Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If "you don't need a secret decoder ring to see what's happening here," it's not a dog whistle.
Hoover's FBI was politicized, as was the CIA. For the last few decades, the intel community has worked hard to stay out of politics. It has been dragged back into it, largely because of Trump, who is threatened by the Russian probe (and let's be honest, by the potential exposure of a lot of bad stuff) and who cares much more about that than about the institutional status of the intelligence community. The Republican Party is full of the likes of Devin Nunes, who will side with Trump. Not that the intel community has handled this flawlessly, but who ever does?
When conservatives want to polarize things, what are the rest of us to do?
|
I've no quibble with the response to Trump. Brennan's comments are valid. Trump's actions could sustain a claim of treason as I understand the word.
Mine is an issue with semantics. I hate pretexts. They slow things down and force people to obscure their aims.
I understand the need for these intermediating games. We have to observe the fiction that people are doing things for "acceptable" reasons despite the clear evidence to the contrary. This bullshit veneer is somewhat irritating. I'd like to see the power struggle here play itself out nakedly.
Threaded Mode