So,
the article the OP has linked to here is saying that:
Morgan Muir, the longtime CIA analyst, is now tasked with delivering Biden's daily intelligence briefings, along with Avril Haines, the new director of national intelligence.
However, the record shows in 2013 Mr. Muir played a leading role in defending CIA torture program and lied about said program to the senate intelligence committee.
After the announcement of him being tasked with said briefings at Biden's white house, three members of the 2013 senate intelligence committee came out and said Mr. Muir is not to be trusted.
Okay.
However, the issue I see in this story is that what kind of geopolitical leaning both Morgan Muir and Avril Haines have. These two can manage the direct input of (foreign) intelligence into Biden after all.
In my knowledge, Morgan Muir is the protege of Paul Wolfowitz who belongs to the Condoleezza Rice clique. And it has long been believed that, together with Mr. Wolfowitz, Morgan Muir was responsible for shaping up George W Bush's Taiwan policy, "We oppose any unilateral decision, by either China or Taiwan, to change the status quo." Meaning, the W would keep respecting the One-China policy.
Then,
there's Avril Haines who, after her Obama admin days, was working for WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm with lots of Beijing connections. Those connections have showed vast interests especially in the US defense programs. The interests the firm was eagerly helping to satisfy. By the way the firm was founded by none other than Antony Blinken, the current secretary of state.
tl;dr
Of course what Mr. Muir has done in the past concerns me because of what kind of job he's going to do. But I am more interested in what kind of foreign policies this new admin is going to carry out. Are those going to be worthy of the term Beijing Biden?
Edited to Add:
We should note that it probably was not Morgan Muir's sole decision when he defended CIA's torture program + lied to the committee. That's not how bureaucracy works. Before testifying to the committee, he would have discussed with his direct superiors regarding what & how to say in front of the committee. And my guess is that (if not all the way to the top, the director of CIA) at least the head of the anti-terrorism desk would have been aware of said senate committee situation long beforehand.
So, in my opinion, if we're going to hold Mr. Muir responsible for misleading the committee with false information (of course we must), we should also ask those direct superiors of his how they have let it happen.
In case you want to do so, you're looking at Lisa Monaco, John Carlin, and possibly John Brennan. Just saying.
So,
the article the OP has linked to here is saying that:
Morgan Muir, the longtime CIA analyst, is now tasked with delivering Biden's daily intelligence briefings, along with Avril Haines, the new director of national intelligence.
However, the record shows in 2013 Mr. Muir played a leading role in defending CIA torture program and lied about said program to the senate intelligence committee.
After the announcement of him being tasked with said briefings at Biden's white house, three members of the 2013 senate intelligence committee came out and said Mr. Muir is not to be trusted.
Okay.
However, the issue I see in this story is that what kind of geopolitical leaning both Morgan Muir and Avril Haines have. These two can manage the direct input of (foreign) intelligence into Biden after all.
In my knowledge, Morgan Muir is the protege of Paul Wolfowitz who belongs to the Condoleezza Rice clique. And it has long been believed that, together with Mr. Wolfowitz, Morgan Muir was responsible for shaping up George W Bush's Taiwan policy, "We oppose any unilateral decision, by either China or Taiwan, to change the status quo." Meaning, the W would keep respecting the One-China policy.
Then,
there's Avril Haines who, after her Obama admin days, was working for WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm with lots of Beijing connections. Those connections have showed vast interests especially in the US defense programs. The interests the firm was eagerly helping to satisfy. By the way the firm was founded by none other than Antony Blinken, the current secretary of state.
tl;dr
Of course what Mr. Muir has done in the past concerns me because of what kind of job he's going to do. But I am more interested in what kind of foreign policies this new admin is going to carry out. Are those going to be worthy of the term Beijing Biden?
Edited to Add:
We should note that it probably was not Morgan Muir's sole decision when he defended CIA's torture program + lied to the committee. That's not how bureaucracy works. Before testifying to the committee, he would have discussed with his direct superiors regarding what & how to say in front of the committee. And my guess is that (if not all the way to the top, the director of CIA) at least the head of the anti-terrorism desk would have been aware of said senate committee situation long beforehand.
So, in my opinion, if we're going to hold Mr. Muir responsible for misleading the committee with false information (of course we must), we should also ask those direct superiors of his how they have let it happen.
In case you want to do so, you're looking at Lisa Monaco, John Carlin, and possibly John Brennan. Just saying.
So,
the article the OP has linked to here is saying that:
Morgan Muir, the longtime CIA analyst, is now tasked with delivering Biden's daily intelligence briefings, along with Avril Haines, the new director of national intelligence.
However, the record shows in 2013 Mr. Muir played a leading role in defending CIA torture program and lied about said program to the senate intelligence committee.
