First This:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/12/after-early-administration-denials-director-of-national-intelligence-admits-he-hadnt-been-briefed-on.html

Quote :

"After Early Administration Denials, Director of National Intelligence Admits He Hadn’t Been Briefed on Alleged Terrorist Arrests in London After initially suggesting that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s inability to answer a question from ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer about the arrests of 12 suspected terrorists in London was because her question was too “ambiguous,” the Obama administration acknowledged Wednesday morning that retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Clapper had not been briefed about the arrests at the time of the interview. “Director Clapper had not yet been briefed on the arrests in the United Kingdom at the time of this interview taping,” said ODNI spokeswoman Jamie Smith in a statement. Clapper, she explained, had been “working throughout the day on important intelligence matters, including monitoring military and political developments on the Korean Peninsula, providing answers to questions concerning the ratification of the START nuclear treaty, and other classified issues. He wasn't immediately briefed on London because it didn't appear to have a homeland nexus and there was no immediate action by the DNI required. Nevertheless, he should have been briefed on the arrests, and steps have been taken to ensure that he is in the future. The intelligence community as a whole was fully aware of this development and tracking it closely.” Asked about Clapper not having been briefed on the arrests, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said "Jim Clapper is, I think, the consummate DNI. He was working on developments in the Korean Peninsula, in terms of political/military developments. He was focused on trying to provide support to the Congress as far as the START treaty deliberations were concerned. He was engaged in a variety of classified matters." Brennan continued: "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's coming out of the media. What he is doing is focusing on those intelligence issues that the president expects him to focus on and to make sure that we don't have conflict in different parts of the world." In Sawyer's interview with Clapper, Brennan, and Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Sawyer asked about arrests of 12 suspected terrorists in London earlier that day. The interview took place at 3:45 pm EST Monday; the arrests had taken place in the early morning in the US and had been covered on all the morning shows. "First of all, London," Sawyer said. "How serious is it? Any implication that it was coming here?" Clapper hesitated, not seeming to know what she was talking about, though the arrests had occurred literally hours before, with much media coverage of them. He looked to Brennan, who tried to explain. “You meant the arrests of the 12 individuals by the British early this morning,” Brennan said to Sawyer. “This is something that the British told us about early this morning when it was taking place.” Later in the interview, Sawyer told Clapper, "I was a little surprised you didn't know about London.” "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't," he said. Brennan tried to help his colleague, telling Sawyer “you referenced London but you didn’t talk about the arrests.” A DNI spokesperson later blamed Sawyer, saying her “question about this specific news development was ambiguous. The DNI's knowledge of the threat streams in Europe is profound and multi-dimensional, and any suggestion otherwise is inaccurate." But that tune changed as of Wednesday morning. -Jake Tapper"

And now this:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/02/director-of-national-intelligence-james-clapper-muslim-brotherhood-largely-secular.html

Quote :

"Director of National Intelligence James Clapper: Muslim Brotherhood "Largely Secular" Director of National Intelligence James Clapper raised some eyebrows today at a House Intelligence Committee hearing when he called described the Muslim Brotherhood as a “largely secular” organization. “The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood,’” Clapper said, “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.” The U.S. State Department's Background Note on Egypt describes the Muslim Brotherhood as a "potent political and religious force." "The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, remains an illegal organization and is not recognized as a political party (current Egyptian law prohibits the formation of political parties based on religion)," according to the State Department. Clapper also raised eyebrows last December when it was clear he had not been briefed on terror arrests in London before an interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_National_Intelligence

The Director of National Intelligence (DNI), is the United States government official subject to the authority, direction and control of the President, who is responsible under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 for:
-Serving as the principal adviser to the President, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters related to national security;
-Serving as the head of the sixteen-member Intelligence Community; and
-Overseeing and directing the National Intelligence Program.

Now, we understand there was a major problem with the intelligence community as it related to what we knew and when we knew it re: Sept 11, 2001.

