Former CIA Director John Brennan: "Our Future Is In Jeopardy"

[Falvlun]

As far as intelligence entities agreeing, one leads the way and the rest fall in line so it's no surprise that they all agree.

Did you just pull this out of your butt?

Seriously, you cannot just dismiss the findings of all of our intelligence agencies. Doing so completely destroys any credibility your position has.

As far as CA goes you are misrepresenting what was written (this seems pretty common around here) perhaps you may need to re-read and come up with a better reply than changing and dismissing it.
The question revolved around who logically would have more information to effectively use if it were possible to sway the vote with the tools stated.

And I respond in exactly the same way: Why are you willing to believe that it is “more logical” that CA could do it, while dismissing the idea that the Russian government could do it?

I don’t think you can know which is more logical, primarily because we don’t know the capabilities of the Russian government.

I don’t see why it’s inherently more logical that a company had more resources (or drive) than the Russian government.

And further, I don’t see the relevance. It does not change what the Russians did.

 

[Falvlun]

Trump is just Trump and enough people wanted him elected in enough states for the electoral college to declare him the winner whether you like it or not. It seems you and a few others willfully set aside critical thinking and logic if it doesn't serve your purposes, it seems more about revenge at any cost than any real attempt at discussion or dialogue. So what if Obama was called the AntiChristo? So what if the Democrats attempted to use the cultivated,contrived social ideas of the day against Trump-racist, misogynist,etc. It seems they had their own way to describe an AntiChristo- the people spoke and Hillary lost, deal with it.

I didn’t deny that Trump won. I wasn’t even complaining about that in that post.

I was responding to @esmith’s speculation that the Russians wanted Trump president because they knew the Democrats would be angrier than Republicans, causing more chaos, which they wanted.

As such, it is relevant to point out that Republicans were quite rabid during the above-the-board election of Obama, and that their hate for Clinton was profound. As such, his speculation that Democrats were the better target for rabble-rousing seems unfounded. If the shoe was on the other foot— if Russians worked to elect Clinton— the Republicans would be tearing this country apart.

 

[tytlyf]

Trump is just Trump and enough people wanted him elected in enough states for the electoral college to declare him the winner whether you like it or not.

Trump being Trump is reason to not elect him to president.
Actually, more people voted for Hillary.
The propaganda campaign during the 2016 election was effective enough to change the mind of voters. Fear sells.

People wouldn't use propaganda if it didn't have an effect on elections.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Quick question.
Why would Russia want to undermine the liberal Democratic order when I keep hearing that it is the conservative Republican order that starts wars, invades countries for their natural resources, attempt to force countries to be shaped in the political views of the US and attempts to thwart Russian influence in the world. Where the liberals are the peace loving kumbaya attitude, that wants a peaceful reset with Russia? It would seem that Russia would have preferred the Hillary who reflected this idea. That is unless she was seen as a war monger.

Or is it that they, the Russians, could see that given the history of the Democrats when it comes to protesting something that by having Trump win the election that it would cause considerably more split within the US than having the Hillary win. Republicans were just hoping that Trump would win but if he didn't, better luck next time.

It's called "Eurasianism". Want a link?

 

[Stevicus]

Ask the Russians. Their reasons are theirs; but the fact remains that they decided to meddle in our election in Trump’s favor.

As far as how much meddling they did or what actual influence it had over the voters is still unclear. We've had two large factions at odds with each other in America, divided by a huge rift, and that's been mostly our fault, not the Russians. The Russians certainly did not create the rift dividing America, nor did they form the ideological bases of the various factions involved.

At most, they may have taken advantage of weaknesses within our system, but they did not create those weaknesses. That's on us.

But you're right: We should ask the Russians what they want. Although it shouldn't be that difficult to figure out by a careful examination of Russian history and an honest attempt to try to see things from their point of view. That's what appears to be missing in this whole debate over Russian meddling. Too many people are falling over themselves trying to portray the Russians as devils with horns that they've lost sight of the fact that the Russians might very well have rational reasons for doing what they do (assuming that they even did this at all).

If we’re speculating, having an inept and erratic person, who is in their debt and is inclined to see them favorably, as the President of their greatest challenger, would give them greater room to grow as a world power again.

They are a world power. They've been a world power longer than we have, and they never stopped being a world power.

