Lame vetting
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Douglas M. Bloomfield is right in referring to Charles ("Chas") Freeman's complaints about the Israel "Lobby" as a "vitriolic rant" ("Freeman defeat an inside job," WJW, March 19, [2009]). Freeman disqualified himself for the position of chair of the Council on Intelligence because of his connections with and advocacy for China and Saudi Arabia, as well as his bias against Israel. Moreover, Freeman's tirade was directly contrary to President Barack's condemnation of divisiveness.
The next question is this: Hasn't Dennis Blair disqualified himself for the position of director of National Intelligence by his unintelligent choice of Charles Freeman? The validity of the intelligence that the president receives is in jeopardy because of Blair's poor judgment and his lame vetting of the Freeman appointment. And you don't have to be Jewish to recognize that grim reality.
NATHAN DODELL
Rockville |
Note: Blogger believes sentence "Did he know of the many concerns about Mr. Blair's record?" may contain a typo. "Mr. Freeman's" would be a more logical antecedent to the pronoun "he" in the sentence which should read "Did he know of the many concerns about Mr. Freeman's record?" Questioning whether Mr. Blair knew of the many concerns about Mr. Blair's record doesn't make sense. Questioning whether Mr. Freeman knew of the many concerns about Mr. Blair's record also doesn't make sense.
The Washington Times has kept us well-informed of the valid concerns about the appointment of Charles W. "Chas" Freeman Jr as chairman of the National Intelligence Council and of his withdrawal Tuesday from the post.
Mr. Freeman was appointed by Dennis C. Blair, director of national intelligence, without the need for Senate confirmation, and reportedly without presidential involvement. One must wonder what vetting Mr. Blair performed before he appointed Mr. Freeman.
Did he know of the many concerns about Mr. Blair's record? If not, that calls into question Mr. Blair's qualifications to gather intelligence for the nation. If he didn't do an adequate job of acquiring information in this instance, how can he be counted on to discharge the vital task of keeping the president informed on intelligence matters?
If he did know of all the concerns about Mr. Freeman, then Mr. Blair's judgment must be questioned. One cannot see how a responsible director of national intelligence could have concluded that, given his record, Mr. Freeman could play a fair, balanced and adequate role in helping gather intelligence.
Considering how important a role intelligence played in the decision to go to war in Iraq, it is clear that Mr. Blair should be called before the appropriate congressional committees and closely questioned on his information-gathering procedure and reasoning process in appointing Mr. Freeman.
Nathan Dodell
Rockville
In a September 19, 2012 Washington Examiner letter Nathan Dodell is at his game again of demanding the firing of anyone who doesn't agree with his pro-Israeli political right, not pro-Israel, foreign policy views. Dennis Blair ended up leaving his job in the aftermath of the Dec 25, 2009 underwear bombing attempt over Detroit of a plane (for which the bomber Umar Abdulmutallab is rotting in jail for life after being prosecuted thereby treating terrorism as a law enforcement not a military problem) so Dodell's initial attempt at questioning Blair's competence had influence. It is the prevention of future acts similar to Abdulmutallab's that people have to thank for the decision, each time one flies, to submit to the TSA full body backscatter x-ray (with questionable safety from cumulative radiation exposure) or extensive pat-down.
In 2012 Dodell turns the firing demands toward UN Ambassador Susan Rice for blaming Libya and Egypt protests at USA embassies, and the killing of the USA ambassador to Libya and 3 of his associates, on the trailer for "The Innocence of Muslims." In February 2011 Susan Rice vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling internationally, and in some cases also illegal under Israeli law, illegal Jewish-resident-only West Bank settlements an obstacle to peace between Israelis and Palestinians. The USA government had held that view and Susan Rice prevented the UN Security Council from concurring with it . But that veto wasn't enough for Nathan Dodell. By changing the subject to what influence on individual action a film trailer has in the form of more speech or physical violence from the need to be responsible and to maintain a civil, respectful dialogue/discourse when speaking about sensitive subjects, such as religion, Dodell keeps blame for violence shifted away from yet another film, "The Innocence of Muslims," that once again claims that Islam imposes on its adherents inherently violent moral teachings that undermine its claims to be a religion of peace worthy of tolerance equivalent to Judaism and Christianity. The same message was expressed in the films "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" (28 million DVD copies distributed free with Sunday newspapers in September or October 2008 during the end of the USA presidential campaign) and "Islam: What the World [West] Needs To Know" produced by Moriah Films [Quixotic Media], [not] affiliated with the anti-prejudice organization Simon Wiesenthal Center, that was screened at the Landmark E St. theater in Washington, DC.
Dodell's latest attempt at conflating his political disagreement with alleging incompetence to perform job duties is below with a link as well. I include the full text and a link in case the link dies.
[Update Oct 18,2012: There is a film with a similar name produced by Quixotic Media called "Islam: What the West Needs to Know" with links available for online viewing at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0818682/ and http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781. Some confusion about the title emerges here http://ourbeaconforum.com/cgi-bin/bbs60x/webbbs_config.pl/md/read/id/314123119173783 as well as in my own recall, apparently incorrect, of seeing a print newspaper ad for a showing of as expressed in an earlier edition of this blog post. My point remains true that "The Innocence of Muslims" trailer was not the first time that a film had been released claiming that Islam is not worthy of the same tolerance as Judaism or Christianity because of alleged inherently violent teachings imposed on Muslims. Repeated documentary film attacks on one's religion can make almost anyone angry enough to raise their voice, fist or weapon. The degree of powerlessness one feels that their message will not be heard and heeded often is the deciding factor in whether angry speech turns violent or not.]
Dodell's latest attempt at conflating his political disagreement with alleging incompetence to perform job duties is below with a link as well. I include the full text and a link in case the link dies.
On "Morning Joe" on Sept 17 [2012], Joe Scarborough repeatedly and emphatically said that the anti-Islam film was an "excuse" for rampant violence by Islamist extremists who hate us. Contrariwise, our U.N. Ambassador, Susan Rice, told "This Week" on Sept. 16 that violence was the "direct result" of the film.
In short, Rice blamed the filmmaker and effectively exonerated the perpetrators of the violence. Scarborough, correctly, put the blame where it belongs, on those who don't realize that the response to speech is more speech, and not violence.
Susan Rice's comments were an insult to America and a blatant defense of our enemies, the Islamist extremists.
Rice should not be purporting to serve our nation. She should resign forthwith, or be fired by President Obama.
Nathan Dodell
Rockville
