It appears that the House Intelligence Committee not under Mr. Goss takes its oversight responsibilities a little more seriously than the House Intelligence Committee under Mr. Goss

A leading Republican came out against the front-runner for CIA director, Gen. Michael Hayden, saying Sunday the spy agency should not have military leadership during a turbulent time among intelligence agencies.

Members of the Senate committee that would consider President Bush's nominee also expressed reservations, saying the CIA is a civilian agency and putting Hayden atop it would concentrate too much power in the military for intelligence matters.

Bush was expected to nominate a new director as early as Monday to replace Porter Goss, who abruptly resigned on Friday.

But opposition to Hayden because of his military background is mounting on Capitol Hill, where he would face tough hearings in the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Despite a distinguished career at the Defense Department, Hayden would be "the wrong person, the wrong place at the wrong time," said the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich.

"There is ongoing tensions between this premier civilian intelligence agency and DOD as we speak," Hoekstra said. "And I think putting a general in charge - regardless of how good Mike is - ... is going to send the wrong signal through the agency here in Washington but also to our agents in the field around the world," he told "Fox News Sunday."

If Hayden were to get the nomination, military officers would run the major spy agencies in the United States, from the ultra-secret National Security Agency to the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Other congressional radicals at the front of the parade: Chambliss, Feinstein and Biden. If anyone on the committee is troubled that Hayden was one of the major players in the none-too-successful Negroponte intelligence machine (Hoekstra also not a fan), no-one saw fit to mention it.

This looks an awful lot like the early signs of a Miers moment.

edit: No, I'm wrong - Hoekstra did see fit to mention it

WALLACE: Let me ask you about another aspect of this. Mike Hayden, according to intelligence sources who I talked to yesterday, was one of the driving forces in getting Porter Goss out.

He was one of the lead men for Negroponte in trying to strip the CIA of some of its powers, particularly to take the analysis part of it out and put it in the Department of National Intelligence.

If Hayden now takes over the CIA after having helped in this process of forcing Goss out, could that be perceived or could it, in fact, be a sense of the CIA being dangerously diminished?

HOEKSTRA: I think so. I mean, you brought up a number of issues there. Number one, moving the analytical function out of the CIA into the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — that's not what we envision in intelligence reform.

The DNI was supposed to be coordinating and bringing these 16 agencies together, not becoming a doer of things. He was the chief executive officer, not an operating officer. I'm concerned about that direction.

And if General Hayden was an architect of that, he's going to be going into an agency where the people in the agency say he's not an advocate for us. He's the one that's, you know, potentially gutting what we believe are some of our core functions.

WALLACE: Now, I mean, explain to us, because a lot of this stuff, I'm sure, to a lot of people — frankly, to me — seems like a lot of sort of bureaucratic moving of chairs.

What's the danger if the Pentagon takes over a prominence in the intelligence community over the CIA? What's the danger if analysis is stripped out of the CIA?

HOEKSTRA: The danger of having the military take over intelligence is that the military has a very different perspective on the world. They're worried about today and wars, you know, and threats to the United States in the short term and how we might respond militarily.

So they need information that helps them better prepare for fighting and winning future wars or winning the war that we are in today.

The CIA's job is to provide us as policymakers better information so that we can make informed policy decisions of which — you know, war, and winning a war and the consequences of war are very, very different.

Amazing. Congressional oversight of the functioning of government.

I've missed it.

Bonus Chris Wallace quote:

WALLACE: You are not just another congressman. You are — I don't have to tell you — the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.