I have mixed feelings about John Brennan’s decision to write an anti-Trump opinion piece for the Washington Post. On the one hand, I desperately want more officials and politicians to come out on the record and speak the truth as they see it about the president’s unsuitability for the office. And Brennan does this convincingly and without pulling any punches.
For more than three decades, I observed and analyzed the traits and tactics of corrupt, incompetent and narcissistic foreign officials who did whatever they thought was necessary to retain power. Exploiting the fears and concerns of their citizenry, these demagogues routinely relied on lies, deceit and suppression of political opposition to cast themselves as populist heroes and to mask self-serving priorities. By gaining control of intelligence and security services, stifling the independence of the judiciary and discrediting a free press, these authoritarian rulers followed a time-tested recipe for how to inhibit democracy’s development, retard individual freedoms and liberties, and reserve the spoils of corrupt governance for themselves and their ilk. It never dawned on me that we could face such a development in the United States.
On the other hand, having the former CIA director coming down this hard against the president helps bolster the impression that we’re witnessing less a legitimate law enforcement investigation than a slow-moving Deep State coup. I think it ultimately helps Trump that he can point to examples like Brennan’s piece as proof that the intelligence agencies are out to get him and see that he is removed from power.
If I’m ambivalent about the effectiveness of Brennan’s piece, I’m more certain that it’s a dangerous precedent. If I saw the former head of intelligence of a foreign country railing against the new leader of government, I’d consider it evidence of politicization or factionalism within their intelligence services with implications for a possible coup. I’m sure that Brennan feels that he’s a private citizen now with the same rights as any other citizen to speak out, and with a special responsibility to inform us what his unique experience tells him about our present dangers. In his mind, the current situation warrants a political response even if that response hurts the reputation of the intelligence community for partisan neutrality.
He could be right. I think he may be right. But I also know that long after Trump is gone the memory of how the former head of the CIA took such a strong stand against him will remain. The problem is compounded because Brennan is seen as being so close personally to President Obama. They are other former high-ranking intelligence officers like Michael Hayden who are just as harsh but who have better credibility because they are associated with a Republican administration.
To be sure, it’s primarily the president who is doing damage to the prestige and reputation of the intelligence community, I don’t want to see a one-sided fight where Trump is free to use his megaphone but the people he attacks are restrained by norms from punching back. That’s why judging Brennan’s decision to do this piece is not an easy call.
Yet, I ultimately think it was a mistake. It will have limited impact in terms of influencing what eventually happens with Trump, and probably a net-negative one at that. But it will have a lasting impact on how the CIA is perceived.
While former directors should certainly be as free as any other citizen to voice their political opinions, they should probably stay out of big stakes politics to the greatest possible degree simply to preserve the reputation of neutrality for the intelligence community. The removal of a president is the biggest stakes politics imaginable, and I’d prefer to see Brennan stay silent unless called as a witness to testify in front of the nation in an impeachment proceeding. And, even then, I’d prefer him to stick to the facts rather than offering up his personal assessment of the president’s character.
He did write a good opinion piece, though. I’ll give him that.
Case in point.
Trump’s cult will ALWAYS counter any denunciations with “You’re liberal!” (as if that’s an argument). That’s a given.
I don’t think we can wait for the perfect spokesperson. Trump is running the dictator’s playbook (as Brennan notes), which needs to be said over and over. Maybe Brennan gets the ball rolling.
Still, I see your point.
. . . indistinguishable from that if Pope Francis or Eric Son of Eric had written the op-ed — in the latter’s (or any other prominent “conservative”‘s) case, it would simply be taken as prima facie proof he had gone over to the other side and is now the enemy.
It seems just nuts to me to avoid confronting Trump in vain hope of avoiding such backlash. It can’t be avoided except by complete and total capitulation. Not even then, really. They’d continue attacking because they’re assholes and it’s their only joy in life.
In the abstract, Boo, I would think your qualms had some basis, but they don’t really fit the circumstances in this case.
First there’s the fact that Brennan was extremely close to Obama. So that means all the Obama-haters, who tend also to be Trump supporters, hate Brennan too. So what else is new?
Brennan has been outspokenly attacking Trump since Trump took office. So … now all the Trump supporters are going to hate Brennan just a little more? So what?
And as to your “case in point” —
twitchy.com is a right-wing site founded by Michelle Malkin. What else would you expect? Every attack on Trump, by anyone, is going to be responded to in paranoid fashion by Trump and his supporters. It’s totally predictable.