For decades, I have recognized the need for greater cooperation between America, Russia, and China. I think that a three-way alliance between the top three superpowers in the world would be an enormous step towards greater world stability. The main reason we have trouble in so many hot spots in the world (North Korea, Iran, etc.) is because the small fry have been adept at playing the major powers off against each other. This has to stop.

Chaos is undoubtedly desirable to them as well. Trump stokes chaos. And yes, angering Americans and causing them to doubt their democracy is also desirable.

I don't think the Russians want chaos.

As for Americans, many have been angry and doubting their democracy since at least the 1960s (and many of those doubts were rooted in questionable Cold War era policies and the obsessive nature of the xenophobic and anti-communist attitudes prevalent during that time).

We should have continued to be angry and doubt our democracy, which might have generated enough support for true reforms in our political and economic system. Instead, most Americans chose to stick their heads in the sand while humming the tune "Don't Worry, Be Happy."

It's ironic that many of Trump's opponents try to paint him as a xenophobe, yet they're the ones howling and panicking about alleged "foreign influence." So, who are the true xenophobes in all this?

As far as Democrats being angrier than Republicans: seriously, do conservatives just not remember how they acted during Obama’s Presidency? They called him the anti-Christ.

They also called him a socialist, but that was incorrect. In terms of economic and foreign policies, Obama was Bush Lite. He was never a socialist. As for being the anti-Christ, someone would have to first prove that there was a Christ before they can accuse anyone of being an anti-Christ.

Their elected officials abdicated their role as legislators in favor of pure obstructionism. Obama was under a microscope. And Hilary was hated even more. Could you imagine what conservatives would do if they found out that a foreign government waged a secret campaign do get Clinton elected? They would be tearing this country apart. If we were lucky, she merely would have been impeached 6 mo ago.

There were some accusations about alleged Chinese influence in the (Bill) Clinton White House.

Apart from that, what you're describing is just the usual political shenanigans which the American public has tacitly accepted. The media on both sides have continued to stoke those fires, and neither side has made even a half-hearted attempt to try to be the voice of reason in all this chaos.

So yeah, take your “let’s blame the victims!” mentality and throw it in the garbage where it belongs. It is not the fault of Democrats that the Russians decided to undermine our democracy in support of Trump.

It is the Democrats' fault for nominating Hillary instead of Sanders. That's where they went wrong.

If anything is undermining our democracy, it's widespread ignorance of the electorate (fostered by our own media, not the Russians') along with extreme partisanship and loyalty to political organizations and personalities while abandoning principles.

 

[esmith]

Since when do 'liberals' want a peaceful reset with russia?

 

[esmith]

Can you please provide links to these allegations of him supposedly spying on the Senate?

As far as I know, the biggest controversy with him was his allowance of "enhanced interrogation techniques" even though he opposed waterboarding. Either way, even though I am opposed to the use of those techniques, they were legal at that time.

But the fact remains, if Brennan was so bad, then why did six presents appoint him? If he is so partisan, why was he appointed by presidents from both parties? Here is Wikipedia's overview of him: John O. Brennan - Wikipedia

But the most important thing is that he clearly enunciates why he's so concerned by what's happening with this administration as everyone should be.

@metis one should do a little research before questioning someone. Do you have such a short memory or is it that you now have filters in place.
Inquiry by C.I.A. Affirms It Spied on Senate Panel

 

[metis]

@metis one should do a little research before questioning someone. Do you have such a short memory or is it that you now have filters in place.
Inquiry by C.I.A. Affirms It Spied on Senate Panel

And maybe you should read the entire article, including what Brennan told Feinstein at the end of the article.

 

[Stanyon]

Trump being Trump is reason to not elect him to president.
Actually, more people voted for Hillary.
The propaganda campaign during the 2016 election was effective enough to change the mind of voters. Fear sells.

People wouldn't use propaganda if it didn't have an effect on elections.

Propaganda supporting ones cause should be viewed in a positive way, others propaganda should be called agitation. The fear campaign and agitation was largely used by Hillary & co. and was supported by many news media outlets.
Hillary only won about 21 states

 

[Falvlun]

As far as how much meddling they did or what actual influence it had over the voters is still unclear. We've had two large factions at odds with each other in America, divided by a huge rift, and that's been mostly our fault, not the Russians. The Russians certainly did not create the rift dividing America, nor did they form the ideological bases of the various factions involved.

