CounterPunch supports the Floyd Rebellion and Black Lives Matter.
Please consider supporting an organization working on police accountability, additional resources on the movement and how you can get involved can be found here.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

A New John Ratcliffe or the Same Old Story?

Photograph Source: Office of Congressman John Ratcliffe – Public Domain

Last summer, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats was forced to resign because of his assessments of Russia and North Korea that opposed the personal and political views of Donald Trump.  The removal of Coats meant there was no longer a member of the national security team willing to contradict the views of the president.  For the past year, moreover, as a result of the purge of intelligence personnel, the top two positions in the Office of the DNI and the Department of Homeland Security were occupied by “acting” officials who had not received congressional confirmation.

Last month, the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maquire, was forced to resign because he permitted his deputy to brief the congressional intelligence committees on a continued Russian interference campaign against U.S. governance.  On both occasions, Trump selected a loyalist from the House of Representatives, John Ratcliffe (R/TX), to serve as the director of national intelligence.  Last year, there was bipartisan opposition to Ratcliffe; this month he will be easily confirmed on the basis of a strict party line vote.  What happened?

Ratcliffe was denied a hearing a year ago because he had no national security experience and made false claims in his resume in order to create the impression of experience.  Ratcliffe had falsely claimed on his website that he “arrested over 300 illegal immigrants in a single day” and had “put terrorists” in prison.  In actual fact, Ratcliffe had not tried a single terrorism case during his time as a U.S. federal prosecutor in Texas.

Since the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in the wake of the 9/11 intelligence failure, the office has never been led by someone with no national security or international relations experience.  The support for Ratcliffe from Senator Susan Collins (R/ME) is particularly stunning because she co-wrote the law that created the DNI.

Trump has no stronger loyalist in the House of Representatives than Ratcliffe, who was particularly hostile to Robert Mueller, the former special counsel, during hearings in July 2019, and very aggressive in defending Trump in this year’s impeachment process.  At last week’s confirmation hearings by the Senate intelligence committee, Ratcliffe continued to defend Trump’s positions on various issues, including Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.  The chairman of the committee, Senator Richard Burr (R/TX), who considered Ratcliffe much too political for the position of DNI in 2019, suddenly found him “incredibly transparent” and determined he was “more than capable” of being DNI.  What happened?

If anything, Ratcliffe appears to be more of a loyalist now than he was a year ago.  When Senator Tom Cotton (R/AR) argued the specious line from Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that the novel coronavirus could not have originated in a public market, Ratcliffe agreed.  When Cotton, the strongest Trump loyalist in the Senate, pressed Ratcliffe to agree that the president is allowed to set intelligence priorities, Ratcliffe signed on.  Of course, the president can set analytical or covert priorities in the field of intelligence, but Ratcliffe needed to acknowledge the importance of the overall intelligence process.

Well, there has been one major change since the initial nomination of Ratcliffe and that would be the newly vulnerable position of the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Richard Burr.  We learned in April that Burr sold $1.7 million in stocks shortly after receiving a sensitive briefing from the intelligence community about the pandemic and shortly before the stock market crash.  Burr went from someone who had a low-volume trading history to someone who unloaded a significant portion of his net worth.  The matter is now being investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee.

I have some experience with this kind of congressional cowardice.  When I was testifying to the Senate intelligence committee in 1991 to block the confirmation of Robert Gates as director of central intelligence, there were three prominent Democrats (John Glenn, Alan Cranston, and Dennis DeConcini) who were clearly opposed to confirming Gates but voted to do so because of their own ethical issues in the Senate and their fear of punishment.  These senators had received campaign funding from Charles Keating, a central figure in the multibillion-dollar savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s.

The vice chairman of the Ethics Committee, moreover, was Warren Rudman, who sat on the intelligence committee, and was the most aggressive cheerleader on behalf of Gates and the White House.  In any event, the Republican Senators circled the wagons on Gates’ behalf, and he was confirmed.  Once again, the Republicans are circling the wagons on behalf of the White House so that Ratcliffe will be confirmed.