After the announcement of him being tasked with said briefings at Biden's white house, three members of the 2013 senate intelligence committee came out and said Mr. Muir is not to be trusted.
Okay.
However, the issue I see in this story is that what kind of geopolitical leaning both Morgan Muir and Avril Haines have. These two can manage the direct input of (foreign) intelligence into Biden after all.
In my knowledge, Morgan Muir is the protege of Paul Wolfowitz who belongs to the Condoleezza Rice clique. And it has long been believed that, together with Mr. Wolfowitz, Morgan Muir was responsible for shaping up George W Bush's Taiwan policy, "We oppose any unilateral decision, by either China or Taiwan, to change the status quo." Meaning, the W would keep respecting the One-China policy.
Then,
there's Avril Haines who, after her Obama admin days, was working for WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm with lots of Beijing connections. Those connections have showed vast interests especially in the US defense programs over the years. The interests the firm was eagerly helping to satisfy. By the way the firm was founded by none other than Antony Blinken, the current secretary of state.
tl;dr
Of course what Mr. Muir has done in the past concerns me because of what kind of job he's going to do. But I am more interested in what kind of foreign policies this new admin is going to carry out. Are those going to be worthy of the term Beijing Biden?
Edited to Add:
We should note that it probably was not Morgan Muir's sole decision when he defended CIA's torture program + lied to the committee. That's not how bureaucracy works. Before testifying to the committee, he would have discussed with his direct superiors regarding what & how to say in front of the committee. And my guess is that (if not all the way to the top, the director of CIA) at least the head of the anti-terrorism desk would have been aware of said senate committee situation long beforehand.
So, in my opinion, if we're going to hold Mr. Muir responsible for misleading the committee with false information (of course we must), we should also ask those direct superiors of his how they have let it happen.
In case you want to do so, you're looking at Lisa Monaco, John Carlin, and possibly John Brennan. Just saying.
So,
the article the OP has linked to here is saying that:
Morgan Muir, the longtime CIA analyst, is now tasked with delivering Biden's daily intelligence briefings, along with Avril Haines, the new director of national intelligence.
However, the record shows in 2013 Mr. Muir played a leading role in defending CIA torture program and lied about said program to the senate intelligence committee.
After the announcement of him being tasked with said briefings at Biden's white house, three members of the 2013 senate intelligence committee came out and said Mr. Muir is not to be trusted.
Okay.
However, the issue I see in this story is that what kind of geopolitical leaning both Morgan Muir and Avril Haines have. These two can manage the direct input of (foreign) intelligence into Biden after all.
In my knowledge, Morgan Muir is the protege of Paul Wolfowitz who belongs to the Condoleezza Rice clique. And it has long been believed that, together with Mr. Wolfowitz, Morgan Muir was responsible for shaping up George W Bush's Taiwan policy, "We oppose any unilateral decision, by either China or Taiwan, to change the status quo." Meaning, the W would keep respecting the One-China policy.
Then,
there's Avril Haines who, after her Obama admin days, was working for WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm with lots of Beijing connections. Those connections have showed vast interests especially in the US defense programs over the years. And the interests the firm was eagerly helping to satisfy. By the way the firm was founded by none other than Antony Blinken, the current secretary of state.
tl;dr
Of course what Mr. Muir has done in the past concerns me because of what kind of job he's going to do. But I am more interested in what kind of foreign policies this new admin is going to carry out. Are those going to be worthy of the term Beijing Biden?
Edited to Add:
We should note that it probably was not Morgan Muir's sole decision when he defended CIA's torture program + lied to the committee. That's not how bureaucracy works. Before testifying to the committee, he would have discussed with his direct superiors regarding what & how to say in front of the committee. And my guess is that (if not all the way to the top, the director of CIA) at least the head of the anti-terrorism desk would have been aware of said senate committee situation long beforehand.
So, in my opinion, if we're going to hold Mr. Muir responsible for misleading the committee with false information (of course we must), we should also ask those direct superiors of his how they have let it happen.
In case you want to do so, you're looking at Lisa Monaco, John Carlin, and possibly John Brennan. Just saying.
So,
the article the OP has linked to here is saying that:
Morgan Muir, the longtime CIA analyst, is now tasked with delivering Biden's daily intelligence briefings, along with Avril Haines, the new director of national intelligence.
However, the record shows in 2013 Mr. Muir played a leading role in defending CIA torture program and lied about said program to the senate intelligence committee.
After the announcement of him being tasked with said briefings at Biden's white house, three members of the 2013 senate intelligence committee came out and said Mr. Muir is not to be trusted.
Okay.
