Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday November 18 2016, @11:07AM   Printer-friendly
from the reading-1984-is-not-a-pre-req dept.

The nation's top intelligence official on Wednesday evening submitted his letter of resignation, ensuring that President-elect Donald Trump will have the option to build his own network of intel leaders.

"I submitted my letter of resignation last night, which felt pretty good," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Thursday morning. "I have 64 days left and I would have a hard time with my wife for anything past that."

Clapper has long promised to leave his job at the end of President Obama's term in office, so his resignation was expected.

Still, the formal resignation brings the longtime intelligence official's government career to a close and leaves a key vacancy for Trump to fill.

Edward Snowden for Director of National Intelligence.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Geezer on Friday November 18 2016, @12:43PM

    by Geezer (511) on Friday November 18 2016, @12:43PM (#428804)

    Given the role and inherent power of the DNI, I wonder if this part of the swamp is still reserved as "Deep State Only" territory and how far the incoming swamp-drainers can go in defying the Establishment, or if in fact the whole "drain the swamp" thing is just a marketing slogan. Time will tell.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by n1 on Friday November 18 2016, @01:57PM

    by n1 (993) on Friday November 18 2016, @01:57PM (#428818) Journal

    I think the trajectory says that it's marketing, from Jamie Dimon being an adviser and in running for Treasury Secretary, to the latest appointment of Mike Pompeo to head the CIA.

    It's going to be business as usual in practical terms, but the rhetoric will be more pleasing to the people who didn't like the empty rhetoric and marketing that came from the Obama administration.

    It's the other 'teams' chance for hope and change, to be apologists for continuing down the same direction in regard to civil liberties, corporate welfare and foreign policy.

    For a long time we used to feel obliged vote for the lesser evil, now we're voting for different flavors of evil.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @02:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @02:52PM (#428842)

      For a long time we used to feel obliged vote for the lesser evil, now we're voting for different flavors of evil.

      The problem with your angle is that it reflects the larger problem with social interaction these days. The only acceptable solution is the one what 100% aligns with what I feel or believe. Any deviation is morally bankrupt, wrong, and an obvious "sell out" or breakdown of the system (thrown in "elites", "MSM", etc.), and obviously in this case, "evil". You see it very clearly on this web site where ANY disagreement on a topic, particularly any that don't enthusiastically support the "sacred cow" topics, one is quickly written off as a "shill" of some sort and their opinions immediately devalued. This isn't a new phenomenon, but it is greatly amplified by the interwebs.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by n1 on Friday November 18 2016, @03:38PM

        by n1 (993) on Friday November 18 2016, @03:38PM (#428878) Journal

        I was being hyperbolic when using the term evil, and really only as a reference to well known disposition of 'pick the lesser evil'

        I do in essence agree with your point though. However, I completely accept I am in a minority and my views are not going to be represented, because I don't really have any ideological leanings, always learning, situations are always evolving, new information becomes available and history is written by the victors.

        My concern is when people fall for the marketing, a tiny bit of bait (populist, authoritarian, socialist, liberal) is thrown to the gallery, and people take a talking point and do the opposite of what you described... Take a calculated or throwaway remark, with no basis in policy or achievable goals and come to the conclusion the candidate is representing them and holds the same agenda as them overall, from a couple of soundbytes. No looking at track record, actual policy proposals or how such things can be twisted into something else.

        Take Healthcare reform as an example, on the surface of it, a very noble idea, ensuring people have access to healthcare regardless of their economic position... However, the end result being corporate welfare for insurance companies and the opportunity for people already being screwed by expensive premiums, getting screwed harder is not a good result, regardless of the overall good intent that it was packaged with. A few people have seen the benefits, and that's awesome, but i'm not just going to look at one hand doing something i like and ignore what the other is doing.

        Look at some of the media that was supporting Trump.... In october, "we're all doomed, the elections rigged, the markets are rigged".... Now their guy won, "elections are sacred, the markets that were rigged and manipulated until last week are now infallible proof that Trump is the best thing ever" and will continue to look the other way, just like Obama supporters did, because he's on their side, because he said so.

        I have been accused of being a shill or propagandist for both sides of any given narrative in politics. I am a 'liberal european' who supports the welfare system, but I run my own business, and have been screwed by the government and larger businesses for the last decade in my pursuit of contributing positively to society whilst also supporting myself.

        I have no expectation of politicians/people 100% aligning with my beliefs, I have my own cognitive dissonance to contend with on that. However, i'm not going to take a politician with an international audience to say in clear terms what they mean, or believe what they say, or have any intent/capability on following through with their platitudes.

