I don’t typically talk about things so mundane as corrupt government officials here, as that sort of thing is so entrenched in the Beltway that people only seem to care when it gets way out of hand. And I try to avoid speculating, especially when I don’t have any knowledge of a situation. So I’m not going to say a word about what might have caused two high-ranking Central Intelligence Agency officials to resign abruptly over the last few days.

In case you’ve been living under a rock, here’s the news in brief: On Friday, CIA director Porter Goss unexpectedly resigned. News organizations and the blogosphere then spent the whole weekend babbling on about what this might mean. Some questioned whether Goss did anything notable while he was DCIA. Others questioned whether Goss was mixed up in the brewing Hookergate scandal, an allegation the White House denied.

Were I to speculate, I might say it was because Goss wasn’t up to the task of rebuilding the CIA to face the new threats in front of it, and the White House seems to be spring cleaning the executive branch this year anyway.

Then on Monday, two things happened: The CIA’s number 3 man, executive director Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, abruptly resigned as well. Dusty actually came into the position under a veil of secrecy; when he started as executive director, his name was classified. As it turns out, he seems to also be mixed up in Hookergate.

And President Bush nominated former director of NSA, Gen. Michael Hayden, to lead the CIA. Now Hayden has a couple of strikes against him. After the NSA’s terrorist surveillance program was revealed in December, Hayden was put up in front of the press to defend the program, something he didn’t do very well at. And, it turns out, he’s mixed up in Hookergate as well.

Not to mention, some people are upset because Hayden is active duty military. House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) said he was “the wrong person, the wrong place at the wrong time.”

Okay, well, maybe I should talk about Hookergate. But I just don’t find hookers interesting or newsworthy. And I’m probably a bit too jaded about corruption in government. Go read about it elsewhere if that sort of thing turns you on. (Actually the truth is that the situation is so convoluted and complex that I spent all day on it and still haven’t unraveled the whole thing as it stands today, and the investigations are still ongoing. I’ll post on it later.)

What I do want to talk about is whether Hayden is actually qualified to hold the position. Complaints about his forgetting the Constitution notwithstanding, I think he actually is qualified to run the CIA. In fact, he’s the most qualified person I can think of to drag the agency kicking and screaming into the 21st century, as he did with NSA.