Maybe A Clue On James Clapper

By Semperpapa

There may be some sort of a clue in regard to the oddity demonstrated by the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in the last few months.

In December 2010, James Clapper stated in an interview with Diane Sawyer that he was not aware of the several arrests just made in England of Islamic terrorists and the foiling of their terrorist plans. Even the partisan Sawyer was taken back by the lack of briefing that Clapper was displaying. The interview, which also had Janet Napolitano and John Brennan, Obama’s counter-terrorist czar, on the panel, highlighted some aspects of disconnect among those who are allegedly in charge of protecting American security.

Following the exchange with Sawyer, calls for the stepping down of Clapper came from several sources, all practically ignored by the administration.

But the show must go on, so Clapper remained in his position and stepped back under the radar of public attention. Keeping the American people dumb is a masterful ability for this regime.

Clapper did not re-surfaced again until February when, as the events in Egypt were unfolding, he testified in front of a House Committee that the Muslim Brotherhood was a mostly “secular” entity in that country.

This was the answer he gave Rep. Sue Myrick from North Carolina:

“The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’…is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam. They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera…..In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.”

Definitely an assessment that is in diametrical contrast with every notion about the Muslim Brotherhood and the activities that the radical group has been conducting since 1928 and even statements from members of the MB.

Even at that time, the DHS and the White House downplayed Clapper’s statements and moved on, until the next time. The next time is here.

During a testimony in front of the Senate Armed Forces Committee last week, James Clapper made two statements that created a new controversy.

In one, he stated that the Libyan leader Col. Qaddafi will, in the long term, prevail in retaining power in the North African country, assessment that is different from the message that has been emanated by the White House.

The administration, via Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor, was quick in its attempt to repair the damages of the testimony by classifying Clapper’s opinion as a static and one-dimensional, whatever that means.

The second controversy was generated when Clapper identified Russia and China as the top two countries representing mortal danger for the United States.

Senators were taken back by the testimony, many, including Graham, Feinstein and Levin, in disagreement with the identification of those nations as enemies. Graham even called for an immediate firing of Clapper.

Sen. McCain and Lieberman disagreed with Graham on the call, supporting that they feel Clapper is doing a good job.

Graham’s call for the firing or resignation of Clapper gives me pause, though. If Graham wants the man gone, there has to be something about this official that makes him uncomfortable, which means that the DNI must be doing something well.

In the previous two incidents, especially the Muslim Brotherhood issue, I was one who would have liked to see the man sent to pasture, but on the issue of Libya and China and Russia, I am more inclined to see a little clearer into Clapper’s actions.

James Clapper is an intelligence official, a former Military who, although surely contaminated by the “political” disease, appears to be detached enough from the administration agenda to occasionally be at odds with it.

A creeping thought has started to make its way in my assessment of James Clapper. What if the man is trying to send a distress signal to the rest of the country of the total lack of clarity and competence of the administration handling of foreign policy?

What this whole thing looks like is that the Obama’s right hand does not know what the left hand is doing, and the Clapper mess appears to be underlining that image.

The administration response to events across the planet does not seem to be guided by principled analysis, but it almost appears to be led by a wait-and-see approach that demonstrates the non-committal posture of this president. Wait and see how events unfold, see who is winning and who is losing and than make some tepid statement directed to pacify the electorate in the United States. Basically, keep track of how many people are slaughtered and call me on the golf course after you check how the lunatic leftist fringe is reacting. And then nothing more than few empty words from Obama and Clinton. Vote present.

Reports from Libya tell us that the regulars and mercenaries of Qaddafi are pounding the rebel forces into retreat, while Obama tells in a press conference that the “noose is tightening around Qaddafi’s neck.”

Well, which is it? Then again, is this what Clapper is trying to emphasize?

I would not be at all surprised if James Clapper will sort of disappear in the infinite crevices of the federal government. It is already clear that he is not kept fully informed of the White House “official” position on foreign matters before he is thrown to the wolves.

All these games may make for a good espionage novel, but as lives are lost and the security of our Nation is jeopardized, they only make for additional contempt for the so-called political leadership.

Just my thoughts!