At most, they may have taken advantage of weaknesses within our system, but they did not create those weaknesses. That's on us.

But you're right: We should ask the Russians what they want. Although it shouldn't be that difficult to figure out by a careful examination of Russian history and an honest attempt to try to see things from their point of view. That's what appears to be missing in this whole debate over Russian meddling. Too many people are falling over themselves trying to portray the Russians as devils with horns that they've lost sight of the fact that the Russians might very well have rational reasons for doing what they do (assuming that they even did this at all).

The last sentence here kills me. How the heck is there any doubt that they did this?

Until people accept that the Russians indeed waged a campaign to influence our election, and we discover how far it goes (is Trump complicit?), it’s kinda hard to care about Russian reasoning.

At the end of the day, they attacked our democracy. That is unacceptable.

They are a world power. They've been a world power longer than we have, and they never stopped being a world power.

For decades, I have recognized the need for greater cooperation between America, Russia, and China. I think that a three-way alliance between the top three superpowers in the world would be an enormous step towards greater world stability. The main reason we have trouble in so many hot spots in the world (North Korea, Iran, etc.) is because the small fry have been adept at playing the major powers off against each other. This has to stop.

The Russians have certainly fallen from the heights they once knew. They may have some power, but they remember when they had more, and they want it back. And they certainly would prefer to be more powerful than us.

As far as the US, China, and Russia working together, of course that’s preferrable. But generally, the Russians block every U.N. resolution, and position themselves against the US. Both China and Russia have very different ideas regarding human rights and governing than us. And I undoubtedly both would love to topple us from the top if they could. How do you propose getting all 3 to tango?

And do you really think we should simply ignore or excuse the Russian attack on our democracy?

I don't think the Russians want chaos.

Why wouldn’t they?

Encouraging a country to devour itself from the inside is certainly an easier way to dispose of an enemy than a war they likely wouldn’t win.

As for Americans, many have been angry and doubting their democracy since at least the 1960s (and many of those doubts were rooted in questionable Cold War era policies and the obsessive nature of the xenophobic and anti-communist attitudes prevalent during that time).

We should have continued to be angry and doubt our democracy, which might have generated enough support for true reforms in our political and economic system. Instead, most Americans chose to stick their heads in the sand while humming the tune "Don't Worry, Be Happy."

I am not sure how this changes the fact that the Russian attack has refreshed such doubts and fanned such anger again.

It's ironic that many of Trump's opponents try to paint him as a xenophobe, yet they're the ones howling and panicking about alleged "foreign influence." So, who are the true xenophobes in all this?

It is not xenophobic to be pissed that a foreign government is trying to secretly manipulate your country into voting for their preferred candidate.

They also called him a socialist, but that was incorrect. In terms of economic and foreign policies, Obama was Bush Lite. He was never a socialist. As for being the anti-Christ, someone would have to first prove that there was a Christ before they can accuse anyone of being an anti-Christ.

That was all in response to esmith’s speculation that Russians chose to goad Democrats as the more likely rabble-rousers. This ignores the rabid hatred demonstrated by conservatives towards Obama and Clinton.

As for the anti-Christ, since when do insults need to pass logical rigor to be launched? The point is that this was bandied about, and is evidence of the irrational hatred that conservatives whipped themselves up into.

There were some accusations about alleged Chinese influence in the (Bill) Clinton White House.

Apart from that, what you're describing is just the usual political shenanigans which the American public has tacitly accepted. The media on both sides have continued to stoke those fires, and neither side has made even a half-hearted attempt to try to be the voice of reason in all this chaos.

There is a difference between domestic media and a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT . And we aren’t just talking about a media blitz: we also have rallies formed, and election rolls hacked, and the DNC hack.

It is infuriating to be criticized for not being a voice of reason after the irrational conservative frothing that occurred for 8 years under Obama. It is infuriating that we are accused of unreasonableness when Republicans voted for Trump, whose whole persona and tactics are aimed at fanning partisanship and chaos. It is infuriating that we are unreasonable for accepting the conclusions of or intelligence agencies, while the other side continues to ignore and downplay. How can you have a conversation when Republicans are continually denying reality?

It is the Democrats' fault for nominating Hillary instead of Sanders. That's where they went wrong.

Ah, yes. Because it is Democrats fault that russians decided to wage a campaign to influence our elections. It is Democrats fault that conservatives voted for Trump.

If anything is undermining our democracy, it's widespread ignorance of the electorate (fostered by our own media, not the Russians') along with extreme partisanship and loyalty to political organizations and personalities while abandoning principles.

One problem does not preclude another. The fact remains that the Russians attacked our democracy and aided Trump’s election. Our own internal problems do not mean that we must allow external forces to exacerbate them.

 

[Stevicus]

It used to be that the Republicans were the more hawkish when it came to reacting to outside threats to this country, and yet what so many of them are doing is actually taking Putin's side through their denials and uncaring about what's going on. Why does Trump refuse to be critical of Putin; or the Russian meddling here and in Europe; or the poisonings linked to the Russians; or the invasions of a couple of countries by Russia; etc.?

The Republicans were generally more ideologically hawkish than anything else. The Russians are perceived as capitalists now, and fears of Soviet expansionism and/or global revolution have all but evaporated at this point. Russian hegemony in Eastern Europe has all but disappeared, as most of Eastern Europe is now with NATO (which the Russians see as provocative).

I can't explain Trump's actions or why he refuses to be critical of Putin. However, I will say that I believe it's counterproductive to go out of our way to antagonize the Russians at this point. I don't see that America has anything to gain by a resurgence of the Cold War.

I do think it's somewhat ironic that Trump and others are labeled "xenophobes" by their detractors, yet who are the ones screaming the loudest about alleged "foreign influence"? Do we not see a contradiction in this view?

Either Americans are worried about the outside world and foreign influence...or we're not. Which is it?

If we're really that worried about foreign influence, then both Democrats and Republicans have to change policies which many of them consider sacrosanct (such as globalism, free trade, immigration).

That aside, it's a major disappointment that the Democrats would be hawkish over Russia, even despite what they allegedly did. The Democrats' more dovish history would indicate that they should favor negotiation, compromise, and an attempt to ease diplomatic tensions. Escalating the rhetoric and harping on (still unproven) allegations is more like pouring gasoline on a smoldering fire.

And, again, if the Trump camp is so innocent, then why all the lying and the attempts to stop the investigations? Is it their blind loyalty to their hero-worshiping of Trump? Have we reached such a low in American society that morals no longer matter and our "super-hero" president can do anything he wants? How can one have a religious faith that teaches morality but then not apply it? What kind of "faith" is that?

I don't think it's really due to faith in Trump. It's because of so many decades in which faith in the American political system has eroded. Again, that's not the Russians' fault; that's the fault of America's ruling class in both parties. Guys like Brennan who have served six presidents are at the very heart of the political establishment which many Americans blame for their current troubles. If they see that the same people who have been screwing Americans for the past 30+ years are now angry and upset about something, they might gain some level of consolation regarding the man who is causing them to be angry and upset. It's not "hero worship" as it might be more a matter of schadenfreude.

 

[idav]

One thing that could be a huge boost to Kim is if relations deteriorate between the US and Russia (or between the US and China). That's why all this Russia-bashing rhetoric coming from folks like Brennan will likely lead to more harm than good.

Russia will be bashed as long as they keep attacking us.

Trump is just Trump and enough people wanted him elected in enough states for the electoral college to declare him the winner whether you like it or not. It seems you and a few others willfully set aside critical thinking and logic if it doesn't serve your purposes, it seems more about revenge at any cost than any real attempt at discussion or dialogue. So what if Obama was called the AntiChristo? So what if the Democrats attempted to use the cultivated,contrived social ideas of the day against Trump-racist, misogynist,etc. It seems they had their own way to describe an AntiChristo- the people spoke and Hillary lost, deal with it.

Who is setting aside critical thinking? The people that are unwilling to look at the president critically no matter what he says or does. Hillary isnt president, Trump is being criricized for his horrible ways if dealing with the world which is very important. Trump wanting to be just like dictators such as Russia and China is a direct assault on our Democracy.

 

[metis]

I can't explain Trump's actions or why he refuses to be critical of Putin. However, I will say that I believe it's counterproductive to go out of our way to antagonize the Russians at this point. I don't see that America has anything to gain by a resurgence of the Cold War.