The significant question is, what does it mean to others? I.e. Anyone who is NOT a Trump fan. Here’s something I think is significant:
“A physically imposing man with deep-set eyes, close-cropped hair, and a severe countenance, Brennan commands enormous respect among his colleagues.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/who-is-john-brennan-the-man-touted-to-be-the-next-cia-director
I have made this point again and again: The American intelligence community feels genuinely threatened by Trump. But guess what? So are we all! The CIA has done a lot of unforgivable things in its 70 years of existence, but intelligence is also a legitimate function of any government, and considering that our country, through Trump, is being manipulated by the Russians into a lot of destructive and self-destructive policies right now, we really the services they provide.
So I do not see any serious negative consequences of Brennan speaking out against Trump, which, by the way, as I said before, he has done many times before.
The kernel of truth in your cautions is this: It is unusual (though not unprecedented) for a former CIA chief to criticize a sitting president. But I find Brennan’s answer to this convincing enough: “Trump is an aberration.”
Tell me that’s not true.
I’d like to believe that Trump is an aberration, but I fear that he’s just the tip of the iceberg.
First we had McCain appointing Palin – a dumb, ignorant, unprepared, stupid nutcase with similar racist, bigoted, Doministic tendencies to Trump – and touting her as “worthy” to be VP, as well as possibly POTUS.
That just opened the floodgates for Trump. I remember how over the moooooon my rightwing fundie family was with Palin. They were a bit more subdued with Trump, but they still voted for him.
Trump is Palin x 1000. So, who comes after Trump.
We had known pederast running for Senate in AL, who barely got defeated. There’s another out loud and proud pedarast (with child porn websites) running for office in VA.
I’m afraid we’re on a slippery slope. This is what happens when the Overton window gets pushed this far to right.
Historically, as empires decline, the emperors get madder and madder, the populace stupider and stupider. This ends in a major military, political and economic defeat for the US, probably including nuclear weapons, and we will all be very lucky if we avoid global devastation.
Then maybe, just maybe, some Trump supporters will come to the view that maybe, just maybe, he went too far, although others will still be in denial, like Japanese soldiers hidden in jungles many years after the end of WWII.
The trouble is any remorse will have come much, much too late, and won’t be worth a damn when it comes. Trying to persuade Trump loyalists is a waste of time. Only complete, abject, political or military defeat will do the job cf. Hitler, Mussolini, the Soviet Union.
I hope that you are wrong regarding the finish.
But I fear that you are not.
We shall see…
Soon enough.
I suspect that Trump will attempt a really big…perhaps multifaceted…power play somewhere close to the November elections.
He gets over best when doing big things.
Again.
Just like 2016 only with the Preznidential Bully’s Pulpit amplifying his horseshit.
Sigh…
Watch.
AG
I think you may be right. This won’t end easily no more than the South really ever capitulated. They still have confederate flags, monuments and hatred for AA. ( I shouldn’t be too hard on them saying that since we lived in Raleigh and Roanoke and there are some good people there. But our neighbors were a short walk away from it all and best left alone. )And the mind set runs through the suburbs of most of the country. We, on the left, are very much part of the problem wanting to give free stuff away all the time. I do hope you are wrong about nuclear war but a major defeat may be in the offing to change this. The real problem with Brennan and others is what he says has very little impact, maybe even negative. I am also pessimistic of changing very much come November. Hell we saw what they did to Obama for at least six of his eight years and he was a long way from a give it away liberal.
Trump is an aberration AS PRESIDENT. That is what was meant. Palin was not elected. Roy Moore was not elected. Nathan Larson the fucking pedophile in VA has not been elected.
James Comey should also pack it up and leave us alone. I don’t think their twitter presence helps either.
In some ways I don’t think it matters, certainly not while Trump is in power. Trump would just make up shit if he had to (he’s made shit up without having to). Brennan’s op-ed won’t help or hurt him. It’s just spitting into the wind. I think for that reason he shouldn’t have published it. It’s crossing a line that doesn’t help our case and will damage us in the future once Trump is gone. If I thought it would move elite opinion in the Republican Party and push the process of getting rid of him I’d be for it. But where’s the upside? There are neutral sides at best where it neither helps Trump or hurts him, and bad precedents being set that will be used against the left in the future at worst.
Former CIA Director Woolsey was quite critical of his old boss Bill Clinton by don’t remember there being this terrible hand-wringing and pearl clutching back then. Oh but Woolsey is a conservative. IOKIYAR. Dems always have to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. Sorry, nope!
Always the dilemma of an asymmetric battle – if one side is rational, and the other is completely nuts, how does the rational side behave?
Consider the two nuclear powers in South Asia – India and Pakistan. Many Pakistani generals have said publicly that they would use nuclear war against India. NO Indian general or politician dare ever say that!
