SPONSORED BY:
Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images
Mudd at a Capitol Hill hearing on counterterrorism issues in 2004.

The Case Of The Disappearing Nominee

Why did Obama's candidate for a key intel job pull out?

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

Officials at the White House and in the intelligence community are baffled and disquieted by the sudden withdrawal of the Obama administration's nominee for the top intelligence job at the Department of Homeland Security.

In late April, President Obama announced his intention to nominate Philip Mudd, a career CIA officer who since 2005 had been a top counterterrorism official at the FBI, to become homeland-security undersecretary for intelligence and analysis. Confirmation hearings—possibly by two overlapping Senate committees—were expected to start in the near future.

On Friday, however, the White House and Mudd both issued statements saying that Mudd had decided to withdraw his name from consideration. The announcements were made less than a day after the Associated Press ran a story reporting that Mudd was likely to face questions about his involvement in the CIA's controversial interrogation and detention programs, which have been terminated by Obama.

In a statement announcing his withdrawal, Mudd expressed concern that he could become a political liability. "If I continue to move forward, I will become a distraction to the president and his vital agenda," he wrote. Nick Shapiro, a White House spokesman, said Obama had accepted Mudd's decision "with sadness and regret," adding: "The president believes that Phil Mudd would have been an excellent undersecretary for intelligence and analysis but understands his personal decision and the choice he has made."

Sean Smith, assistant secretary of homeland security for public affairs, said: "Phil Mudd would have been an outstanding undersecretary, and we are disappointed by his decision but accept it."

Two administration officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing a politically sensitive issue, said that Mudd was not pushed by the White House or other policymakers to withdraw from consideration for the job, which had previously been occupied by Charles Allen, himself a legendary former CIA officer.

The Homeland Security Department doesn't have a division specifically assigned to collect intelligence. The main responsibility of the office that Mudd would have led is to sort through dispatches from agencies with operatives in the field who do produce intelligence-related reporting—including such Homeland agencies as the Secret Service, the Coast Guard and various immigration agencies—looking for indications of possible terror threats to targets inside the United States.

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Visions of a Decade
Visions of a Decade

From 2000-2009, one photo per month.

The Failure of Copenhagen
The Failure of Copenhagen

Why there could be a silver lining in a failed climate treaty.

Sex Scandals of the 2000s
Sex Scandals of the 2000s

From John Edwards to Mark Sanford, the decade's memorable affairs.

118 Days in Hell
118 Days in Hell

A NEWSWEEK journalist recounts his captivity in Iran.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 06/08/2009 11:55:09 AM

    Being intelligent and having common sense are two different vastly things as his supporters are finding out. When it comes to intelligence vs. common sense I'll take the latter everytime!!!!

  • Posted By: mallika.e.lucknow @ 06/06/2009 9:25:15 PM

    With adequate political capital and good approval ratings, there is no reason for Obama to pander to liberal media and news commentators on MSNBC. I believe he is learning the ropes still. He is not granting private meetings to senior players like Graham and McCain anymore, who would slander the President in public after pretty photo-op sessions. Back in Feb during stimulus debates, Washington seemed aghast at Obama going overboard attending lunches and parties to look like 'one of the guys'. The bill would have passed nonetheless without serious obstruction-- I doubt if GOP would fillibuster the popular, newly sworn-in President's very first agenda item. Keeping GOP at bay while managing to appear 'bipartisan' looks like 'sound' strategy. He has just written a nice letter on health care to GOPers, who're looking to elevate themselves at Obama's expense as usual. I'm disappointed with his administration's policies though. His personality maybe appealling but I do not respect him as much for his inability to stick to his core principles. I'm just glad he has not touched NAFTA or employed significant protectionist measures. Gingrich types may very well prevail in their efforts to label him "weak" and "Carteresque" if he fails to govern from the centre. Which as it is will be tough with elephant sized egos by his side. I agree with the comment below-- that's all Hillary wanted. And the reason why she tolerated Bill's philandering. Could Hillary have Obama's best interests at heart? Not after a long bitter primary battle. She takes decisions independently and if you notice her jargon --it is always 'the Obama admin' as opposed to 'our admin'! Biden is the second albatross-his infamous gaffes began from day one whether justice roberts or so many such instances. Obama had no option there--he was the quintessential media candidate and Biden passed their qualification metric best.

  • Posted By: mallika.e.lucknow @ 06/06/2009 9:23:31 PM

    With adequate political capital and good approval ratings, there is no reason for Obama to pander to liberal media and news commentators on MSNBC. I believe he is learning the ropes still. He is not granting private meetings to senior players like Graham and McCain anymore, who would slander the President in public after pretty photo-op sessions. Back in Feb during stimulus debates, Washington seemed aghast at Obama going overboard attending lunches and parties to look like 'one of the guys'. The bill would have passed nonetheless without serious obstruction-- I doubt if GOP would fillibuster the popular, newly sworn-in President's very first agenda item. Keeping GOP at bay while managing to appear 'bipartisan' looks like 'sound' strategy. He has just written a nice letter on health care to GOPers, who're looking to elevate themselves at Obama's expense as usual. I'm disappointed with his administration's policies though. His personality maybe appealling but I do not respect him as much for his inability to stick to his core principles. I'm just glad he has not touched NAFTA or employed significant protectionist measures. Gingrich types may very well prevail in their efforts to label him "weak" and "Carteresque" if he fails to govern from the centre. Which as it is will be tough with elephant sized egos by his side. I agree with the comment below-- that's all Hillary wanted. And the reason why she tolerated Bill's philandering. Could Hillary have Obama's best interests at heart? Not after a long bitter primary battle. She takes decisions independently and if you notice her jargon --it is always 'the Obama admin' as opposed to 'our admin'! Biden is the second albatross-his infamous gaffes began from day one whether justice roberts or so many such instances. Obama had no option there--he was the quintessential media candidate and Biden passed their qualification metric best.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now