As a former whistleblower regarding the politicization of intelligence at the Central Intelligence Agency in the 1980s, I am particularly sensitive to Ratcliffe’s unwillingness to use his confirmation hearings to defend the laws that protect whistleblowers.  Senator Ron Wyden (D/OR) did his best to get some sign of support from Ratcliffe for whistleblowers, but had no success.  Ratcliffe would not have appeared in an impeachment process to display his support for the Trump presidency if it had not been for a courageous whistleblower from the CIA.

Nevertheless, the headlines of America’s two major newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times,” suggest that they too are willing to forgive and forget.  The Post headlined that “Ratcliffe vows independence if confirmed as spy chief,” and the Times trumpeted that “Ratcliffe Vows ‘Unvarnished Truth’ as Spy Chief.”  It seems that we have become so accustomed to the plethora of lies from the White House, that false statements on the Hill are not so meaningful.

More articles by:

Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University.  A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. and A Whistleblower at the CIA. His most recent book is “American Carnage: The Wars of Donald Trump” (Opus Publishing), and he is the author of the forthcoming “The Dangerous National Security State” (2020).” Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org.

Weekend Edition
June 05, 2020
Friday - Sunday
Jacob F. Lee – Matthew E. Stanley
Direct Action and the Rejection of Monumental History
Louis Proyect
Reflections on My COVID-19 Immunity
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mad Bull, Lost Its Way
Stanley L. Cohen
Everywhere is War
Louis Yako
America Has Always Been Burning with Racism: Who is the Enemy?
Jefferson Morley
Showdown on 16th Street
Eve Ottenberg
Killing Workers (and Customers) – With No Liability
Peter Linebaugh
Say Their Names!
Melvin Goodman
Trump’s War on Democracy
Paul Street
Dear History Students
Lola Allen
How Has Bolivia’s de Facto Regime Taken Advantage of COVID-19 to Consolidate Its Power and Repress Political Rivals?
Jonathan Cook
As US protests Show, the Challenge is How to Rise Above the Violence Inherent in State Power
Alvaro Huerta
Police Abuse in America’s Barrios
Ron Jacobs
Generals Are Not the People’s Ally
Daniel Warner
Resilience
Ramzy Baroud
‘Wolf Warrior Diplomacy’: Israel’s China Strategy in Peril
David Yearsley
Dam Nation and Woody Guthrie
Sam Husseini
The Barr Coup 
Richard C. Gross
Bunker Mentality
Pam Martens - Russ Martens
BlackRock is Bailing Out Its ETFs with Fed Money and Taxpayers Eating Losses; It’s Also the Sole Manager for $335 Billion of Federal Employees’ Retirement Funds
Marshall Auerback
The Battle Over Free Speech Online is a Volcano That’s Ready to Blow
David Rosen
Trump’s Election to Lose
Jack Rasmus
Confronting Institutional Racism
Joseph Natoli
Ubu Orange
Gary Olson
Jakarta: Force and Fraud at Home and Abroad. What’s Next?
Sister Karen M. Donahue
I’m Outraged by Trump’s Church Photo-Op
Jaelani Turner-Williams
Racism is a Public Health Crisis
Chuck Collins
As 42.6 Million Americans File for Unemployment, Billionaires Add Half a Trillion Dollars to Their Cumulative Wealth
Jill Richardson
It Doesn’t Matter Who Protested and Who “Rioted”
Richard Ward
A Matter of Focus
Colin Todhunter
Food and Agroecology: Coping with Future Shocks
Ariel Dorfman
Literature in Times of Turmoil
Russell Mokhiber
ICE Wants to Deport Marc Petitpierre to Switzerland
Liz Theoharis
Organizing the Rich or the Poor? Which America Will Be Ours After the Pandemic?
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Social Media Sucks for Reporting News
Denita Jones
Going Back to Work in a Pandemic
Tracey L. Rogers
A Tale of Two Americas
Paul Cantor
Thank You, Peaceful Protesters!
Susan Block
Sadistic Policing
Nicky Reid
Because Imperialists Rape: Anarcha-Feminism In the Ashes of the MeToo Era
Marilyn Bruya
Trump is the Looter to Worry About
Norman Solomon
Solidarity Includes Wearing a Mask at Protests
Kim C. Domenico
Misfit Redemption: Escape from the Cruelty of White Liberal Innocence
John Kendall Hawkins
The Coming Purge of Doppelgängers and the Palast Revolution
Stephen Cooper
America is Burning
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail