« | »

CIA Nominee Drops Out To Avoid Grilling

From a gleeful Washington Post:

Nominee Pulls Out as Role at CIA Is Studied

By Peter Finn and Walter Pincus
Saturday, June 6, 2009

A longtime CIA official chosen by President Obama to be the intelligence chief at the Department of Homeland Security withdrew from consideration yesterday after it became apparent that senators examining his nomination planned to scrutinize his role in the agency’s interrogation of terrorism suspects.

Philip Mudd, a former deputy director at both the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis and the National Counterterrorism Center, was scheduled to appear next week before the Senate as the nominee for undersecretary of intelligence and analysis at Homeland Security.

"I know that this position will require the full cooperation with Congress and I believe that if I continue to move forward I will become a distraction to the president and his vital agenda," Mudd said in a statement.

Obama accepted Mudd’s withdrawal "with sadness and regret," the White House said.

Mudd, currently a senior counterterrorism official at the FBI, faced an increasingly charged political atmosphere on Capitol Hill about the CIA’s interrogation program. Mudd’s nomination was to be taken up by both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which by law has jurisdiction over his confirmation, and by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which has authorization responsibility for his department.

Over the Memorial Day recess, Mudd met with senior staff members of the Homeland Security panel whose interest was primarily how he would handle issues of intelligence sharing with state and local police units. When, near the end of a two-hour session, they went over Mudd’s CIA positions from 2001 to 2005, it became apparent that questions about harsh interrogations, renditions and allegations that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had links to al-Qaeda would have to be explored, according to a person at the session who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to discuss the matter…

John O. Brennan, Obama’s first pick to head the CIA, also withdrew from consideration after questions were raised by some of the president’s liberal allies about Brennan’s involvement with the interrogation program…

Who can blame him? Who would willingly subject themselves to this pack of ravening wolves?

And why should we think he knew anything more about this than, say, Nancy Pelosi, or dozens of the self-same Democrats who are now pretending to be outraged by this necessary and effective program?

By the way, isn’t it funny that now that the Democrats are in power they are showing no interest whatsoever in finding out why the CIA ‘lied’ about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

Why is that?

This article was posted by Steve on Saturday, June 6th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

13 Responses to “CIA Nominee Drops Out To Avoid Grilling”

  1. Liberals Demise says:

    He knew they were going to roast him like a scapegoat at their sacrificial altar.
    Bet they tiptoe on the Sotorican!!

  2. wardmama4 says:

    I can’t believe that he did not want to become one of the scapegoats of SanFranGranNan and the Klowposse in DC.

    They voted in the majority (House vote 296-133-3, Senate 77-23) on the Iraq War and every single moment since then it’s been boooshes fault and boooshes lies and boooshes corruption. They forgot to ‘Just Say No’ – no wonder they have so many problems.

  3. proreason says:

    Gee, it looks like the CIA is weakened to the point that it can’t really function. We can’t even get people appointed to lead it who know anything about the intelligence business.

    How did that happen?

    And why did it happen? It just doesn’t really seem to be in the best interests of our country to have agencies responsible for our security rendered disfunctional.

    If I wanted to make the United States vulnerable, undermining the intelligence servies is one of the first things I would do. I would also portray the country as evil and inconsiderate of other countries’ rights. And I would de-emphasize our military. And I would suggest that foreign threats are blown out of proportion. And I would suggest that the biggest threat to national security is the military itself, since veterans are trained killers and have minds weakened from combat. I would begin to disarm. And lastly, I would try to pit groups within the country against each other so that they couldn’t coalesce in oppositiion to foreign threats.

    Thank God that can’t happen here.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Don’t forget that a World Apology Tour for the fact that we had such aggressive institutions and weapons is a necessity too, since it was the problem to begin with!

      Gotta wonder what’s been going on through the collective minds of the intelligence community lately, other than “Oh, crap.”

  4. catie says:

    Steve mentioned that it’s funny the dims don’t want to “investigate” the WMD “lies”. Well, wait until a Republican gets back in office and then it will be full steam ahead.

  5. canary says:

    I agree, plus who would want to even be associated with a group of clowns and a President who does nothing but play, party, and write in his journal everyday.

    Catie, maybe it’s because Obama put his foot in his mouth.

    pg 299 of the Adassity of Obombi’s book, he blames
    “Mr. Ahmed Chalabi, the Western-educated Shi’te, leader of the exhile group the Iraqi National Congress, had reportedly fed U.S. intelligence agencies and Bush policy makers some of the prewar information on which the decision to invade was made…and that turned out to be bogus.”

  6. Odie44 says:

    Hmmm, I am thinking someone from Pelosi Galore’s Team Dem whispered in his ear “walk away”

    Dems at this point have far more to lose in investigating CIA methods than Reps do – as witnessed by Cheney’s relentless call for memos to be released and Pelosi’s “they lied to us” comments, along with Bambi’s failed attempt at releasing only “anti-Bush/Cheney” memos and doing a 180 to now “not release anything”…

    As I and many said from day 1 with Cheney calling for the release – he isn’t an idiot and knows what those memo results are – and notice how flat the bogus “Cheney led briefings, oh my!” story fell this week…

  7. Rusty Shackleford says:

    “Obama accepted Mudd’s withdrawal “with sadness and regret,”

    Yeah, I’ll bet. But not for the reasons they might have you believe.

  8. BannedbytheTaliban says:

    Even if he didn’t have anything to do with the harsh interrogation techniques, his name is Mudd. Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

  9. TwilightZoned says:

    So what are the options since no one, in their right mind, currently in the CIA or other such agency will subject themselves to the hypocrites scrutiny? To select someone who is out of the intelligence loop and totally inexperienced. Well, the dems and POTUS have just stepped in their own mess kits at the expense of our security and safety. Just peachy.

  10. MinnesotaRush says:

    Holder and o-blah-blah have identified some of the Gitmo detainees that would be good for the job(s).

    More info to follow.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »