By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Kash Patel’s nomination to replace FBI Director Wray fails two crucial tests. The author, reflecting on their own 1977 consideration for the directorship, emphasizes the need for a director possessing a “good sense of humor”—indicating self-awareness and the ability to recognize fallibility—a quality conspicuously absent in Patel. Further, the author’s assertion that if they were the best candidate, the country would be in dire straits, highlights Patel’s lack of qualifications compared to other potential candidates. This lack of experience and judgment renders Patel unsuitable for the position. The Senate should reject Patel’s nomination.
Read the original article here
Kash Patel is utterly unsuited to be FBI Director. The very notion is alarming, given his past actions and stated beliefs. His appointment wouldn’t just be a questionable choice; it would be a direct threat to the integrity and independence of the agency. The FBI’s role is to investigate crimes without political bias, yet Patel’s track record suggests a profound lack of objectivity and an inclination toward partisan loyalty.
Appointing Patel reflects a larger pattern of selecting individuals based on loyalty rather than qualifications. This pattern has repeatedly undermined the effectiveness and public trust in various government departments. This isn’t a matter of simply disagreeing with a nominee’s political views; it’s about their demonstrable lack of suitability for the specific responsibilities of the position. The FBI requires a leader with impartial judgment, vast experience in law enforcement and counterintelligence, and a commitment to upholding the rule of law—qualities conspicuously absent from Patel’s profile.
The potential for the FBI to be weaponized for partisan purposes under Patel’s leadership is a very real and serious concern. The agency’s independence is paramount for maintaining the integrity of investigations, and that integrity would be irrevocably compromised. Instead of a fair and impartial investigation of potential wrongdoing, the country would face the prospect of a highly politicized agency operating as an instrument of one political faction.
Patel’s lack of experience in leading a large and complex organization like the FBI is another critical point. The FBI isn’t simply a police force; it’s a sophisticated intelligence agency with national security implications. It requires someone with years of leadership experience and deep expertise in a variety of critical areas. Patel’s résumé doesn’t begin to demonstrate the necessary depth and breadth of knowledge.
Beyond his qualifications or lack thereof, Patel’s public statements and actions raise even more profound concerns. The possibility of using the FBI to bury investigations or target political opponents is a grave threat to American democracy. Such an action would be not only illegal but also a profound betrayal of the public trust. The FBI Director must be beyond reproach, yet Patel’s history clearly indicates a propensity for actions that severely compromise that standard.
It’s not a matter of partisan disagreement; it’s about the fundamental threat to the rule of law posed by this appointment. Patel’s past actions and stated beliefs raise serious concerns about his ability to act impartially. This isn’t simply about picking a “yes man”; it’s about selecting someone who poses a real and present danger to the proper functioning of a crucial federal agency. The potential for abuse of power is too significant to ignore.
Ultimately, the choice of Kash Patel for FBI Director isn’t just a poor decision; it’s a dangerous one that risks severe and lasting damage to the country’s institutions and the public’s trust in government. Ignoring the obvious unsuitability of this candidate would be a profound mistake with far-reaching and potentially disastrous consequences. This is about more than just selecting someone qualified for the job; it’s about protecting the very foundations of American democracy. The choice is clear: Patel is unfit for the position, and his appointment should be strongly opposed.