The purpose of my article on Gabbard and Hegseth was to point out the shallow nature of their experience to hold high office. To do that I used as a point of comparison my own, decidedly more comprehensive, experience of 30 years in government service, most of which was in intelligence at high levels of the Dept of Defense. That Gabbard or Hegseth hold certain views about our foreign policy in the Middle East or elsewhere was not my point. I might even agree with Gabbard, Hegseth is a cipher, but a high-schooler might hold the same opinions yet that is no basis for qualification to high office.
To call my article a hit piece is more than a bit hyperbolic. Hit pieces are characterized by false or misleading information. If there is any such information in my article, I would like you to point it out. I made some judgments about the capacity of the two nominees to fill these positions based on my experience and the publicly available information on the experience of the candidates. I stand by my comments.
At this link is the outline of the Authorities and Duties of the DNI. I see nothing in the description about foreign policy direction or shake-ups. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/who-we-are
Dick, I hardly know where to start. "Hit pieces" are in fact "characterized by false or misleading information," but most of the damage and affronts to journalism are clearly stoked by bias or omissions. In fact, your subtitle makes my Substack point, while accomplishing everything it needs to accomplish for the online smear bubble and warmongering Lib echo-chamber.
Your article was a mostly evidence-free attempt to smear an outspoken current military LTC - with at least a current TS clearance - a former four-term Congresswomen and 2020 Presidential candidate - much like the almost comical corporate press narrative that's been heating up on outlets like CNN and MSNBC, and especially through Google analytics since her DNI nomination. In spite of this extremely biased, fictitious campaign to take her down, she is likely to be confirmed. The National Security State does NOT want to be subjected to her well-versed scrutiny. She knows where all the skeletons are buried.
I would hope "decidedly more experienced" IC candidates like James Clapper end up doing hard time before ever rendering National Security advise to anyone.
Hear! Hear! Her nomination hearings will be a tonic and hopefully she'll get past them to fill the post. It takes so little to scare the crap out of the fans of Empire and she has more than enough information and guts to do it.
The purpose of my article on Gabbard and Hegseth was to point out the shallow nature of their experience to hold high office. To do that I used as a point of comparison my own, decidedly more comprehensive, experience of 30 years in government service, most of which was in intelligence at high levels of the Dept of Defense. That Gabbard or Hegseth hold certain views about our foreign policy in the Middle East or elsewhere was not my point. I might even agree with Gabbard, Hegseth is a cipher, but a high-schooler might hold the same opinions yet that is no basis for qualification to high office.
To call my article a hit piece is more than a bit hyperbolic. Hit pieces are characterized by false or misleading information. If there is any such information in my article, I would like you to point it out. I made some judgments about the capacity of the two nominees to fill these positions based on my experience and the publicly available information on the experience of the candidates. I stand by my comments.
At this link is the outline of the Authorities and Duties of the DNI. I see nothing in the description about foreign policy direction or shake-ups. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/who-we-are
NB: Here is the correct and direct link to my article on NWCitizen. https://nwcitizen.com/entry/gabbard-and-hegseth-why-are-they-not-profoundly-ashamed
Dick Conoboy
Dick, I hardly know where to start. "Hit pieces" are in fact "characterized by false or misleading information," but most of the damage and affronts to journalism are clearly stoked by bias or omissions. In fact, your subtitle makes my Substack point, while accomplishing everything it needs to accomplish for the online smear bubble and warmongering Lib echo-chamber.
Your article was a mostly evidence-free attempt to smear an outspoken current military LTC - with at least a current TS clearance - a former four-term Congresswomen and 2020 Presidential candidate - much like the almost comical corporate press narrative that's been heating up on outlets like CNN and MSNBC, and especially through Google analytics since her DNI nomination. In spite of this extremely biased, fictitious campaign to take her down, she is likely to be confirmed. The National Security State does NOT want to be subjected to her well-versed scrutiny. She knows where all the skeletons are buried.
Shocking to me though, Dick, was your endorsement of your apparent, felonious mentor James Clapper; the same James Clapper who lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding the NSA's warrantless surveillance of Americans (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clappers-perjury-dc-made-men-dont-get-charged-lying-congress-jonathan-turley-column/1045991001/), and shamelessly pushed every Russophobic MSM/CIA psyop since Hillary Clinton's election defeat, with Obama's full knowledge in 2016, BTW (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/james-clapper-mr-october-surprise-how-obamas-intel-czar-rigged-2016-and-2020-debates-against-trump/ar-BB1oWyFM). Sadly, these are just a couple of the more outrageous examples of Clapper capers that so many of our hopelessly propagandized MSM audiences still believe.
I would hope "decidedly more experienced" IC candidates like James Clapper end up doing hard time before ever rendering National Security advise to anyone.
Hear! Hear! Her nomination hearings will be a tonic and hopefully she'll get past them to fill the post. It takes so little to scare the crap out of the fans of Empire and she has more than enough information and guts to do it.