Trump does not need facts to convince his support base (including all the disgusting Congresscritters) to rabble rouse.
But the rational people with some credibility cannot stay silent. If I were to write something, no one would believe that. But because it is Brennan, and other former high ranking officials (including former Joint Chief of Staff) speaking out, they have some credibility in parts of the population.
.
“First they came for the Communists and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller
——–
This diary falls into the same category as your diary on how the football protests were counter productive.
.
.
I don’t really remember the football piece, although I know the NFL issue helped Trump in formerly Democratic parts of Pennsylvania more than any other single issue, and probably alone can account for his victory in my state, along with an accelerated exodus from the Democratic Party as a whole.
I do remember writing that I didn’t find all that many Trump signs in exurban and rural Pennsylvania but I did find a zillion “I Stand With the Police” and “Blue Lives Matters” yard signs, and usually in poorer areas that were split politically in the past.
As to your Nazi reference, it misses the point I’m trying to make. I did acknowledge that I’m ambivalent about this for the reason you mention, but this is probably counterproductive and in any case exacerbates the problem with half the country no longer accepting the conclusions of the intelligence community (and not for reasons of healthy skepticism).
The issues aren’t the same. I can point to positive influences BLM has had while acknowledging trade-offs. Brennan’s op-ed doesn’t move the ball in any meaningful sense and could backfire.
My point with the quote (while it originated with the Nazis, time has expanded it far beyond that narrow view) is the same as the one I tried to make in the NFL diary…in that when ever a person has a soap box and believes an issue is of the upmost importance, they should use it, blowback be damned. No peaceful protester is responsible for the pushback…and should not take the pushback into consideration. In fact, sometimes causing a pushback, even a violent one, is the whole point.
If Bennen believes Trump poses an imminent threat and stays silent…in a way he becomes part of the problem.
Also….how does one halt the bed wetting pushbacks that are a republican specialty? By relentlessly and purposely causing them! That inures the public to them, and exposes the hypocrisy.
.
You write:
It is both!!!
We have been living in a “slow-moving Deep State coup” since the assassination years….since the formation of the CIA after WWII, really. Eisenhower saw this danger and tried to warn us about it in his Military Industrial Complex/farewell speech. I personally believe that JFK and RFK were killed because they were rapidly realizing the depth of the problem and trying to find effective ways to oppose it.
But…this investigation is also at least partially a legitimate law enforcement investigation as well. As Brennan says:
I think that the word “me” in that sentence could more accurately be changed to the word “us.” The Deep State and the people who are important parts of it are by no means omniscient. They are human beings as well, human beings who have…once again…gotten caught with their pants down.
That goes with the territory.
Now they are trying to pull them back up.
The Trump gang is certainly a less desirable ruling power than is the largely bipartisan Deep State, and Russia is also certainly…as well as are China and both country’s satellite gangs…hell-bent on minimizing the ongoing dominance of the U.S. in world affairs. Maybe that wouldn’t be be such a bad thing…the U.S. as a giant, largely self-sufficient entity rather than World Cop…but then there would probably arise another two or three World Cops and there we’d be, back in the midst of the hustle and tussle.
The danger here for the U.S. largely lies in overvaluing the…the honesty, the competency…of the forces waging war on Trump. The sheer foolishness and blatant criminality of most of what is going on in the Trump administration is awakening many heretofore self-satified citizens to the dangers of a government…no matter whether it is a “Deep State”-style government or a “Deep Criminality” one…both of which are mostly unsupervised and thus unresponsive to the needs of said citizens.
We shall see how all of this shakes out.
May we all be born(e) into the Chinese proverb’s (and/or curse’s) “interesting times.”
And may we all come out stronger and wiser.
As Captain Picard was wont to say in the Star Wars series:
Let us pray.
AG
From an international perspective, anything which damages the power and prestige of the CIA has got to be a good thing. Trump has destroyed the US/EU alliance and is busily destroying the US empire which was always dependent on the support of local elites.
With the CIA’s power diminished, its ability to stage foreign coups and ensure compliance by local elites will also be much reduced. Watch everyone walk away if Trump attempts another imperial war – e.g. against Iran. There will be no meaningful “coalition of the willing” in the future, no matter how “noble” the cause or desperate Trump’s plight.
The CIA wears a black hat and a white hat. The white hat is its analytical end, which was its original purpose. Second to that, it’s counterintelligence work is also justified and important. It’s vital that the CIA (or some agency) be able to do this work, and that its intelligence output be seen by both the public and the actual customers as free of partisan bias.
Causing half the country to distrust the IC community’s assessments of risk and responsibility is a big problem, and it won’t have much impact on their ability to conduct their black hat stuff.
