful people here!).
When not subjecting the rest of us to your invective vomiting (which you’ve done a lot of–I’ve lost track, as I’ve since skipped over your most recent posts), you appear to have some interesting things to say. But it’s a waste of our time for you to attempt to draw the rest of us into your personal problems with Reg. We regulars know who Reg is–he’s damn smart, damn funny, and I personally learn a lot from him. Here’s hoping you work through your personal issues and can return to posting some sincere and potentially insightful comments along with the rest of us. If not, kindly shut up.
May 23rd, 2006 at 9:50 am
That was very kind and flattering, Rich, but even I have to admit that you left out the part about my being a compulsive poster and mean-spirited prick.
April 9th, 2007 at 8:00 am
ambien addiction…
news…
June 9th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Abbie…
I do think you right on the spot with this post, i could use a lot a struff for my new study thank you very much.
Greets …
April 14th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
I find a fantastic improvement inside your composing, I’d like to obtain in touch. Keep up the fantastic function! Your writing is really motivational for someone who is new to this kind of information.