Graham wants spy chief sacked

Just catching up on e-mail (lots of meetings today), I find this:

Graham Calls For President Obama to Replace DNI Director

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today said President Obama should replace General James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence (DNI).  In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning, Clapper said the Gaddafi regime in Libya would “prevail” over Libyan rebels.  Clapper had previously called the Muslim Brotherhood a “secular” organization and was unfamiliar with a major anti-terror raid in London to foil an Al-Qaeda inspired attack.

Graham said:

“The situation in Libya remains tenuous and the Director’s comments today on Gaddafi’s ‘staying power’ are not helpful to our national security interests.  His comments will make the situation more difficult for those opposing Gaddafi.  It also undercuts our national efforts to bring about the desired result of Libya moving from dictator to democracy.

“Some of his analysis could prove to be accurate, but it should not have been made in such a public forum.  If he felt the need to say what he did, then they should have moved into closed session.

“Unfortunately, this isn’t the first questionable comment from the DNI Director.  However it should be the final straw.”


Hmmm. That does sound rather indiscreet. And did he really not know that other stuff? Hard to believe. Sort of reminds me of the SNL spoof in which John Belushi played a CIA station chief in Tehran who couldn’t speak Farsi, and kept telling everybody the Shah wasn’t in trouble.

Maybe the DNI should get a Twitter account and follow a few news feeds…

As for what the senator requests, Politico reports:

Carney said Graham’s reaction was a “real misinterpretation of what Director Clapper said” and that Obama has “full faith and confidence” in the intelligence adviser. Donilon said the president is “very happy with the performance of Gen. Clapper.”

4 thoughts on “Graham wants spy chief sacked

  1. Mark Stewart

    I found some of Graham’s statements troubling as well. However, you didn’t quote the one about Graham calling the truth an inconvenience.

    If removing K/Q however anyone chooses to spell his name was in our national security interests, then why have we gotten all hunky-dory with him since the late 1990’s?

    In the old days, we would just secretively arm the rebellion. What happened to the old tested ways? Why must we have nothing or an actual war? Isn’t it good for someone to speak the truth, so that someone else might be compelled to take some other, more covert action?

    Maybe the director was saying it is time to choose sides – and quickly, oil or no oil.

  2. Brad

    Yeah… the CIA used to really know how to fight wars. Then that blasted Frank Church came along… sigh.

    You know what I thought when the Church hearings were on TV, telling us the “shocking” things the CIA had done? I was like, “Yeah, that’s what I assumed they did…” Of course, I was a kid, and not entirely steeped yet in the rule-of-law thing…

  3. martin

    The CIA’s been messing up since it put the Shah on the throne in Iran. That’s pretty much since its civilian incarnation.

    Speaking of Lindsey, he seems very quiet about the events in the Rolling Stone article about Afghan psy-ops, which makes me think HE gave the legal advice OKing it on one of his conflicted to the eyeballs tours in the military over there.

  4. Mark Stewart

    We should help the Libyan uprising because it is the right thing to do; even if it is also in line with our national interest. We will be pillared by world opinion either way, why not be on the side of honor and integrity?

    Is that straightforward enough in a gray world?

Comments are closed.