Skip to content
Subscribe

WARNING: Blind Allegiance to Spooks is Never Good

WARNING: Blind Allegiance to Spooks is Never Good
Published:

As a life-long Democrat, I am increasingly perplexed by elected Democrats who appear to align themselves unflinchingly with the CIA and the most hawkish members of the Republican Party.

I don't have anything profound to say about it beyond the simple fact that it is "odd."

Is it possible that Democrats simply have a new affinity for, and trust in, the intelligence community?

Are congressional Democrats privy to some startling new developments that now clearly support the view that American foreign policy is best shaped by the intelligence community without challenge?

What happened to the outrage of Democrats over the Bush era intelligence that led us into Iraq?

Are Democrats so shaken by the hacking of their emails and by election losses that they feel a new kinship with the snoops they previously passionately distrusted (with or without cause)?

The current Democratic assault on U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard follows an increasingly comical "The Russians Did It" partisan/media alliance narrative on Trump.

For Democrats old enough to remember Vietnam, this moved from "strange but entertaining" to "disturbing" in the aftermath of the American cruise missile strikes in Syria.

For those who have watched the arch of American foreign policy since the Clinton administration's decision to intervene in Kosovo, the attacks on Gabbard are both suspicious and disturbing.

Whether she is right or wrong is not the point.

The fact that she is being isolated and in effect being accused of being a traitor, for not blindly embracing the narrative of an intelligence community that has a sketchy track record of its own, forces any objective, reasonable person to look more critically at the "unusual" behavior of intelligence players in the lead up to Trump's transition to power.

It's not something you want to believe. But, the dark world of intelligence operatives and anonymous media sources has always been a murky and dangerous place for politicians predisposed to speak their mind.

When Democrats add the weight of unvarnished public attacks against a member of their own Democratic caucus, nothing good can come if it.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.
Preparing the article

WARNING: Blind Allegiance to Spooks is Never Good

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us