By Jon Dougherty
This might seem self-evident to critical thinkers given the ease at which Barack Obama was able to enlist high-ranking officials within the U.S. intelligence community (IC) to launch the “Spygate” scheme to undermine and depose his duly elected successor, but a former CIA analyst says America’s spook agencies are heavily skewed, politically, to favor Democrats.
As reported by theÂ Washington Free Beacon‘s Bill Gertz, the CIA as well as other primary U.S. intelligence agencies are filled with political liberals and Leftists who have pro-Democrat Party views, which have only increased during POTUS Donald Trump’s brief tenure.
Put another way, the president has been right from the outset that the IC has been aligned against him from the outset; how else could Spygate have been possible?
But it’s worse than just opposing the president politically. The analyst suggests that opposition to Trump’s presidency is so pronounced in some sectors that it may effect intelligence-sharing and, thus, the president’s ability to make truly informed foreign policy decisions.
And that’sÂ dangerous
John Gentry, who spent 12 years as a CIA analyst, criticized former senior intelligence leaders, including CIA Director John Brenan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former deputy CIA director Michael Morell, along with former analyst Paul Pillar, for breaking decades-long prohibitions of publicly airing their liberal political views in attacking Trump.
The institutional bias outlined in a lengthy article in the quarterlyÂ International Journal of Intelligence and CounterintelligenceÂ risks undermining the role of intelligence in support of government leaders charged with making policy decisions.
Gentry stopped short of saying the widespread liberal bias of intelligence officials has influenced intelligence reports and products. However, he concludes that “bias may have crept into CIA analyses.”
“A considerable body of evidence, much of it fragmentary, indicates that many CIA people have left-leaning political preferences, but less evidence shows that political bias influences CIA analyses,” Gentry summarizes.
The politicization of intelligence, in the past, was described as either skewing data to fit certain biases or manipulating the intelligence product from outside the IC.
“But in 2016 observers of U.S. intelligence began to wonder if the CIA’s once-firm prohibition on partisan politics had changed, and to ponder whether a new kind of politicization had arisen: namely, institutionally embedded, partisan bias,” Gentry wrote.
Gentry uses as examples the activities of senior retired intelligence officials during the 2016 campaign who “universally” criticized then-candidate Donald Trump while supporting Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton — who, let’s remember, was one of the biggest security leaks to come along in years, thanks to her never-ending quest for secrecy through the use of an unsecured, hack-prone email server.
“The attacks on Trump were unprecedented for intelligence officers in their substance, tone, and volume,” he stated. “Critics went far beyond trying to correct Trump’s misstatements about U.S. intelligence; they attacked him as a human being.”
Which, of course, provides more than enough of a basis to question their judgmentÂ and final intelligence products provided to the commander-in-chief.
Gentry’s article was written before special counsel Robert Mueller turned in his final report clearing the president of “collusion” with Russia — which was the only conclusion he could have made since the entire narrative was fabricated.
But that in and of itself goes to the crux of Gentry’s claims: That the IC is so politically opposed to anÂ outsiderÂ president many of its operatives and top officials have gone out of their way, in an unprecedented fashion, to criticize and undermine him.
Recent books by [James] Clapper and Michael Hayden, a former CIA and NSA director, appeared to justify political attacks on Trump based on both former officials’ claims that the president has adopted a different world view. “For senior former intelligence officials to make such blatantly partisan statements is unprecedented,” Gentry said.
Gentry wrote that further investigation is needed into whether there is a liberal political institutional bias at CIA, because if such bias exists it would damage the agency’s ability to carry out its primary missions of defending against threats and supporting senior leaders in making policy decisions.
Unless the questions about bias are answered, Republicans may trust CIA less and give the agency a smaller role. For Democrats, the bias will lead to using the CIA as a tool to support its liberal agenda.
And so will citizens.
Far too many Americans still actually believe the collusion hoax despite Mueller’s official conclusion, which means they aren’t ever going to believe anything the president tells them when it comes to his decisions regarding national security and foreign policy — especially when it comes to dealing with Russia.
That can lead to very dangerous consequences. A lack of trust and popular support could cause the president to hesitate when he should act. It could also cause him toÂ overreact in some instances, such as dealing with Vladimir Putin. In order to ‘show he’s no Moscow stooge’ Trump could talk himself into taking a far tougher line with Russia than is necessary, which could lead to war with the world’s second-biggest nuclear power.
The damage the Democrat-aligned Deep State has done to our trust in vital government institutions — the office of the presidency, the Justice Department, and the Intelligence Community — will take decades to repair if it’s even possible.
It could well be that these politically compromised, self-serving hacks may be responsible for the eventual breakup of the one country — American — that keeps the rest of the world from blowing itself up.
- Follow Jon Dougherty on Twitter at @JonDougherty10