In an opinion piece for the Washington Post, retired Navy Admiral Bill McRaven blasted Donald Trump over the decision to revoke John Brennan’s security clearance:
Admiral Bill McRaven commanded the raid that killed bin Laden. Now he writes: Revoke my security clearance, too, Mr. President https://t.co/jFdJ11ofH0
— Karen Tumulty (@ktumulty) August 16, 2018
McRaven begins:
Dear Mr. President:
Former CIA director John Brennan, whose security clearance you revoked on Wednesday, is one of the finest public servants I have ever known. Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him.
Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.
For the record, the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes — no Trump fan by any stretch of the imagination — isn’t falling for McRaven’s effort to canonize Brennan:
Brennan is an incredible hack. He's been caught lying repeatedly. He routinely politicized intelligence. He sought to silence dissenting intel voices. Whatever you think about Trump's decision, it's a mistake to lionize a political hack. https://t.co/E3lBzGv4AK
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) August 16, 2018
Recommended
In a series of tweets, Hayes set out to prove that Brennan is indeed just “a political hack”:
When Brennan was CIA Director, his agency presented unnecessary NDAs to Benghazi survivors — at a memorial service for their fallen comrades. An ugly attempt to silence them. https://t.co/pkjlV4D6ny
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) August 16, 2018
The CIA, at Brennan's direction, kept hidden the documents captured during the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound. Not coincidentally, those documents badly undermined the Obama administration position on al Qaeda, Iran, jihadism, etc. https://t.co/Yn1kiEd8PJ
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) August 16, 2018
In 2012, six months before the election, Brennan gave a speech claiming that Obama's policy would lead to the "demise" of al Qaeda within a decade. It was an absurd argument at the time — more absurd today.https://t.co/m4eQGVmzQ0
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) August 16, 2018
Don't like Trump's decision to revoke Brennan's security clearance? Fine. I don't either. It was vindictive and petty. But don't pretend Brennan was a disinterested, apolitical IC leader. He wasn't. He was a hack then — and he's a hack now.
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) August 16, 2018
Guess the truth about Brennan is just a little too inconvenient for people like former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau, who, rather than mount a convincing rebuttal to Hayes, launched into a personal attack:
Let’s see, who to believe: a Fox pundit, or the decorated Special Ops commander who led the bin Laden raid? https://t.co/QOi7eqIdeY
— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) August 16, 2018
Classy, Jon. But then, we wouldn’t expect a hack like you to be intellectually honest enough to recognize hackery in John Brennan. Or in yourself.
I suspect if you could challenge the facts in my reporting, you'd do that rather than make ad hominem arguments.https://t.co/qeGOZTqEob
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) August 16, 2018
Yes, I’d definitely want to stay away from ad hominem arguments like calling someone a lying political hack based on the opinion pieces I wrote in the partisan magazine I run. https://t.co/KQiefKVgi1
— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) August 16, 2018
Stephen saying that referring to him as a Fox pundit is an “ad hominem attack” is pretty damn revealing
— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) August 16, 2018
The only thing that’s revealing, Dan, is that guys like you and Jon think you’ve owned Hayes.
Nope, it's perfectly used there by @stephenfhayes because @jonfavs leveled his attack at the person (in this case one of his titles) rather than his position. Often wrongly conflated with meaning a straight-up insult. Also funny is that Hayes/TWS are highly skeptical of Trump
— David Rutz (@DavidRutz) August 16, 2018
Favreau should be used to being wrong by now. About a lot of things.
The facts – detailed in the pieces I linked – make clear he’s a lying political hack. Your decision to ignore those facts doesn’t change them. https://t.co/6cUChp9zK1
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) August 16, 2018
Bingo.
This. Trump's decision odds indefensible, and potentially illegal, but Brennan' s still a hack. https://t.co/8VEQYu8Ajy
— Jonathan H. Adler (@jadler1969) August 16, 2018
Hayes doesn’t let his dislike or distrust of Trump get in the way of honest analysis. Favreau could take a powerful lesson from him.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member