And I thought the government (both Administrations) were supposed to fix this problem.

It's clear that this man is either not utilizing his people/resources well enough to do his job correctly or doesn't care about his job.

Either way, it's time to get a new one...with some Intelligence.

[Edited on February 10, 2011 at 10:16 PM. Reason : first link]

2/10/2011 10:15:57 PM

2/10/2011 10:43:45 PM

I've heard many well-respected people refer to the muslim brotherhood as a mostly secular organization and not a cleric run one

2/11/2011 12:35:37 AM

I'd honestly like to know how Obama picked some of these guys. As time passes, Obama's inexperience becomes increasingly obvious. Some of his appointments have been very poor, and I don't know whether to attribute that fact to his lack of meaningful real world connections or simply bad decision making.

2/11/2011 12:46:19 AM

the problem is that its a bullshit position with no authority that no one in the intelligence community wants or likes, not that obama picked the guy that's in it.

2/11/2011 12:48:18 AM

Amazing as it sounds, given the astronomical budgets involved, our intelligence agencies really do have to prioritize their resources - for fiscal reasons but also due to things like presidential directives and congressional oversight. As a result, these agencies are often caught focusing all their attention and resources on the issue du jour while major developments in other areas fly basically under the radar. I have no doubt whatsoever that, until a few weeks ago, political unrest in North Africa was very close to the bottom of the list of concerns for the conglomerate of agencies that supposedly report to the DNI. Before the revolutions, our only interest in the region was CT-related.

So it doesn't surprise me that some of the top political appointees have seemed more or less clueless.

[Edited on February 11, 2011 at 9:07 AM. Reason : ]

2/11/2011 9:03:50 AM

Calling them secular was a pretty big choke. That being said, I don't think they are a group that should necessarily be feared, and I definitely don't think the US needs to intervene in any attempt to keep them from coming to power (in a fair election).

this is the best rundown I have seen of their history and what they stand for:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/who-is-the-muslim-brotherhood?page=1

2/11/2011 9:38:49 AM

Or you could read Paul Berman's excellent Terror and Liberalism.

Oh, and down he goes.

Oh, and now the military is in control. So, now that the easy part is over...

[Edited on February 11, 2011 at 11:14 AM. Reason : ]

2/11/2011 11:13:39 AM

Quote :

"the problem is that its a bullshit position with no authority that no one in the intelligence community wants or likes, not that obama picked the guy that's in it."

I second this comment. The position sounds good on paper, but in reality, it's pretty much a cursed appointment; why do you think it has such a horrible turnover rate ever since its creation? They don't have the authority or the budget to truly control the intelligence agencies. The DNI is a sort of beggar king that has to go hat in hand to get analyst resources from the intelligence agencies since it lacks its own analysis capabilities, and those agencies aren't going to give up their best and brightest to the DNI especially when they can go directly to the President or their Cabinet Secretary instead. The CIA in particular is still pretty pissed that the DCI was bumped from its position as king of the IC by the DNI. So I'm not surprised that the DNI is clueless on half this stuff.

2/11/2011 3:49:28 PM

Dude...that description makes up about 90% of the entire federal government.

2/12/2011 9:46:04 PM

is that your witty way of saying that the statement is inaccurate?

2/12/2011 10:47:59 PM

Nope.

I agree with you...it's a BS job. But if it is, why does the Administration keep putting the guy out there to tell the rest of the world that the Administration HAS NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE REST OF THE WORLD.

Why don't they just fire him and shut down the DNI?

Again...goes back to the 90% thing I said.

2/13/2011 12:18:01 AM

well for one, a lot of people passed on the job because they recognize how stupid of a position it is and also there is no way the public can handle removing the position. people in this country love feel-good actions that do little to actually increase our safety or security. i mean i still can't take a sprite through security at the airport, there is no way they are getting rid of the position that is supposed to promote interaction between intelligence agencies to prevent another 9/11. just think about how that would be spun on talk radio.

2/13/2011 12:39:30 AM