Two Strikes for Clapper
A look at who is looking out for us... with Mike Walker, Colonel USMC (retired)
All,
Our Director of National Intelligence is becoming more and more unintelligible. On 10 February 2011 he argued too long that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is "largely secular." First, we will ignore the obvious connection, as Director Clapper apparently did, that the word "Muslim" in Muslim Brotherhood stressed the importance of a sincere faith in God but instead implied some self-serving hyperbole or archaic leftover on the part of the good Egyptian brothers.
Even given that shallow excuse, how could James Clapper speak with such certain ignorance in a public hearing? For if what Director Clapper averred is to be believed then the words "largely" and "secular" have no meaning.
Here are a few quotes from the Muslim Brotherhood's Official English website (http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=813):
"Ever since the Egyptian people in is (sic) majority, along with other African and Asian peoples, embraced Islam in the deep-seated conviction that it is a true religion revealed to a true Prophet by the lord of Mankind, Islam has fully and totally arranged the life and all activities of those peoples. The two basic sources of Islam are the Glorious Qur"an and the Sunnah which is both a theoretical explanation and a practical application of the Glorious Qur"an."
Gee, is that a "largely secular" statement, Mr. Clapper? If so, how about this quote:
"The call of the Muslim Brotherhood was based on two key pillars:
1-The introduction of the Islamic Shari`ah as the basis controlling the affairs of state and society.
2-Work to achieve unification among the Islamic countries and states, mainly among the Arab states, and liberating them from foreign imperialism."
Still largely secular, James? How about this:
"As for the first pillar, about 97% of the Egyptian people are Muslims, the majority of the Egyptian people are Muslims, the majority of whom perform the rites of worship enjoined by Islam. They abide by the Islamic ethics and apply to themselves to most of the rules whose enforcement does not require any government intervention or license. But legislation, the judiciary and economic and social dealings are founded on non-Islamic bases, thus creating a state of alienation between the people’s creed, on the one side, and their forms of activity which are governed by rules that contradicted their creed, on the other. The lack of any connection between the policies of the authorities in power and the legislations, on the one hand, and the Islamic Shari`ah on the other, led to the emergence of many social, economic, and political practices that are invalid under the Islamic shari`ah. It was incumbent on the Muslim Brotherhood in such a situation to adopt a system for sound Islamic education and the spreading of Islamic principles and ethics as well as the education of the Muslim individual, family, and society into commitment to Islamic ethics and principles."
Gee, that reads like a "largely secular" government is the problem and an exclusively "non-secular" form of government is the solution for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Director Clapper needs to do more than "clarify" his words. The crisis in Egypt is of great import to the United States. Our intelligence community, led by Director Clapper, has the responsibility to accurately present the facts to the American people. Mr. Clapper failed miserably in that regard during his remarks to Congress on the Muslim Brotherhood.
There is an old rule in the intelligence business; if you lose your credibility then you lose everything. Director Clapper was profoundly wrong in a matter of urgent national importance. "Clarifying" is disingenuous and a disservice.
OK, so we should be easy on the good fellow, right? No. Perhaps you recall this previous "Clapper fiasco" as recounted during CNN's 22 December 2010 Situation Room broadcast:
"BLITZER: But if the structure of America's intelligence (inaudible) organization is at the center of the new controversy. The national director of intelligence James Clapper in an interview this week that was televised, he was asked about a terror-related arrest in Britain which had occurred 12 hours earlier. The news was all over the TV networks, but Clapper had no idea. How could that be? CNN's Brian Todd is digging deeper for us tonight. Brian?
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, this is being called a simple glitch by Clapper's staff and not reflective of his work as DNI, but that glitch led the man who leads 16 intelligence agencies to be very embarrassed in front of network TV cameras.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TODD: If you were watching CNN or any other news network on Monday, you may have known about this -- the arrests of 12 men in Britain allegedly plotting a terror attack. You may have known about it, but on Monday afternoon, several hours after the arrests, the U.S. director of national intelligence did not know when asked during an ABC interview.
DIANE SAWYER, ABC NEWS: London -- how serious is it? Any implication that it was coming here, any of the things that they have seen were coming here? Director Clapper?
BRENNAN: The arrests of the 12 by the British this morning...
(CROSSTALK)
BRENNAN: And this is something that the British informed us about early this morning.
TODD: White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan quickly jumped in, but ABC's Diane Sawyer later came back to Clapper, who oversees 16 intelligence agencies.
SAWYER: I was a little surprised you didn't know about London, Director Clapper.
JAMES CLAPPER, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Well, I'm sorry. I didn't.
TODD: The DNI's office called Sawyer's first question confusing and ambiguous. Brennan said before that interview, Clapper had been working on developments on the Korean peninsula and the START treaty.
BRENNAN: Should he have been briefed by his staff on those arrests? Yes. And I know there was breathless attention by the media about these arrests, and it was constantly on the news networks. I'm glad that Jim Clapper is not sitting in front of the TV 24 hours a day and monitoring what comes out of the media.
TODD (on camera): What do you make of that comment? Backspin?
OK, here's where we are at, Clapper Strike 1 is dismissed as a "glitch."
Clapper Strike 2 is dismissed as just needing "clarification."
Are we going to wait around until Strike 3 before we realize the wrong guy is in the job?
Right now, I have more faith in the "clapper light switch" than DNI James Clapper. The sales pitch "clap on-clap off" is somewhat credible while Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is not. He seems to be operating more on a mindset of "wishful thinking" than an analysis of the cold hard facts. That is the path to disaster.
Semper Fi,
Mike