However, the issue I see in this story is that what kind of geopolitical leaning both Morgan Muir and Avril Haines have. These two can manage the direct input of (foreign) intelligence into Biden after all.
In my knowledge, Morgan Muir is the protege of Paul Wolfowitz who belongs to the Condoleezza Rice clique. And it has long been believed that, together with Mr. Wolfowitz, Morgan Muir was responsible for shaping up George W Bush's Taiwan policy, "We oppose any unilateral decision, by either China or Taiwan, to change the status quo." Meaning, the W would keep respecting the One-China policy.
Then,
there's Avril Haines who, after her Obama admin days, was an employee of WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm with lots of Beijing connections. Those connections have showed vast interests especially in the US defense programs over the years. And the interests the firm was eagerly helping to satisfy. By the way the firm was founded by none other than Antony Blinken, the current secretary of state.
tl;dr
Of course what Mr. Muir has done in the past concerns me because of what kind of job he's going to do. But I am more interested in what kind of foreign policies this new admin is going to carry out. Are those going to be worthy of the term Beijing Biden?
Edited to Add:
We should note that it probably was not Morgan Muir's sole decision when he defended CIA's torture program + lied to the committee. That's not how bureaucracy works. Before testifying to the committee, he would have discussed with his direct superiors regarding what & how to say in front of the committee. And my guess is that (if not all the way to the top, the director of CIA) at least the head of the anti-terrorism desk would have been aware of said senate committee situation long beforehand.
So, in my opinion, if we're going to hold Mr. Muir responsible for misleading the committee with false information (of course we must), we should also ask those direct superiors of his how they have let it happen.
In case you want to do so, you're looking at Lisa Monaco, John Carlin, and possibly John Brennan. Just saying.
So,
the article the OP has linked to here is saying that:
Morgan Muir, the longtime CIA analyst, is now tasked with delivering Biden's daily intelligence briefings, along with Avril Haines, the new director of national intelligence.
However, the record shows in 2013 Mr. Muir played a leading role in defending CIA torture program and lied about said program to the senate intelligence committee.
After the announcement of him being tasked with said briefings at Biden's white house, three members of the 2013 senate intelligence committee came out and said Mr. Muir is not to be trusted.
Okay.
However, the issue I see in this story is that what kind of geopolitical leaning both Morgan Muir and Avril Haines have. These two can manage the direct input of (foreign) intelligence into Biden after all.
In my knowledge, Morgan Muir is the protege of Paul Wolfowitz who belongs to the Condoleezza Rice clique. And it has long been believed that, together with Mr. Wolfowitz, Morgan Muir was responsible for shaping up George W Bush's Taiwan policy, "We oppose any unilateral decision, by either China or Taiwan, to change the status quo." Meaning, the W would keep respecting the One-China policy.
Then,
there's Avril Haines who, after her Obama admin days, was an employee of WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm with lots of Beijing connections which have vast interests in the US defense programs. The interests the firm was eagerly helping to satisfy. And said firm was founded by the current secretary of state Antony Blinken by the way.
tl;dr
Of course what Mr. Muir has done in the past concerns me because of what kind of job he's going to do. But I am more interested in what kind of foreign policies this new admin is going to carry out. Are those going to be worthy of the term Beijing Biden?
Edited to Add:
We should note that it probably was not Morgan Muir's sole decision when he defended CIA's torture program + lied to the committee. That's not how bureaucracy works. Before testifying to the committee, he would have discussed with his direct superiors regarding what & how to say in front of the committee. And my guess is that (if not all the way to the top, the director of CIA) at least the head of the anti-terrorism desk would have been aware of said senate committee situation long beforehand.
So, in my opinion, if we're going to hold Mr. Muir responsible for misleading the committee with false information (of course we must), we should also ask those direct superiors of his how they have let it happen.
In case you want to do so, you're looking at Lisa Monaco, John Carlin, and possibly John Brennan. Just saying.
So,
the article the OP has linked to here is saying that:
Morgan Muir, the longtime CIA analyst, is now tasked with delivering Biden's daily intelligence briefings, along with Avril Haines, the new director of national intelligence.
However, the record shows in 2013 Mr. Muir played a leading role in defending CIA torture program and lied about said program to the senate intelligence committee.
After the announcement of him being tasked with said briefings at Biden's white house, three members of the 2013 senate intelligence committee came out and said Mr. Muir is not to be trusted.
Okay.
However, the issue I see in this story is that what kind of geopolitical leaning both Morgan Muir and Avril Haines have. These two can manage the direct input of (foreign) intelligence into Biden after all.
