Homeland Security intelligence nominee thrown under the bus
Posted by danishova on 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.
In this case “scrutinize” means “politicize”
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…
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.
"Since he was deputy director of the counterterrorism center, he was going to be asked whether interrogation produced useful intelligence, and if it didn’t, why didn’t he stop it?" the source said.
Or conversely, if it did produce useful intelligence that would totally screw up the Democrat’s agenda of scolding Bush and Republicans on “torture”. So yeah, I’m going with that reason.
"If the White House, Justice and the senior leadership on the seventh floor at Langley is formulating this policy, a guy supposed to implement counterterrorism policy is now held accountable for those policies? That’s foolish," said Roger W. Cressey, a counterterrorism official in the Clinton and Bush administrations who worked with Mudd on the National Security Council. "You’re absolutely undercutting the ability of the government to do its job when people like him get caught in this undertow. This guy is an apolitical career civil servant, a true subject-matter expert."
To hell with the American people and their security. They don’t want “apolitical”, the mission is to find a partisan liberal Democrat who will promote the Dems Leftist agenda of coddling terrorists. Too bad these former State Department employees were arrested for spying. They would have been perfect!