The other day my wife had me check out an interview she was watching on Hannity since she wanted my feedback. The interview was with William Binney, a former NSA official who worked for the agency over 30 years. You figure, a guy like that, with that kind of background, should have some sort of credibility right?
Just a few observations, other than the obvious one that Hannity really should shut up for a second and let his guests speak. At 6:20 Binney, in response to a question by Hannity, “so every phone conversation I’ve had in my life you believe has been taped?” Binney responds, “Without warrants, yes that’s right.”
Color me skeptical, but I find it hard to believe that a lifetime of Sean Hannity phone calls has been recorded and are sitting in storage out in Utah, or anywhere. Maybe I’m naive, but that seems implausible to me. I just can’t imagine that the technology and storage capacity was there, starting in the 1970’s to record and store every single phone call of a teenage Sean Hannity. Now? Possibly, but going back decades? Or maybe Binney didn’t really mean Hannity’s entire life and misunderstood the question. Or maybe, since he has 30 plus years with the NSA I should shut up since he should know what he’s talking about.
But then at 6:28 he blows any credibility I might have given him when he references the story of former military linguists Adrienne Kinne and David Faulk, “whistleblowers” who made the claim that the US Intelligence Community was deliberately targeting US military and civilians working in Iraq. This blew up into a big national story for a few days in 2008. And although it’s mostly forgotten now, every so often it’s trotted out in the media as an example of the US Intelligence Community spying on innocent civilians as a routine fact of life and this incident just happened to have been outed by brave whistleblowers speaking truth to power.
I happen to have some peripheral knowledge of that incident and know that the media narrative of it is false. So why should I trust Binney if he’s bringing that issue up? More to the point, Binney was out of government by then, so what particular insider knowledge would he have of that incident?
This of course, is just one example of a problem I’m seeing with National Security and Intelligence experts, who go on cable news and, depending on the network, take totally opposite positions on an issue from other National Security and Intelligence experts. It’s by no means unusual for commentators to disagree on cable TV. I mean, that’s the business model right? But unlike other commentators and so called experts, commentators on Intelligence issues are trading on their exclusive access to the Intelligence Community and their access to classified information. But rather than being honest brokers of that kind of access and expertise, they seem to be doing the same thing other cable news talking heads do: exploit their credibility to please the host of whatever show they’re on, in order to get more bookings.
Another “National Security Expert” guest of Hannity’s is LTC Tony Shaffer. Shaffer seems to be more of a wild card than Binney. He’s claimed that President Obama watched the attack on the consulate at Benghazi from the situation room. Explosive news if true, but how would Shaffer had known? It sounds like something he just blurted out. But Shaffer’s most recent wild eyed claim was that retired NSA and other IC types did the actual hacking of the DNC and gave the information to Wikileaks. Another earth shaking claim if true, but where’s the evidence? What’s even the basis of the claim?
Another one who plays that game is Malcom Nance, a former Naval Cryptologic Technician and Arabic linguist. He is also billed as an all-around National Security expert. He actually has an impressive resume, but when you want to be called to be on panels on MSNBC or the BBC, you have to pick a side, which lead to this tweet a few months ago after the Wikileaks release of John Podesta’s emails:
Now there were no “obvious forgeries” in the Podesta emails. Even months later, all the information we have on them is that they are authentic. But if a “National Security Expert” tells you they’re “obvious forgeries,” why wouldn’t the average person just accept that? But calling them forgeries, backed up by Nance’s resume, makes good copy; particularly on MSNBC. That was the kind of national security expertise they want on that network.
Like Nance, John Schindler got his start in the Navy as a Cryptologic Warfare Officer and was a professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval War College until yada yada yada, and now he runs a National Security blog The XX Committee. Schindler isn’t a cable news whore, but he uses social media in much the same way.
Now…is this just an old friend who is a crusty old liberal and hates Trump, or is this an indication of some cabal in the Intelligence Community that has the goods on Trump and is just waiting for their moment to strike? Clearly Schindler wants us to think the latter, but who knows?
My point is, I’m not sure that we can take these Intelligence and Security experts at face value. They all seem to have agendas, whether commercial or personal, and because of the nature of their expertise, they are more or less unchallenged. They are usually the only ones on a cable news panel that have held a security clearance so it makes them hard to challenge. And frankly, that even goes for me too. I dismissed Binney because of his take on the Kinne and Faulk story but I’m not willing to share anything about my issues with it. So why trust me?
Don’t trust me, but you’re better off not trusting any of these “experts” until you can discern their real motives and agendas. And even then…