July 23, 2018
By Pierre Atlas
With the German consul general from Chicago seated in the audience, (click here) Coats reminisced about those trying times and noted the tremendous support that Germany, a longstanding ally and fellow NATO member, had given the United States in its moment of dire need. The Islamist terror cell that attacked us was based in Hamburg, and as ambassador, Coats helped to coordinate the security and intelligence response in Germany.
NATO was founded in 1949 as a military alliance to hold off Soviet aggression and to keep Europe free and democratic. Article 5 of its charter establishes the principle of collective security: an attack on one member will be considered an attack on all members. Article 5 has been invoked only once — not in response to Russian aggression in Europe, but after the United States was attacked on 9/11. As the World Trade Center smoldered, the German Air Force flew combat air patrols over America’s eastern seaboard. NATO forces have been fighting alongside our troops in Afghanistan since 2001, with thousands being killed or wounded in action. NATO members are America’s truest allies.
I couldn’t help but think of Coats last week, as President Donald Trump publicly attacked Germany and brazenly sought to undermine the trans-Atlantic alliance at the NATO Summit in Brussels. I wondered, what must our former ambassador to Germany, now serving as Trump’s director of national intelligence, be thinking?
In his 2015 address at Marian, then-Sen. Coats, a traditional conservative Republican, also offered a blistering critique of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy. He said Obama did not take a strong enough stance against Russian leader Vladimir Putin after Russia invaded Ukraine, and that this sent the wrong signal to Putin. At the time, some people may have dismissed Coats’ comments as simply partisan sniping one year before the 2016 presidential election. But this week, it became clear to everyone that Coats puts country above party....
I think his views on Russia are clear.
January 5, 2017
by Brian Naylor
In choosing Coats, (click here) he is getting a veteran Washington establishment figure — a senator, former lobbyist and ambassador to Germany — with a rare distinction: being banned from Russia.
Coats' views on Russia after its annexation of Crimea, and his calls for stronger sanctions as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, landed him and other senators on Russia's banned list.
It's a major difference with the president-elect, who has praised Putin and cast doubt on U.S. intelligence conclusions that the Russian government, sought to help President-elect Donald Trump's election chances.
Coats even mocked Russia with a David Letterman-style top 10 list on Twitter in 2014:...
I understand there is a conflict of information in the Special Council's report regarding the Director of Intelligence and his staff about an incident that seems to alarm him and concerned his staff.
That doesn't worry me. It doesn't worry me because Dan Coats has a rather important and difficult job.
If I may?
I don't know first hand what it is to be Director of National Intelligence. I can imagine though. The job isn't simple and it has to be similar to working in a mist of information all the time. Sort of like breathing. We use oxygen, but, the oxygen is mixed with all sorts of gases, but, yet it is the oxygen our lungs bring into our metabolism. I think the information that intelligence uses is similar to that. Being director of that intelligence is more or less a place where the absolutely most important information is garnered with brevity.
I think Dan Coats is focused on the country and what is going on that seeks to undermine it. I am sure when he was summoned to speak with the Special Council he honestly didn't recall the same event his staff would have remembered. I really think his job requires so much focus that he simply dismisses events that interfere with his priorities. While he may have been upset, it probably washed away with his discussions with staff. I doubt he is impaired from performing his responsibilities.
In this case, I think it is more important to give greater brevity to Dan Coats staff than the man himself. I think the staff is concerned for their Director and remember things like an upset moment far better than he remembers it himself.
If this is the reason the Special Council left wiggle room in the report, it is because Dan Coats testimony would be given greater weight by STATUS than his staff. That has to be sorted out by the Congress.
I think his views on Russia are clear.
January 5, 2017
by Brian Naylor
In choosing Coats, (click here) he is getting a veteran Washington establishment figure — a senator, former lobbyist and ambassador to Germany — with a rare distinction: being banned from Russia.
Coats' views on Russia after its annexation of Crimea, and his calls for stronger sanctions as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, landed him and other senators on Russia's banned list.
It's a major difference with the president-elect, who has praised Putin and cast doubt on U.S. intelligence conclusions that the Russian government, sought to help President-elect Donald Trump's election chances.
Coats even mocked Russia with a David Letterman-style top 10 list on Twitter in 2014:...
I understand there is a conflict of information in the Special Council's report regarding the Director of Intelligence and his staff about an incident that seems to alarm him and concerned his staff.
That doesn't worry me. It doesn't worry me because Dan Coats has a rather important and difficult job.
If I may?
I don't know first hand what it is to be Director of National Intelligence. I can imagine though. The job isn't simple and it has to be similar to working in a mist of information all the time. Sort of like breathing. We use oxygen, but, the oxygen is mixed with all sorts of gases, but, yet it is the oxygen our lungs bring into our metabolism. I think the information that intelligence uses is similar to that. Being director of that intelligence is more or less a place where the absolutely most important information is garnered with brevity.
I think Dan Coats is focused on the country and what is going on that seeks to undermine it. I am sure when he was summoned to speak with the Special Council he honestly didn't recall the same event his staff would have remembered. I really think his job requires so much focus that he simply dismisses events that interfere with his priorities. While he may have been upset, it probably washed away with his discussions with staff. I doubt he is impaired from performing his responsibilities.
In this case, I think it is more important to give greater brevity to Dan Coats staff than the man himself. I think the staff is concerned for their Director and remember things like an upset moment far better than he remembers it himself.
If this is the reason the Special Council left wiggle room in the report, it is because Dan Coats testimony would be given greater weight by STATUS than his staff. That has to be sorted out by the Congress.
