March 28, 2014

"There is a whole celebrity political class in Washington, D.C., today that I think is doing a huge disservice to the functionality of our national security..."

"... who are using it to foment their isolationalist tendencies — and I think it is dangerous, really dangerous."

Said Republican Congressman Mike Rogers, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, announcing that he will not run for reelection (and will move into radio).


Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

The combination of sane Democrats (not the Lieberman wing) and Rand Paul can finally right the ship of US foreign policy if we can eliminate the influence of the neocons and unthinking hawks.

Paco Wové said...

For once I have to agree with Lumpy Jowls.

Levi Starks said...

I'm probably missing the point, But I think he's saying it's dangerous to want to be too safe?

paul a'barge said...

Right, Mike ... we suck as really bad Americans because we don't want to let you put young Americans in boots on foreign grounds to perish in order for you to have a nice, expensive lunch in the DC Beltway.

Well, Mike ... F' you. Straight up, you neo-con coward (show us your battle scars, Mike. Show us your purple heart medal).

But by all means, F' you.

Dave Schumann said...

These guys -- the "hawks", or, those in thrall to the military/industrial complex -- are losing credibility for the simple reason that they got much of what they wanted...and things didn't improve.

Specifically, Rogers is in charge of the Intelligence Committee. We pour billions of dollars into the NSA and whore out our best and brightest companies, debasing them to the service of...of what? What did the NSA actually *accomplish*? Can they stop small terror cells? No, we've got the Tsarnayevs doing their thing. Can they detect the strategies of big actors? No, obviously not. While Rogers sells out our people and our technological edge, what do WE get in return? He says we get safety, but we demonstrably don't.

In short, I think people are absolutely willing to sell their privacy or their very souls to cretins like Rogers -- if they get security and/or empire in return. But Rogers finds himself in the role of a whore who won't put out.

Revenant said...

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Biff said...

I'm on board with criticizing NSA, the surveillance society, etc., but at the same time, he really does have a point. As one example among many, try to understand the process and attitudes that allowed Thomas Donilon, a lawyer with apparently thin intelligence and security experience, whose longest professional stints were as a lobbyist for Fannie Mae (!?!?!) and as a legal advisor to Citibank and Goldman Sachs, whose brother is Joe Biden's lawyer, and whose wife was Jill Biden's Chief of Staff, to become Obama's *National Security Advisor*. There is no scenario where that reflects well on the Presidency or on the nation, and yet it barely registered a blip on the radar.

harrogate said...

Good Lord. Everything that's happened and somma these clowns want to bitch that we are not interventionist enough.

It's in no way a question of "isolationism" versus "non isolationism" os any such rot.

The tension is between military adventurism and sanity.

Ann quotes him as though he's got something to say. As though it's a legitimate perspective. Fair enough.

But I say goodbye to Rogers, a blight of human skin, and I raise a glass in hopes for an eternity of him not influencing the conversation ever again.

Bayoneteer said...

Good. Michigan can do better than this hack. Mike wants to ca$h out now cuz his kids are headed to college and he needs to earn. At least he isn't lobbying or corp flacking. Remains to be seen how entertain ing he is.

Zeb Quinn said...

Not only did the hawks get too much or what they wanted post-9/11, they made some really bad choices along the way. And it needs to be reined in. To the extent it now can be.

That said, there's still something to be said about dealing with potential foreign threats before they become major hostilities, and that includes overseas involvements sometimes. But, what? How much? How far to go with it?

Unknown said...

Conflating the intelligence industry with the military industrial complex is not helping. Putting more money into NSA, DHS, TSA and less into cruise missiles is not beefing up the MILITARY industrial complex.

Military is old-school and not sexy like internet sabotage, intercepting ALL the phone calls made in the US, and high-tech imaging machines.

Dave Schumann said...

Unknown -- I think that putting SIGINT into the military intelligence complex generally is correct. First, the general pattern is the same: the marriage of large, technologically sophisticated corporations with government agencies in pursuit of their own aggrandizement. Second, many of the players are the same. Lockheed, Boeing, NG, Raytheon, all are playing in SIGINT. Just because it doesn't involve tanks and (cruise) missiles doesn't mean it's non-military.

Titus said...

he does have a fat face for radio.

David said...

Well. nobody took this seriously.

Rogers is smart, well informed and a stand up guy.

He wants to have a dialog and the few who bothered to comment on the post dumped shit on his head.

Too bad.