Gina Haspel’s nomination to lead the CIA has passed out of the Senate Intelligence Committee, but several red state Democrats are still refusing to say how they’ll vote on her confirmation. But as Senate Democrats continue their attempt to block Haspel’s nomination, it’s becoming increasingly clear they are withholding their support to score cheap political points from the far-left.
Gina Haspel, who would be the first woman to head the CIA, is a tremendously well-qualified nominee with decades of experience at the agency. Haspel already serves as acting director of the CIA and has even won the support of Obama-era officials. After receiving support from countless members of the intelligence community, editorial boards and national security experts across the country are calling for Haspel’s swift confirmation as CIA Director.
In Case You Missed It…
New York Post: Gina Haspel’s hypocritical critics
A 30-year veteran already serving as acting CIA chief, Haspel would be the first woman to lead the agency and the first director in decades who’s spent her entire career there. She has the enthusiastic support of pretty much anyone who’s ever worked with her, including several top Obama officials who are now loudly anti-Trump. READ
USA Today: Confirm Gina Haspel as CIA director. Why oppose her nomination?
Without question, Gina Haspel is unequivocally the right person to lead the CIA at this crucial moment in history. Both her long-term record of distinguished service and her professional and poised testimony before the Senate on Wednesday make that abundantly clear. With 33 years of experience as a CIA operative, including her current service as the deputy director of the agency, Haspel will step into the director role needing no “on-the-job training” to tackle the myriad complex threats facing the United States around the globe. She is known within agency ranks for her integrity, and is widely regarded as a serious leader who is prepared to lead CIA. READ
Washington Examiner: What more could we ask for in a CIA director than Gina Haspel?
Haspel has earned the respect from her colleagues. Fifty retired intelligence professionals signed a letter endorsing Haspel’s nomination. In it, they wrote: “Those who have served alongside Haspel have only the utmost praise and respect for her. She has broad support from the CIA workforce. Within the U.S. national security community and among our allies around the globe, admiration for her is unsurpassed.” READ
Chicago Tribune: The case for Gina Haspel as CIA director
Haspel would have remained in the shadows, except she was extremely good at her job. She rose to become CIA deputy director and is now President Donald Trump’s nominee to run the agency. Haspel gets rave reviews from former national security officials from Democratic and Republican administrations, and is said to be strongly supported by agency employees. READ
New Hampshire Union Leader: Confirm Haspel: The intelligent choice for CIA
Much of Haspel’s 33-year career remains classified, but she has received stellar endorsements from across the intelligence community. She is capable, experienced, and dedicated to keeping America safe. READ
Richmond Times-Dispatch: The key question about Gina Haspel already has been answered
Haspel has assured the Senate that she would not countenance the use of torture now. She is eminently qualified to direct the CIA. If complicity in the sins of the past did not disqualify Brennan for leadership of the CIA or disqualify Pelosi for leadership of the House Democratic Caucus, then it should not disqualify Haspel, either. READ
USA Today: At CIA, Gina Haspel will make sure ‘we never have to relearn lessons of the past’: Coats
I ask my former colleagues in the Senate to do the right thing for our country by confirming Gina. She represents the best we have to offer as a country. Gina is a trailblazer who has earned this opportunity by serving this country in challenging assignments at home and abroad. I, along with the CIA and the entire Intelligence Community, am eager to have her at the helm of the CIA. READ