Should a man with Negroponte's past be National Intelligence Director?

Bush has nominated John Dimitri Negroponte, currently U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, to be the first National Intelligence Director – the newly created head-or-at-least-overseer of all American intelligence agencies. Negroponte solemnly/smugly announced that this is the greatest challenge he has accepted in 40 years of government service.

Let’s look a little closer at those 40 years of government service.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Negroponte:

From David Corn’s column in The Nation, http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=2203, 5/10/04:

Do we really want this heartless, dishonest and amoral man running our national intelligence agencies?

He’d fit right in with the Attorney General who finds new ways to justify torture, and the Secretary of State who publically lies about aircraft hijacking warnings before 9/11.

Point taken, but still: Each presidential appointee comes before the Senate for confirmation separately. Is there no chance this particularly odious confirmation might be blocked? OK, maybe Negroponte is not “particularly odious” compared to Gonzalez or Rice, but remember, we’re talking about the first National Intelligence Director. He or she will set the tone for the office so long as it lasts – “institutional memory,” you know. If Negroponte gets the job, then unprincipled realpolitik will become (or, less charitably, remain) the default norm for all intelligence-gathering operations of the federal government. Can’t we do better?

If Negroponte is confirmed, a lot of Central American countries we’ve worked hard to get on our side won’t like it. From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/aplatin_story.asp?category=1102&slug=Negroponte%20Central%20America:

To this day Negroponte denies that atrocities in Central America were committed and if they were, he didn’t know anything about it. His constant denials, even though he himself was charged with human rights violations by the Honduras Commission on Human Rights, earned him the nickname “ostrich ambassador”.

“But that is in the past” as many right-wingers retort, wanting to send all the dead down the memory hole and fell good about the current leaders that they elected.

Ok, So what about calling this guy an incompetent based on what it is happening today?

Can he explain to how the occupation authority of the USA lost 9 billion dollars?

Can he explain what the heck Bernard Kerik did that made him leave Iraq suddenly?

Is the Ostrich striking again?

And is this the best Bush can find?

I said it before: in a time of war, counting on an ideologue for intelligence is to set us up for more disasters in the future.

Oh, no.

Leftists are against President Bush’s choice of an appointed official.

This is truly a shock.

It is more shocking to see that no evidence will even make you wonder why the heck we should trust the administration with the security of the Nation.

Now more than ever, we should demand better from this administration.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” – Wendell Phillips

Short answer: NO

That’s clever Bricker. BrainGlutton and GIGObuster offer an extensive outline of why they think Negroponte might be a poor choice for a job. And your response is to off-handedly chuckle at the wacky liberals. Should we assume then that Negroponte’s record can’t actually be defended?

Last I checked, it was BrainGlutton making the assertion, not Bricker. Therefore it should be BrainGlutton that offers the burden of proof about Negroponte’s character, not Bricker.

So far all I’ve seen from him in this thread are a criminal charge for which he was never convicted, and “a large body of circumstancial evidence” presented by his political enemies in the same fashion that John Kerry’s record in Vietnam was revealed by HIS political enemies during the election. It was utter bullshit when it happened in the election, and it’s bullshit now.

I think a better question would be whether the establishment of a Director of Intelligence is legitimate at all.

BrainGlutton posted a lot of material to support his point though. Bricker basically responded with a roll-eyes, which is neither interesting, informative or even entertaining.

Maybe, but even if Negroponte didn’t know about the abuses of the Hondoran gov’t, I would say that BrainGlutton’s links show that he should have known. Do we really want a guy that neglected to stay informed on the actions of the gov’t he was supposed to be keeping tabs on to be in charge of all intellegence gathering operations for the U.S.

Also, even if Negroponte is as an excellent gatherer of intellegence and quite innocent of the things he’s accused of, the fact is that he’s widely preceived as being involved in some of the intellegence communities worse abuses. Given the distrust that the world and the U.S. populace already has of the CIA, NSA, etc. can we really not find someone in the vast federal gov’t who is both qualified to be chief spymaster and not closely linked, rightly or wrongly, with the worst past abuses of the intelligence community.

I would imagine that has already been discussed in several other threads.

I called bullshit on the swifters too, and to be fair, I also called bullshit on the Bush service papers case. What the Truth commisions of Hondura and El Salvador found was no bullshit.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/

And before you complain that is not a good cite, consider that I can say that it conforms to what I learded from that period and it also conforms to the truth comissions of El Salvador and Honduras.

I do think that Bush already knows where Negroponte is coming from, Bush is indeed telling everyone the contempt he has for this new office.

