Okay, the General Michael Hayden thing

You've probably heard from the other blogs about a clip making the rounds from last January in which General Michael Hayden, Bush's nominee for the new head of the C.I.A., would seem to demonstrate a less than all-encompassing grasp of the Fourth Amendment.

That's the one that refers to unlawful and unreasonable searches and seizures. Mark Evanier has some discussion of Hayden's remarks, and the clip in question. Mark sez:

In fairness, there is a way to interpret Hayden's remarks that isn't quite as clueless as he may have seemed that day. The reporter, Jonathan Landay, suggested that the government has to have probable cause to execute a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. That's not exactly right, either. The Fourth Amendment says there can be no unreasonable searches and seizures, period. That's probably the point Hayden was trying to make.

...the General's error came when the reporter asked, "Does it not say 'probable cause?'" Hayden said no, which left him wide open to the charge that he really didn't know those words were in the Fourth Amendment. But he may have meant, "No, it does not say that in quite the way you're presenting it." In which case, his mistake was not in also saying something like, "Yes, I know the words 'probable cause' are in the Fourth Amendment," and explaining the precious distinction he was trying to make.

Mark may well have a valid point here but to me the most telling thing about the clip is how flipping pissy Hayden is about answering the question. He doesn't just state the truth as he believes it to be, which leaves room for later correction along the lines of: You know what? I misspoke.

No, he runs his mouth about how "If there's one thing he knows," it's the Fourth Amendment, prior to demonstrating that in fact, he doesn't know it all that well. Which makes him, I suppose, yet another perfect Bush nominee.

It's not just that they're ignorant. It's not just that they're arrogant. It's that they're arrogant about being ignorant.

ETA-Unclaimed Territory recaps the broader objections to Hayden's nomination, and shows again the Democrats tendency to shoot themselves in the foot:

...the extremely unpopular Bush nominates as CIA Director (a) an active military general who (b) is a close ally of Dick Cheney, (c) is the person most responsible for, and associated with, the illegal NSA program, and (d) has caused a serious break between Bush and his most reliable Congressional allies. And the first instinct of Democrats like Feinstein and Harman is to prevent any Democratic message unity on this issue and to jump to the defense of the President by defending his pick and insisting that the NSA scandal not even be talked about.