I don't think the craziness of DNI Ratcliffe's letter is being properly appreciated. This action is outrageous and dangerous on so many levels. THREAD 1/. judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…
First, the DNI released information/disinformation about an American from a foreign enemy! Why would the USG ever release information about assessments of Americans obtained from any foreign government, let alone from a hostile country? That is nuts. 2/
Second, as I know bitterly well from first-hand experience, Russian intel agents are masters at disinformation. Putin wanted to Trump to win, and Clinton to lose. Of course, they would release such disinformation. You don't need a PhD in Russian studies to figure that out. 3/
BTW, when I worked at the White House and as U.S. Ambassador to Russia, I used to say utter nonsense all the time on open lines being listened to by Russian intelligence agents. I knew they were listening, so I purposely said untrue things on the phone to confuse them. SOP. 4/
Third, what is the American national security interest being advanced by the release of this disinformation/information about 2016 a month before our presidential election in 2020? The answer -- none. 5/
And remember, the DNI has decided to NOT to release information about Russian meddling in our election right now. Voters have a right to know. But the DNI has decided otherwise. 6/
This is dangerous, folks, We cannot allow our Intelligence Community to become a propaganda instrument for a political party. 7/. END THREAD.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Any American president must take seriously a threat of escalation from Putin (or Xi). No president wants to take actions that would trigger a direct war with Russia or a nuclear attack on Ukraine. But leaders must weigh the costs of action against the costs of inaction. THREAD 1/
Putin and other leaders have stated clearly the conditions under which they would use a nuclear weapon — an existential threat to Russia. Despite all the recent new rhetoric about escalation, has that position changed? I haven’t seen the evidence, but maybe I’ve missed something. (Send links to correct me if I’m wrong). 2/
The use of a long range missile against a military target inside Russia is NOT an existential threat to Russia. That’s obvious. So the new threats of escalation must fall below the nuclear threshold. 3/
Good debates show clearly the differences between candidates. In this election there are crystal clear differences between Harris and Trump on foreign policy. I hope the moderators use their time wisely to help voters understand these differences. Thread 1/
On Russia/Ukraine, Trump admires Putin. Harris does not. Harris had pledged to continue to aid Ukraine. Trump has not. 2/
Harris and Trump have some big differences on foreign policy:
"On the big philosophical issue of the purpose of American power, Harris positioned herself squarely in the established American tradition of seeking to advance both American interests and values." THREAD 1/
"She stated bluntly [in her acceptance speech], “As President, I will never waver in defense of America’s security and ideals. Because, in the enduring struggle between democracy and tyranny, I know where I stand—and where the United States of America belongs.” 2/
Like most American presidents, she purposely rejected the false dichotomy of “realism” versus “liberalism,” popular in some academic and think tank circles. 3/
"On the big philosophical issue of the purpose of American power, @KamalaHarris positioned herself squarely in the established American tradition of seeking to advance both American interests and values [in her speech on Thursday night]." THREAD 1/
She stated bluntly, “As President, I will never waver in defense of America’s security and ideals. Because, in the enduring struggle between democracy and tyranny, I know where I stand—and where the United States of America belongs.” 2/
"Like most American presidents, she purposely rejected the false dichotomy of “realism” versus “liberalism,” popular in some academic and think tank circles." 3/
Im not an expert on domestic issues, but on foreign policy, the policy contrasts between Harras and Trump could not be clearer. THREAD 1/
Harris believes in alliances. Trump does not. 2/
Harris believes in engagement with the outside world as a strategy to advance American national interests. Trump does not. He's an isolationist who pulled out of many treaties and organizations when president. 3/
In some presidential elections, the differences between Democratic and Republican candidates are nuanced. In other elections, the big differences in foreign policy were within parties, not between parties (think about the debate about the war in Iraq in the Democratic Party in 2008). THREAD 1/
In the 2024 presidential elections, however, the main foreign policy differences are between @KamalaHarris and Trump and those differences are stark. 1/
First, Harris and her team are internationalists, believing rightly that proactive engagement with, not isolation from, the world is the best way to advance American security, prosperity, and values. 2/