Picture by hughelectronic

Michael Hayden wrote an article in the Washington Post today that I take exception to. The title of the article is "Defenders At Risk", but the subtitle is "How Blame Games Are Costing Spy Agencies". Then he proceeds to play the blame game. Hayden cites the case of a candidate for the position of Undersecretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis. The candidate, Phil Mudd, withdrew his name from consideration "…Rather than go through what promised to be a painful and distracting public confirmation process" Mudd realized that he would have to answer questions about his involvement with some of the "torture tactics" employed by the Bush administration during the period of 2002 to 2005.

As "the deputy director of CIA’s Counter-Terrorism Center and its chief analyst at the height of the agency’s counterattack against al-Qaeda — those first years after Sept. 11, 2001," I would probably first ask Phil Mudd if he’d worked with Valerie Plame, or what contact he may have had with her or to that case, even if tangential. One would certainly want to know whether he had any part in outing a covert CIA operative who, coincidentally, was involved in counter-proliferation efforts when she was outed by the very administration that both he and she worked for. I don’t remember hearing Mike Hayden or Phil Mudd doing much defending of her case when they worked for that same administration.

If he had no ties to the Plame Affair, well, maybe Phil Mudd is gay. If the government cannot defend all of the people who want to, who have tried to and would like to continue to try to defend this country, but are not permitted because they are gay, why the hell would Mike Hayden think we should decry the loss of Phil Mudd. Lt. Daniel Choi, the West Point graduate, likely was made for the job of translating from Arabic speech and documents, and therefore he has specific and much needed skills to devote to our anti-terrorism efforts. But he was summarily dismissed from the Army because he had the courage to tell the powers that be who he was. OTOH,

…Rather than go through the gantlet that we call the confirmation process, Phil decided to skip what he feared would be a "circus."

snip

He would not become the "meat in the sandwich," being badgered to answer what was his definition of torture, or whether he agreed with President Obama’s description that this had been a dark period in our history, or with the former vice president’s assertion that hundreds of lives had been saved, or with the speaker of the House’s judgment that they "mislead us all the time" or with my public statements that the CIA interrogation program produced valuable intelligence.

Never mind that Cheney announced the CIA’s perceived incompetence every chance he got while he served as VP. Cheney did it to excuse his creation of competing intelligence entities like the Office of Special Plans, so as to facilitate the manipulation of intelligence to skew it toward convincing the public that we must go to war with Iraq. Then the White House Iraq Group was formed in order to market the bogus intelligence that OSP produced. I don’t remember Michael Hayden or Phil Mudd complaining about any of this.

If you were still in a position of power, Phil Mudd probably would have that job you think he was made for. However, instead of blaming "the partisan beast" maybe you and Phil should be blaming your own failings and weaknesses for not being able to stand up and say who you really are. Maybe the reason your side lost the election was the fact that you saw no reason to follow the Constitution or our laws, or to allow yourselves to be held accountable for any infringements. Maybe you had such tunnel vision you didn’t know how far was too far, but some sunlight has now been let in, and apparently, you and Phil don’t like sunlight.

So I say to Michael Hayden, too bad, so sad, your guy did not get the job you thought he should get. Lots of people have not gotten the jobs for which they are well suited. In fact, I don’t know what is more of a threat to our security anymore, the economic disaster that the administration you served caused or international terrorists. But I do know that the unemployment rate is almost up to 10%, that we’ve lost a lot of our industrial sector, and that bailing out the financial sector started under your administration’s watch. Someone has been asleep at the wheel during your tenure, and I don’t appreciate your once again trying to stir up the fear factor with the final paragraph in your article.

Phil was a visible casualty of today’s atmosphere. There are other losses less visible. Pray that the safety of the republic is ultimately not among them.