Maybe I should have quantifed it. C+ up from an F last summer.JAD, I think you're giving Obama way more credit than he deserves.
It's was hot enough all the while the emails were dribbling out.The media didn't turn this issue red hot until AFTER Obama went public with his order for a "review".
Brennan did comment a few times before the election. Last April, I believe, he said the CIA would refuse an order to return to waterboarding and/or other rendition techniques that Trump said he favored. In August (?) he pushed back when Trump claimed he could tell by their body language that CIA agents who gave him security briefings were unhappy with Obama for not taking their advice. Brennan said agents were too professional to take sides. That was soon after the GOP convention. Insofar as I can recall, these were the only times Brennan spoke up before the election.Also I, and many Trump supporters found the level of politics played by this Director of the CIA and all his negative remarks twoards Trump pretty alarming.
When was the last time a sitting director of one of our intelligence agencies spoke up so vehemently against a candidate before an election?
So maybe many people had a reason to suspect a report from the CIA saying the Russians "hacked" an election to help Trump pretty unbelievable.
Not until AFTER the election did the CIA assess that Russian hacking was done to help Trump win. Brennan obviously approves of the assessment, although the FBI demurred, citing a lack of evidence. That earned Brennan criticism for playing politics. More recently, Brennan sat for a BBC interview that some GOP legislators characterized as a hit job on Trump. After listening to the interview, I felt it was much ado about nothing: an outgoing senior official defending current policies. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38152706
Well, having been one of those "political hacks" at DoD and having worked with CIA briefers and other intel guys, I naturally have a different view. It was often the case that journalists, commentators, and assorted other critics of what we did didn't know what they were talking about. As for ass kissing, it doesn't go far with the brass. Yes, there are exceptions. As for disagreeing with your boss, as happened to me a few times, you better have your ducks lined up, and if you do, you'll be appreciated. The biggest mistake outsiders make is to judge the whole by idiocy and abuses of a few.. . .most intelliegence agencies are far from "impartial people with one goal of keeping America safe" is far from reality. Like other departments they are full of political hacks and whoever kisses the brass ass most usually rises to the top.
Yes, it's true that politics influences the direction of some intel work, and that's to be expected. The world turns on political and geopolitical considerations. For example, the Reagan military build-up in the early 1980s, which was deemed necessary after gains by the old USSR during the 1970s began to close the arms gap, depended on getting Congress to agree to a massive increase in military spending. It fell to the intelligence agencies to make the case, which they did admirably. But the CIA has also been misused. For example, when the WMD in Iraq issue came around 20 years later, the agency felt its case wasn't ready for prime time. But Dick Chaney and company demanded it be used anyway. Again it was a political imperative, both domestically, with Congress set to vote on whether to support an invasion of Iraq, and geopolitical, with the administration driving to create a coalition force for the invasion. Once put on the sacrificial altar to help build political support for a weak case, it was inevitable that the agency's reputation would suffer for years to come.
Yeah, it a media invention--headline writers. Obama's statements have a more labored name for them: "...aggressive harassment of U.S. officials and cyber operations aimed at the U.S. election."Frankly, I wouldn't have been so upset if the term "hacking the election" didn't come up. That term leads me to believe this was a political act more than anything else.
Just the kind of guy Trump has been dealing with all his life. You know the saying: You can't bullshit a bullshitter.Look, Putin is a thug.
Ya think there ought to be a detailed report of methods and sources made public before the administration acts on what it knows in secret? I respectfully disagree. A pragmatist would argue that the right to know doesn't trump national security. Pure politics? It doesn't follow that Obama's retaliation was meant to make a subtle case that the hack caused Clinton to lose, although some could see it that way If it had just been a foreign illegal entry into a privately-owned server and the theft of documents, the Justice Department would have asked for indictments, if they could finger the culprits. The State dept would have its ambassador lodge a formal complaint to the head of the country involved. But this particular hack endangered our constitutional process for electing presidents. Had it worked beyond any doubt, we'd all be up in arms no matter which party was the target. But because it didn't, we are floundering around, bickering over stupid stuff. We should all be damned worried about the potential for this to happen again, possibly in more covert ways, and we should back the president, who incidentally is living up to his oath here, in imposing sanctions on the country that was to blame for the interference. IMO, the sanctions were pretty mild. Putin gets an attaboy from Trump for not retaliating. Well maybe Putin is like the cat who swallowed the canary...he knows he did it, so why prolong the agony. You can bet the farm that he would be jumping up and down like a wounded ape if he was innocent.(Oh god, please don't tell me this 13 page report by the FBI & DHS was the culmination of the review)
And if not, why the hell were the sanctions imposed without waiting for completed review?