I just don’t know. If he is as horrible as you make him out to be, and you people just being nobody’s* in a message board, how on earth can the Senate even come close to confirming him?

I reserve my judgement. Most of this will come out during confirmation, if he makes it that far. He did get a 95 to 3 vote for his current position.

All i see is “critics claim” such-and-such.

Of course the bush-hater-ites (did I just make that term up?) want to take it as solemn truth and beat any bushista over the head with it. Just as the Bush supporters did the same to Kerry every chance they got.

I’m sure you can understand why credibility is so tenuous in political debates even here.

*no offense intended

Well, Well ( :)) you realize this applies to you too, no? In any case, IMO the senate confirms guys like this because they are as lazy as the so-called liberal media. They never do a good job in cases like this, (having only one media outlet showing how untrustworthy one guy is is as good as saying it never happened) however, the truth commissions did happen and are independent of me or any poster on this message board. It is sad but true that guys like Bernard Kerik (IMO even his confirmation was assured) can be approved by the Senate for this or any administration as long as only a few media outlets remain on the case.

[The Tick] ‘None comprehended’ [/The Tick]

Oh no, Bricker has nothing substantive to add to the thread other than a driveby. I really SHOULD be a sincere shock…

No, it’s just that Bricker has run out of energy. How often must I point out what should be obvious flaws to a neutral observer?

No ambassador decides the amount of aid delivered to the country he’s assigned to. That decision comes from Congress. No ambassador decides US foreign policy. That decision comes from the State Department and the President. An ambassador’s job is to execute the policy. Assuming Mr. Negroponte was involved in carrying out President Reagan’s policy of “crushing the Sandinista government,” that was a proper role, not in the least illegal.

Human rights in Honduras my have suffered during this time, but they did not suffer because Mr. Negroponte abused anyone, or because Mr. Negroponte did anything illegal.

Now, I’ve quoted a paragraph and refuted the accusing innuendo it contains.

I’m not going to do the same for the remaining paragraphs, especially because the OP lifted them from other sources and didn’t spend the effort that I would typing my own material.

It’s easier to post a general dismissal and trust that the reader can readily identify the flaws in the original attack.

However, if someone wants to post a substantive and specific accusation of wrongdoing against the man, I’ll respond.

Bricker automatically jumps to the defense of any and all Bush appointees and actions, no matter how odious. Let’s examine the depths to which you have to debase yourself to do so this time, shall we?

No “may have” about it. You know it’s true as well as the rest of us, so kindly cut the crap. Human rights abuses in Honduras, and elsewhere in Latin America, did suffer because of Reagan Administration policies and actions. A member of an administration who cannot accommodate himself to its policies and actions resigns. Compare that to Negroponte’s actions.

Only in your dreams, and for that matter only in your dream that legal rules apply in the court of public opinion. Once again it is necessary to remind you that we’re discussing politics, not law.

Since we are discussing propriety rather than legality, politics rather than law, “dignity and honor” rather than pettifogging technicalities, and the “substantive and specific accusations” of impropriety, political inadequacy, and indignity dishonor were right in the OP, perhaps you can get yourself on topic and show us what your automatic defense of those charges might be.
Is this really the best Bush can do? Is he really the most appropriate and effective appointee he could come up with?

This is an excellent example of why I dismissed the OP as leftist babyish whining. Of course you believe that Reagan’s foreign policy in Latin America was a dismal failure, and that the only moral course for a Reagan appointee was to resign. That’s not a view I share, and it’s not a view that history credits. (I grant that YOUR view of history is different than mine; I’d say, however, that objective measures seem to trend towards my side - by ‘objective measures,’ I mean that standard hated by leftists of your stripe: popular approval.)

I’m happy to discuss political realities. Mr. Negroponte will be overwhelmingly confirmed. Period. Ha. Ha. Ha.

Should a man of any man’s past be allowed to be anything?

And I already mentioned why people like this get confirmed, and it requires people who never demand better of his elected officials. Negroponte is a blind follower of policies that also included sticking the head in the sand, that may be appropriate* for the places he was managing the policy. (Honduras and Iraq) But ostrich behavior is something that is not needed now for this new position. His eventual confirmation only shows to me political reality as usual, but as Bernard Kerik showed (forget it: he was dismissed not just for the nanny) some people can make a difference and at least make the bastards sweat, and also to make sure that everybody knows what kind of people we are allowing to be approved for positions that should be important.

*If appropriate dealing with the Sandinistas from Nicaragua also meant not making a public peep of massacring Salvadorians or dumping nuns out to sea from helicopters. But typically they confused targets like they continue to do so. (lets attack Iraq since we missed Bin Laden)