As if governments throughout history haven't constantly used threats to gain leverage? No need to take a personal shot at the guy in charge when this is SOP throughout the administration.

I don't like the "guy in charge" anyway but it's not clear the other major party would stand united against this if they were in power. While I believe they'd probably have hearings and debate it more, this may be one of those issues where the defense establishment usually gets what it wants no matter which party is in control. One party protesting an issue when they're in the minority can just be performative "point scoring" against their opposition - not a guarantee of what result they'd participate in engineering if they were in power.

Much like FISA court-enabled unaccountable surveillance, this may be another of the increasing number of things where neither major party is will actually stop it. In terms of real-world outcomes, it doesn't much matter whether the party in control has just enough of their members (in the safest seats) vote with the minority to pass an unpopular measure or if they all vote for it. When the votes are stage managed in advance, the count being close is merely optics to further the narrative that the two major parties represent meaningfully different outcomes on every major issue.

Why do you personally feel the need to defend this person given his involvement in what the administration is doing?

Guy is an unqualified alcoholic in charge of our safety. All shots are warranted.

Personal shots at the guy in charge have happened many times in history. Aren't you violating the principle defined in your first sentence?