Tom Cotton’s intelligence – Arkansas Times

Sen. Tom Cotton is a smart, hard-working Yell County boy who now occupies an important leadership position as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Two things perplex me about Sen. Cotton.

First, whether on television or radio, he appears to be a sourpuss. I heard him doing a live radio interview one time, and the morning host stopped the interview and asked, “Senator, are you alright?”  Representing Arkansas in the United States Senate might be the best job and honor anyone could ever have. I wish he enjoyed it more.

Second, he is a smart guy. But smart is not the same as wise. Wisdom combines smarts with some nuance and a bit of empathy. When I hear Cotton interviewed on the many issues facing us, his answers and analysis are simple talking points, never an ounce of nuance or doubt about anything. The always insightful John Brummett in the Democrat-Gazette recently surmised that perhaps Cotton’s reluctance to debate the remarkable Hallie Shoffner is fear. Maybe so, maybe the kind of strategic political fear that comes from knowing Shoffner’s meteoric rise may get a boost from a verbal UFC event. But we know how he answers questions; I doubt he is afraid of anything that might be asked. I will overstate this point, but not by much: no matter what topic or question comes up, his answer will accuse Hallie of being like Obama, Pelosi or Biden. It’s tiresome, and not very helpful to the people of Arkansas trying to understand the difficulties Arkansas families and farmers, small businesses and hospitals are having right now.

But if a debate were to occur, here are some questions I would like to see answered. And they should be able to be answered without political talking points. This past April 22, Cotton spoke to Arkansas Chamber of Commerce members who were visiting Washington, and one of the topics was the war with Iran. In Alex Thomas’ April 23 story in the Democrat-Gazette, Cotton is quoted: “At the end of February, we had exquisite intelligence that suggested the supreme leader and all of his senior leaders were going to be meeting above ground, and that seemed like a good time to kick off this war.” The result of the attack was the elimination of approximately 40 members of the Iranian senior leadership including the ayatollah. 

Was it necessary for the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman to give away such detail about the intelligence? “Exquisite” connotes something much fancier than me tracking my kid’s cellphone on Find My while he drives to a ballgame. The phrase “at the end of February” may help Iranian counterintelligence narrow down the search for leaks. And the detail: all the senior leadership coming together at a specific time and place, even down to the detail of what level in the building. It sometimes happens that out of the 535 senators and congressmen, someone divulges classified information. To protect against that happening, the Senate Rules Committee chairman in certain situations will be one of the few members of the House and Senate to be given certain information. Which leads to my questions.

Was it a violation of Senate Intelligence Committee rules to divulge this information in a public setting? 

If it is not a violation of committee rules to divulge this information, why not? 

Could divulging this information put informants at risk? 

Could divulging this information compromise certain methods of intelligence gathering?

Could divulging this information make it more difficult to locate the current leadership?

If this intelligence came from the Israeli government, could divulging this information put its intelligence personnel and methods at risk? 

Finally, if you could do it over, would it be better not to mention the intelligence, even at breakfast with a nice group of folks from back home?

---