https://www.redstate.com/streiff/202...oax-suleimani/
If the CIA were actively involved, then the question becomes one of who was running it? Was it run from Langley? Or CIA’s London Station. This is a critical question because the head of London Station at the time was Gina Haspel, who is currently CIA director, and the implication would be that the head of CIA was actively involved in what can only be called overt interference in Us politics. That is not only bad form it is a federal felony.
I’m sure this has not gone unnoticed in the White House as a great deal of Trump’s behaviors in foreign policy can be explained by the fact that he’s very concerned that the CIA was out to get him and whatever advice they give him is suspect.
Though Ms. Haspel took no formal position about whether to kill General Suleimani, officials who listened to her analysis came away with the clear view that the C.I.A. believed that killing him would improve — not weaken — security in the Middle East.
I think the article pointing out her risk assessment about Iran’s retaliation as being accurate is very significant.
To me this is an open letter from Haspel to President Trump saying, “you can trust me, I give you solid advice, and I’m on your team.”
It means that CIA HQ is not throwing up roadblocks to Durham. It means that the CIA is dirty enough that the Director felt it necessary to underscore her 100% accurate predictions and great advice in a New York Times article.
- dilbert firestorm
- 01-11-2020, 02:51 AM