I'm not talking about antagonizing the Russians but instead trying to stop their interference in our and Europe's democracies, and that dove tails with the question as to whether the Trump camp collaborated with them.

I do think it's somewhat ironic that Trump and others are labeled "xenophobes" by their detractors, yet who are the ones screaming the loudest about alleged "foreign influence"? Do we not see a contradiction in this view?

Yes, they simply are not at all the same. Immigration, whether that be legal or illegal, simply is nowhere the same as Russian interference in a democratic election.

That aside, it's a major disappointment that the Democrats would be hawkish over Russia, even despite what they allegedly did.

I don't hear any Dems clammering for war, but I do believe responding to what they did is in order. And what they did no longer can be just "alleged".

I don't think it's really due to faith in Trump. It's because of so many decades in which faith in the American political system has eroded. Again, that's not the Russians' fault; that's the fault of America's ruling class in both parties.

I can understand the frustration of many who may have voted for Trump for that reason, including some of my closest relatives, but what I have been referring to is the blind faith some have in Trump now in light of all that he has said and done. He is acting like we would expect a traitor to act, and I'm not being overly dramatic about that and neither was Brennan.

Attacks on our democratic process is nothing to sneeze at, so we need to call it for what it is and act accordingly to try and protect ourselves. To blame what he has been and is doing on "America's ruling class" I believe seriously misses the mark, especially since Putin & Co. have been doing much the same in Europe as well.

 

[idav]

The Republicans were generally more ideologically hawkish than anything else. The Russians are perceived as capitalists now, and fears of Soviet expansionism and/or global revolution have all but evaporated at this point. Russian hegemony in Eastern Europe has all but disappeared, as most of Eastern Europe is now with NATO (which the Russians see as provocative).

I can't explain Trump's actions or why he refuses to be critical of Putin. However, I will say that I believe it's counterproductive to go out of our way to antagonize the Russians at this point. I don't see that America has anything to gain by a resurgence of the Cold War.

I do think it's somewhat ironic that Trump and others are labeled "xenophobes" by their detractors, yet who are the ones screaming the loudest about alleged "foreign influence"? Do we not see a contradiction in this view?

Either Americans are worried about the outside world and foreign influence...or we're not. Which is it?

If we're really that worried about foreign influence, then both Democrats and Republicans have to change policies which many of them consider sacrosanct (such as globalism, free trade, immigration).

That aside, it's a major disappointment that the Democrats would be hawkish over Russia, even despite what they allegedly did. The Democrats' more dovish history would indicate that they should favor negotiation, compromise, and an attempt to ease diplomatic tensions. Escalating the rhetoric and harping on (still unproven) allegations is more like pouring gasoline on a smoldering fire.



I don't think it's really due to faith in Trump. It's because of so many decades in which faith in the American political system has eroded. Again, that's not the Russians' fault; that's the fault of America's ruling class in both parties. Guys like Brennan who have served six presidents are at the very heart of the political establishment which many Americans blame for their current troubles. If they see that the same people who have been screwing Americans for the past 30+ years are now angry and upset about something, they might gain some level of consolation regarding the man who is causing them to be angry and upset. It's not "hero worship" as it might be more a matter of schadenfreude.

Even the white house administration is finally sanctioning Russia for what is well established.

Yes there are plenty who would rather see our country go down the tubes, all for the down with the establishment ideal. Trump being anti establishment is still pretty laughable though.

 

[Falvlun]

The Republicans were generally more ideologically hawkish than anything else. The Russians are perceived as capitalists now, and fears of Soviet expansionism and/or global revolution have all but evaporated at this point. Russian hegemony in Eastern Europe has all but disappeared, as most of Eastern Europe is now with NATO (which the Russians see as provocative).

I can't explain Trump's actions or why he refuses to be critical of Putin. However, I will say that I believe it's counterproductive to go out of our way to antagonize the Russians at this point. I don't see that America has anything to gain by a resurgence of the Cold War.

I do think it's somewhat ironic that Trump and others are labeled "xenophobes" by their detractors, yet who are the ones screaming the loudest about alleged "foreign influence"? Do we not see a contradiction in this view?

Either Americans are worried about the outside world and foreign influence...or we're not. Which is it?

If we're really that worried about foreign influence, then both Democrats and Republicans have to change policies which many of them consider sacrosanct (such as globalism, free trade, immigration).

