NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS REGARDING THE CANDIDACY OF SENATOR BARACK OBAMA FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES

[Note from Larry Johnson--Don Basset is another distinguished retired FBI agent who is legitimately concerned about the possible election of Barack Obama. I applaud Don for speaking out.]

I am a retired Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The following opinions are mine alone; they are in no way intended to represent those of the FBI.

As a condition of my employment with the FBI I, like other Special Agent applicants, underwent a comprehensive and rigorous background investigation to determine my suitability for holding a position of high public trust. This investigation was critical due to the fact that my duties sometimes required me to have access to highly sensitive and classified information relating to the national security of the United States. The areas of inquiry into my background included, among others, my character, associates, reputation and loyalty to the United States of America. The continuing relevance of these inquiries is evidenced by the fact that they were repeated and updated at intervals throughout my career. In essence, a national security clearance represents the hallmark of this nation’s trust in its servants — both civilian and military.

During my career I conducted national security background investigations concerning candidates for positions of high pubic trust such as federal judges, White House appointees and other FBI Special Agent applicants. Just as parents throughout the ages have cautioned their children that “you are known by the company you keep”, a person’s friends and associates have long been recognized as a critical and relevant factor in assessing their suitability for public service. One’s associations and relationships provide invaluable insights into that person’s judgement, integrity and loyalty. They can also provide a window into a candidate’s social and ideological comfort zones.

Since there is no requirement for a candidate for high elective office — such as the presidency of the United States — to undergo a national security background investigation, such vetting is left to the voting public. Thus, the burden rests on the voters to weigh a candidate’s character, associates, reputation and loyalty, recognizing that the candidate they choose will have access to the most highly classified information, and ultimately will be responsible for our nation’s security. Unfortunately the voters have only public information, or that which the candidates choose to disclose, upon which to base their decision.

It is public knowledge that Senator Barack Obama has had a deliberate, long-term association with William Ayres, an admitted and unrepentant bomb-maker for the Weather Underground, a violent anti-government group active in the 1970’s. Senator Obama acknowledges his relationship with Ayres but provides little information as to its nature and extent, and minimizes its significance or relevance to his candidacy.

Additionally, it is well documented that Jeremiah Wright, the Senator’s mentor, pastor and spiritual advisor of some twenty years has publicly engaged in America-hating and racist rants. When Wright’s extremist “sermons” first became widely known to the public, Senator Obama denied knowledge of them. Later, he repudiated them, while continuing to express support for Wright. Finally, as Wright continued to be a public embarrassment to his presidential campaign, Senator Obama repudiated him.

From the perspective of my professional experience, these associations are troubling. In both instances, the individuals espoused extreme anti-American views, while Ayres over a period of time actually engaged in violent criminal actions to further his radical agenda. In both instances Senator Obama claimed ignorance of the extremist, anti-American views by these two associates until public disclosure made it impossible to deny them. And in both instances he repudiated them only after being compelled to do so by the pressure of events and public criticism.

In the meantime, serious and legitimate questions remain: What was the precise nature and extent of Senator Obama’s relationship with William Ayres? Would Senator Obama be willing to provide all records relevant to this relationship for public review? If a detailed explanation would allay public concerns, why not give it? When did Senator Obama first learn of Ayer’s violent, anti-American activities? Was he aware of them at the time his relationship with Ayres began? How long after acquiring such knowledge did Senator Obama disavow those activities and repudiate his association with
Ayers? How was it possible that Senator Obama could have been an active member in the church of Jeremiah Wright — his pastor, friend and mentor for twenty years — and be unaware of Wright’s extremist views, which were spoken from the pulpit, video-recorded and sold by his church? Once he became aware of these views, why did he delay repudiating both the views and the man who espoused them?

These are questions that only Senator Obama can answer…and he should do so. The voters should expect no less prior to deciding who will occupy this Nation’s highest office.

But there is a better remedy for the growing controversy surrounding Senator Obama’s associations with Ayres and Wright–Senators Obama and McCain could both voluntarily submit to a national security background investigation and agree to make the results public. Doing so would provide an objective and complete history of each man’s background, enabling voters to determine for themselves the candidates’ fitness for high public office. Resolving this issue would then allow both candidates to refocus on the substantive issues in the waning days of their presidential
campaigns.

Donald A. Bassett