Senate Intelligence Committee CIA Report

The Senate Intelligence Commnittee report on the CIA was a travesty, says Rich Lowry in yesterday's Politico.  While I tend to agree with him, for the reasons he outlines, it wasn't the low point in Diane Fienstein's blatent attempts to politicize national security and justify the publication.  There are parallels between the Rolling Stone article on the University of Virginia rape and this report, only the Senate had years to write their report and Rolling Stone didn't.  Neither one of them interviewed the people who mattered most to establishing their case.  They had their minds made up and made the story fit the scenario they wanted people to believe.  Truth was subjective.  This is the way of most information wars.

Fienstein, who I have respected for many years as a fair-handed supporter of the Intelligence Community, had to have pressure from the White House to let this report loose while she was still Chairman of the Committee, knowing full well in a couple of weeks, it would never see the light of day.  For all the right reasons, it would have been kept in the dark where it belonged.  

However, Feinstein went even further than just publishing the report, into uncharted territory.  She Tweeted out comments about John Brennan's speech, as he made his reponses to questions from the press.  She contradicted his positions and disagreed with his characterizations, as he made them.  This is unprofessional for a person in that position.  There is a certain decorum on the Hill that goes with being in a powerful positions with responsibility for difficult decisions and policy positions that affect real lives of people.  Most Staff members know enough to keep their opinions to themselves once the public has the issue.  She, seemingly, couldn't wait to make her points.  I say uncharted territory, because in my time on the Hill, I never heard of such a direct public challange to an Administration official, made by a person in her position - and never in real time.  If a staffer had done that, he would be looking for a job the next day.  They usually are more polished.  She lost a lot of respect and damaged the position she holds.  

In one day, reputations can change.  Diane Feinstein lost part of hers, and John Brennan regained part of his, doing a superior job of defending the actions of his employees.  Part of what both did can be viewed not by the substance of what was said, but by the way they conducted themselves in doing it.