I was going to write about the absurdity of Sen. Lindsey Graham calling for the ouster of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper over remarks that Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi might prevail over the rebels, but Dan Drezner already did:
I kinda sorta understand the argument that Clapper shouldn't have said this in public, but not really. To have a quality debate about policy options on Libya, this kind of dispassionate analysis is crucial. Clapper's job description is to provide an assessment of what's actually occurring on the ground, regardless of what people want to happen on the ground. It's then up to policymakers to craft responses to try to alter or reinforce that situation as they see fit. Calling for Clapper's resignation because he provided what appears to be an accurate assessment of the current state of play seriously politicizes the job of intelligence analysis and assessment. Doesn't the past decade suggest that politicized intelligence leads to catastrophic foreign policymaking?
Graham is among the legions of Republicans who believe that former Bush administration lawyers like John Yoo and Jay Bybee who twisted the law to sanction the use of torturous interrogation techniques shouldn't have been investigated, because that would "have serious negative effects on the candor with which officials in any administration provide their best advice." How does that jibe with his view that Clapper should be fired for offering an honest assessment of what's happening in Libya?
As Drezner points out, the White House walked back Clapper's statements in response, which just empowers Republicans to stamp their feet until administration officials give them the policy assessments they want to hear. That's a pretty dumb response, especially since the political frame Republicans are seeking to establish here is that the administration could have intervened in Libya and made them a model for Western democracy just like Iraq if only Obama hadn't been too cowardly to act.