        As a previous presidential candidate said "you have to have a public position and a private position" ... They want you to support them, and the only way they can get that is if they make allusions to supporting you. A damaged reputation after the fact is the worst you'll get as a lying politician, but at that point you've finished your time in public service and it's off to the golf course of the speech circuit for an easy life preaching to the choir.. And besides you had all those on the other side working against you, so it wasn't your fault you made promises that you couldn't keep...

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:34PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:34PM (#429044)

          > I was being hyperbolic when using the term evil, and really only as a reference to well known disposition of 'pick the lesser evil'

          What does that even mean?
          Because the point is that the entire concept of "lesser evil" is a path to failure.
          You pick what matters to you. You set minimum requirements and go from there.

          > As a previous presidential candidate said "you have to have a public position and a private position" ... They want you to support them, and the only way they can get that is if they make allusions to supporting you

          Oh grow the fuck up. That's not what she meant at all. What she meant was that the public position is the ideal end result, the private position is the level of concession that you simply will not compromise on. Its just another way of saying, "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."

          • (Score: 2) by n1 on Friday November 18 2016, @08:34PM

            by n1 (993) on Friday November 18 2016, @08:34PM (#429094) Journal

            1)What I meant by that was... I do not believe either of the main candidates are evil but they are products of their environment, very different environments from what I can relate to. They cannot relate or empathize with me, I cannot with them, based on information publicly available.

            2) Maybe she did mean that. I'm interested in an example of a time where she did "shoot for the moon" to pursue her political vision in the previous jobs and positions of influence she had. She's more of a 'go with the flow' kind of politician from what i've seen and heard.

            I think my example of the Healthcare reform was a good example example of where "shoot for the moon" didn't work out anywhere near as well as it was intended by many supporters.

            In the UK we're shooting for the moon right now, the country voted to leave the EU... What I can be for sure is we'll end up among the stars and no longer be a member of the EU... eventually...

            The compromise may be continued contributions to the EU budget, continuation of immigration policies for EU nationals and continued obligation to various EU legislation or a combination of. And we're still likely to be a member of the EEA/ECHR/Council of Europe and a handful of other European legal institutions, because they're not actually the EU.

            But never fear "Brexit means Brexit" and we'll definitely not be a member of the EU anymore. Got to shoot for the moon, but keep your cards close.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @08:51PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @08:51PM (#429103)

              > I'm interested in an example of a time where she did "shoot for the moon" to pursue her political vision in the previous jobs and positions of influence she had. She's more of a 'go with the flow' kind of politician from what i've seen and heard.

              You frame that like you are expecting me to provide such an example. But what you are asking for is an example of your interpretation of the public/private position line, not my interpretation.

              If you want an example of where she went into a negotiation with high ambitions and settled for a compromise that she could live with, well I think that's pretty much every single negotiation she has not walked away from because politics is the art of compromise.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday November 18 2016, @02:55PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Friday November 18 2016, @02:55PM (#428848)

      Well, yes and no.

      Trump seems to be basically eliminating the middlemen between the government and the rich people that own it.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 2) by n1 on Friday November 18 2016, @03:43PM

        by n1 (993) on Friday November 18 2016, @03:43PM (#428882) Journal

        That is one way of making a smaller and more efficient government for sure, it's good to have a campaign promise he can stick to.

    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by tisI on Friday November 18 2016, @03:29PM

      by tisI (5866) on Friday November 18 2016, @03:29PM (#428871)

      Just as long as Trump chooses to not go the route of becoming the next convicted war criminal repuglican president we may be okay.

      Safe to assume your civil rights, constitutional protections and amendments will be under assault under the new repuglican rule just as with the last number of nazi presidents we have had, as with raygun, bush & baby bush.

      Dubya's surveillance state and oppression could easily be regurgitated by the donald. Time will tell.

      I do however have high hopes he won't butt fuck the nation too severely just because he's a repuglican, and they can. I would hope he's different and not a bought off insider like the rest of them. Again, time will tell.

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @05:27PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @05:27PM (#428939)

        Your points would be much more effective and much less flamebait if you avoided words like, "repuglican," "raygun," "baby bush," "dubya," and, "the donald."

        But, troll's gotta troll, eh?

        • (Score: 2) by tisI on Sunday December 04 2016, @01:57PM

          by tisI (5866) on Sunday December 04 2016, @01:57PM (#436875)

          Bad day got the best of me

          --
          "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @01:58PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @01:58PM (#428819)

    This is certainly a position where you want to bring in someone who knows what they're doing. "Drain the swamp" can run perilously close to "don't know what they're doing".

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @02:53PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @02:53PM (#428845)

      More important than having someone who knows what they're doing is having someone is doesn't want to violate the constitutional rights of hundreds of millions of Americans and even more foreigners.