Posted on 03/11/2009 12:45:27 PM PDT by JOHN ADAMS
To all who supported me or gave me words of encouragement during the controversy of the past two weeks, you have my gratitude and respect. You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council. I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign. As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was "asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse." I added that I wondered "whether there wasn't some sort of downside to this offer." I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
“It was da joooooooos!”
One less Obama Muslim lover to worry about. Nice record Barack. Pretty soon it will just be you and Timmy. Oh, and of course, Michelle.
Sounds like he is loathe to take the job if it means losing his stipend from the Saudis and Chicoms. “Libel” he calls it? Maybe he thought that no one would notice whose payroll he was on?
I don’t know what he’s worried about. With Obie in the WHouse Israel may not be there to kick around much longer.
Good riddance
“Therefore I am compelled to withdraw my name from consideration.” DEATH TO AMERICA!! ALLAHU AKBAR!!
You mean like your attachment to the views of the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia?
If you'd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Monday's assault from the Zionists. Remember, the Senators names aren't important, they're only puppets.
March 9, 2009
The Honorable Dennis Blair
Director of National Intelligence
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Washington, DC 20511
Dear Director Blair:
During your nomination process, you indicated your understanding of the importance of clear and accurate intelligence analysis. You explained your understanding of the reasons behind the Iraq WMD intelligence failure and assured Members that one of your goals was to prevent such analytic failures in the future.
You also told the Committee that if nominated your "objective will be to ensure that the analysis produced by the Intelligence Community is objective and free of any political bias, whatever the issue or political climate might be" and said that "President Obama has made it clear ... that he expects independent analysis."
In light of your comments, we were surprised by your decision to appoint Charles Freeman as the next Chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC).
The NIC is responsible for providing policymakers with "the best, unvarnished, and unbiased information." Its Chairman leads this effort, is the Intelligence Community's most senior analyst, and is at the forefront of reforming analysis so that mistakes like the Iraq WMD failure are not repeated. Mr. Freeman has a distinguished resume, but his intelligence experience appears to be only as a consumer of intelligence-in other words, using intelligence for policymaking. We are unaware of another instance in which someone without years of intelligence analysis experience has been appointed to this position.
Also concerning-in light of the need for any NIC Chairman to have unquestioned objectivity and an ability to convey the Intelligence Community's judgments in a measured and non-provocative manner-are Mr. Freeman's highly controversial statements about China and Israel. While Mr. Freeman has since made efforts to clarify his remarks, one of the lessons of the 2007 Iran National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is that an essential quality in leading the NIC is an ability to ensure that NIEs and other NIC products clearly and accurately convey the views of the Intelligence Community when they are published. Once a product is released it is too late to try to clarify the Intelligence Community's judgments.
At a time when the analytic community is continuing to struggle with reforming itself and when U.S. leaders, from the President to Members of Congress, have called for a depoliticization of intelligence, we believe this appointment sends the wrong message. The NIC, as the highest intelligence entity providing top level analysis, must represent the clearest level of analytic expertise, an expertise the rest of the government and the public must be assured is free from policy bias. Given our concerns about Mr. Freeman's lack of experience and uncertainty about his objectivity, we intend to devote even more oversight scrutiny to the activities of the NIC under his leadership.
Sincerely,
Tom Coburn
Christopher S. Bond
Saxby Chambliss
Richard Burr
Orrin G. Hatch
James E. Risch
Olympia J. Snowe
We dodged a bullet on this one. Mr. Freeman is on record as having defended the Tienanmen Square Massacre. His assesment of the massacre of pro-democracy protesters by communist agents indicated that he felt the response was an acceptable one to protesters in any nation's capitol. In fact, he faulted the Chinese government for not acting with more haste. The Obama administration tried to pawn him off on an unsuspecting American public as an original thinker.
You can read his parting statement above to form your own opinion. Many consider him an anti-semite. I'll stop short of going that far, and simply note that he's paranoid and anti-Israeli. It should be absolutely unthinkable that this individual could have been appointed as head of our National Intelligence Council.
I cannot fathom any sane person nominating Mr. Freeman for a leading national security post.
Forget results, they don’t show on a teleprompter.
LOL!
And then he had to deliver that parting shot, as if it was unfathomable that the average Joe could be looking at his history and saying “gee, this guy sounds kinda anti-semitic.” Instead of acknowledging that people's suspicions were understandable, he responded with paranoid ad hominem attacks. This is ugly.
People are driving themselves crazy trying to discern a complex and counter-intuitive strategy to account for the bumbling, irresponsible and reprehensible behavior on the part of the Obama administration. Instead of twisting ourselves into knots to understand the unintelligible, perhaps we should just take Mr. Obama’s actions at face value.
At some point, the most parsimonious explanation for Mr. Obama’s two decades in a racist church is that he's a racist. At some point, the most reasonable explanation for the Freeman nomination is that Mr. Obama shares his views on heavy-handed government and blaming Israel for Islamic violence against Israel AND America.
At some point, we will simply have to take Mr. Obama’s actions at face value.
The list is goes on. At some point, it appears that we will simply have to conclude that Mr. Obama has been lying to us about having good intentions.
Paragraphs are nice. They are your friends.
I do want to give credit where credit is due. It’s my understanding that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi opposed this nomination out of concerns for human rights abuses in China. While the human rights issues are only one facet of this very concerning nomination, her characterization of Mr. Freeman’s views as “indefensible,” if that is in fact what she said, deserves to be commended. In fact, that sounds like the best description I’ve seen of them.
So what does that say about Admiral Blair who pushed the nomination?
Am totally unfamaliar with Blair.
I think that you are right, the Saudis and other Arab countries would have paid him more money. He was after the dough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.