He’s doing everything he can possibly come up with to bring that about. For quite transparent reasons.
I’m actually a bit surprised you see Brennan’s op-ed as having any effect on that campaign one way or the other. Frankly, looks a bit naive to me. Trump’s dupes gonna dupe.
There are enough countries that either hate Iran or want to ingratiate themselves to the United States to create an optical coalition of the willing. He isn’t degrading the US empire in any real way at all. He’s aligning at least himself if not the country with the most abusive international thugs, but otherwise, it’s business as usual. E.g., a crony, Eloidy, has a deal with the UAE, and it would help to blockade Qatar. That doesn’t degrade the US military base in Qatar, but it puts a different set of elites on top, if only temporarily. Meanwhile he’s still dumping as much or more money into the war machine as anyone before, and his fans will rally against any foreigners he decides to bomb. There’s nothing anarchic or cleansing in his destruction. It’s the new gang in town and we do things his way now.
In relevant part:
In my mind, if there is a reason to think Brennan should have kept his mouth shut, it’s that torture taint bolded above (which is why I was appalled and opposed in realtime to learn Obama was considering — and then actually appointed — him as CIA chief; for reasons very much akin to your recent, valid-but-futile opposition to Haspel’s nomination).
But I’m more inclined to see the current crisis as all-hands-on-deck time, where it’s the patriotic duty of anyone and everyone with the standing to credibly call attention to Trump burning down the house to do so. This post seems to me to parse the minutiae of political-advantage pros and cons and perceived threat to the intelligence-agency reputation in a way analogous to suggesting one particular bucket in the brigade should have been held back for watering the garden later.
Except, as you note, Brennan has zero credibility. If the US actually followed the values it claims to.
. . . not that he has zero credibility.
In fact, everything booman quoted from his op-ed is completely credible.
And that is because people are idiots. There are actual massive scandals and abuses of power out there — not even hiding!! — in plain sight. No conspiracy theories needed.
You write:
Precisely!!!
Thank you.
You don’t need any conspiracy “theories” regarding the Deep State and its controllers. James Clapper’s barefaced lie to the Senate regarding illegal surveillance and his subsequent survival as a major “trusted source” in the DC revolving door operation alone takes the idea of a Deep State from “theory” to “proven fact” as far as I am concerned.
There are so many other proofs!!! Our lovely new CIA head Gina Haspel…not only a supervisor of brutal and useless torture but tasked with the destruction of the evidence of that torture, yet she remained in positions of power during the Obama presidency!!!
(Yes…that John Brennan in Booman’s post. Deep State in the flesh.)
Don’t tell me Obama wasn’t informed of this. Available info is kind of sketchy about whether she maintained the office against some Senate opposition, but you can bet that she maintained her power and function in the CIA.
The Deep State is an equal opportunity employer. Play ball with it and you can be a Democrat or a Republican.
Oppose it…either on moral grounds or in an effort to usurp its authority for personal gain (like Trump)…and it will take you down.
One way or another.
That’s not “conspiracy theory.”
That’s conspiracy fact.
Right out in the open.
Plain to see if you are not media-blinded.
Thanks again, Joelcr.
AG
John Brennan isn’t going to change any minds of right-wing authoritarians, because Strongman Trump is their rightful strongman fascist ruler.
In that case, he isn’t “helping” turn right-wing authoritarians. But, his voice, among others, is just more evidence for everyone else, that Strongman Trump really is what his critics are saying about him.
So, while he may not be helping, are there people who believe that Strongman Trump is bad, who are going to change their mind and support Strongman Trump now that another official has come out and criticized him? How about “undecideds”?
That’s all that really matters if you’re weighing pros and cons. Are there people who might have come out to vote against Strongman Trump, who aren’t, because an ex-CIA official is criticizing Strongman Trump? Because I don’t see “undecideds” even seeing this piece, never mind deciding to side with or vote for Strongman Trump because of it.
I understand your ambivalence, but I think he has a narrow audience. Trump’s fans think he’s being sinned against, whether Brennan opens his mouth or not. Liberals think Trump is a corrupt and disreputable liar with no bottom to his ability to corrupt everything around him. There are still moderate Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who are worried, and don’t want to be confronted with the enormity of wheat Trump is doing, believing as they’ve been taught by the media that both sides do it. That’s his audience. He’s telling them that everything WON’T be okay if reasonable people disagree.
A former official badmouthing the current administration is nothing new, which is why he emphasizes his Republican and non-partisan cred.
This isn’t any different from Mukasey disparaging Obama. But it is a clarion call to a specific audience.