That aside, it's a major disappointment that the Democrats would be hawkish over Russia, even despite what they allegedly did. The Democrats' more dovish history would indicate that they should favor negotiation, compromise, and an attempt to ease diplomatic tensions. Escalating the rhetoric and harping on (still unproven) allegations is more like pouring gasoline on a smoldering fire.

Besides sanctions, what have democrats suggested that warrants your accusation of “hawkishness”? We aren’t advocating war. Sanctions are a reasonable diplomatic method of expressing disapproval of another country’s actions. Why do you think we should allow foreign governments to secretly undermine our democracy without repercussions?

And again, it is ridiculous to conflate xenophobia with directed anger over a specific action taken by a foreign government. It’s also ridiculous to conflate openness to foreign culture with a requirement to accept foreign covert operations aimed at influencing American elections.

 

[Stanyon]

Did you just pull this out of your butt?

Seriously, you cannot just dismiss the findings of all of our intelligence agencies. Doing so completely destroys any credibility your position.

So because I do not take the assessments of the CIA as the "word of God" I somehow lose any credibility? Where did you stand on the issue of WMD's in Iraq not so many years ago? What do you think of the admission(after lying about it) of hacking and surveillance on members of congress? Not to mention the long history of lies and deceptions, if you are worried about anyone undermining our democracy the CIA is probably a good place to start.

 

[Stanyon]

Besides sanctions, what have democrats suggested that warrants your accusation of “hawkishness”? We aren’t advocating war. Sanctions are a reasonable diplomatic method of expressing disapproval of another country’s actions. Why do you think we should allow foreign governments to secretly undermine our democracy without repercussions?

And again, it is ridiculous to conflate xenophobia with directed anger over a specific action taken by a foreign government. It’s also ridiculous to conflate openness to foreign culture with a requirement to accept foreign covert operations aimed at influencing American elections.

Do you believe that the U.S. should continue and increase it's presence in Syria? Yes or no and why

 

[Falvlun]

If anything is undermining our democracy, it's widespread ignorance of the electorate (fostered by our own media, not the Russians') along with extremepartisanship and loyalty to political organizations and personalities while abandoning principles.

Wanted to revisit this.

You know how we fix this?

Political side:
Make gerrymandering illegal. Independent commissions must draw electoral districts. Eliminate “first past the post” voting in favor of proportional representation or ranked voting. Revise the electoral college so that states allocate their points proportional to the state’s vote. Automatically register every qualified American to vote and create a national ID that is sent out and universally accepted. Require that states provide so many polling places per population or area. Create a single government run website where a ballot for any federal, state, or local election can easily be found simply by typing in an address.

Media side:
Make strict laws regarding what constitutes news. Enforce heavy fines for promulgating fictitious news. Put more money into dry, non-partisan public news. Bring back some form of the Fairness Doctrine.

Education:
Pump money into public education. Pay teachers a professional salary. Ensure each school has access to commensurate supplies. Reduce class size dramatically. Require logic and philosophy be taught, as well as civics. Regulate college tuition and pay for public colleges.

The problem is only one party would favor such actions. The Republicans would oppose any such measures. Cynically, I’d say they prefer an uneducated and disenfranchised population.

 

[Stanyon]

Russia will be bashed as long as they keep attacking us.

Who is setting aside critical thinking? The people that are unwilling to look at the president critically no matter what he says or does. Hillary isnt president, Trump is being criricized for his horrible ways if dealing with the world which is very important. Trump wanting to be just like dictators such as Russia and China is a direct assault on our Democracy.

And the fact that we have a system of checks and balances that would assure that neither Trump or anyone else would be able to even if they wanted? He's got three more years, seven if re-elected and that's it.

 

[Falvlun]

Do you believe that the U.S. should continue and increase it's presence in Syria? Yes or no and why

My post was about Russia, since that’s what Stevicus was talking about.

As for Syria, I think it’s a damned if you do and a damned if you don’t situation. It’s clearly a humanitarian crisis and as such, I understand American intervention to oppose such atrocities. I also understood the now former need to stop ISIS from gaining a stronghold. I also understand that remaining on the sidelines has ceded power to Russia. But I do not want to become embroiled in another ME war and I do not want American boots on the grounds.