Why?

Publius makes a good point:

Is anyone else struggling to figure out what's really going on with the Hayden nomination. I'm having trouble pinning down who wins and who loses.

What is really strange is that Hastert and other GOP legislators are voicing strong opposition. The ostensible reason is because they don't want a military leader in charge of a civilian agency. That makes sense as a matter of policy, but the modern GOP congressional caucus doesn't care about policy -- so that can't possibly be the explanation.

Some are saying that Hastert, et al. are trying to check Rumsfeld's power (the implication being that Hayden would allow the DOD to take over the CIA's responsibilities). But since when did Hastert, et al. care about checking anything Rumsfeld was doing? Steve Clemons, however, thinks that Hayden and Negroponte would actually be a check on Rumsfeld's power. If that's true, than Hastert's opposition actually helps Rumsfeld.

It's confusing. For one, why would Hayden get nominated in the first place if he was a threat to the Cheney/Rumsfeld crew? And if he helps Rumsfeld, why the opposition from the GOP? Whose water are they carrying?

I get the feeling I'm missing something very obvious here, so please feel free to suggest links in the comments.

I haven't got a clue what the Thuglicans are balking at this one, but it sure is fun to see Bush getting his nose rubbed in it.