In my knowledge, Morgan Muir is the protege of Paul Wolfowitz who belongs to the Condoleezza Rice clique. And it has long been believed that, together with Mr. Wolfowitz, Morgan Muir was responsible for shaping up George W Bush's Taiwan policy, "We oppose any unilateral decision, by either China or Taiwan, to change the status quo." Meaning, the W will keep respecting the One-China policy.
Then,
there's Avril Haines who, after her Obama admin days, was an employee of WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm with lots of Beijing connections which have vast interests in the US defense programs. The interests the firm was eagerly helping to satisfy. And said firm was founded by the current secretary of state Antony Blinken by the way.
tl;dr
Of course what Mr. Muir has done in the past concerns me because of what kind of job he's going to do. But I am more interested in what kind of foreign policies this new admin is going to carry out. Are those going to be worthy of the term Beijing Biden?
Edited to Add:
We should note that it probably was not Morgan Muir's sole decision when he defended CIA's torture program + lied to the committee. That's not how bureaucracy works. Before testifying to the committee, he would have discussed with his direct superiors regarding what & how to say in front of the committee. And my guess is that (if not all the way to the top, the director of CIA) at least the head of the anti-terrorism desk would have been aware of said senate committee situation long beforehand.
So, in my opinion, if we're going to hold Mr. Muir responsible for misleading the committee with false information (of course we must), we should also ask those direct superiors of his how they have let it happen.
In case you want to do so, you're looking at Lisa Monaco, John Carlin, and possibly John Brennan. Just saying.
So,
the article the OP has linked to here is saying that:
Morgan Muir, the longtime CIA analyst, is now tasked with delivering Biden's daily intelligence briefings, along with Avril Haines, the new director of national intelligence.
However, the record shows in 2013 Mr. Muir played a leading role in defending CIA torture program and lied about said program to the senate intelligence committee.
After the announcement of him being tasked with said briefings at Biden's white house, three members of the 2013 senate intelligence committee came out and said Mr. Muir is not to be trusted.
Okay.
However, the issue I see in this story is that what kind of geopolitical leaning both Morgan Muir and Avril Haines have. These two can manage the direct input of (foreign) intelligence into Biden after all.
In my knowledge, Morgan Muir is the protege of Paul Wolfowitz who belongs to the Condoleezza Rice clique. And it has long been believed that, together with Mr. Wolfowitz, Morgan Muir was responsible for shaping up George W Bush's Taiwan policy, "We oppose any unilateral decision, by either China or Taiwan, to change the status quo." Meaning, the W will keep respecting the One-China policy.
Then,
there's Avril Haines who, after her Obama admin days, was an employee of WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm with lots of Beijing connections which have vast interests in the US defense programs. The interests the firm was eagerly helping to satisfy. And said firm was founded by the current secretary of state Antony Blinken by the way.
tl;dr
Of course what Mr. Muir has done in the past concerns me because of what kind of job he's going to do. But I am more interested in what kind of foreign policies this new admin is going to carry out. Are those going to be worthy of the term Beijing Biden?
Edited to Add:
We should note that it probably was not Morgan Muir's sole decision when he defended CIA's torture program + lied to the committee. That's not how bureaucracy works. Before testifying to the committee, he would have discussed with his direct superiors regarding what & how to say in front of the committee. And my guess is that (if not all the way to the top, the director of CIA) at least the head of the anti-terrorism desk would have been aware of said senate committee situation long beforehand.
So, in my opinion, if we're going to hold Mr. Muir responsible for misleading the committee with false information (of course we must), we should also ask those direct superiors of his how they have let it happen.
In case you want to do so, you're looking at Lisa Monaco, John Carlin, and possibly John Brennan. Just saying.
So,
the article the OP has linked to here is saying that:
Morgan Muir, the longtime CIA analyst, is now tasked with delivering Biden's daily intelligence briefings, along with Avril Haines, the new director of national intelligence.
However, the record shows in 2013 Mr. Muir played a leading role in defending CIA torture program and lied about said program to the senate intelligence committee.
After the announcement of him being tasked with said briefings at Biden's white house, three members of the 2013 senate intelligence committee came out and said Mr. Muir is not to be trusted.
Okay.
However, the issue I see in this story is that what kind of geopolitical leaning both Morgan Muir and Avril Haines have. These two can manage the direct input of (foreign) intelligence into Biden after all.
In my knowledge, Morgan Muir is the protege of Paul Wolfowitz who belongs to the Condoleezza Rice clique. And it has long been believed that, together with Mr. Wolfowitz, Morgan Muir was responsible for shaping up George W Bush's Taiwan policy, "We oppose any unilateral decision, by either China or Taiwan, to change the status quo." Meaning, the W will keep respecting the One-China policy.
Then,
there's Avril Haines who, after her Obama admin days, was an employee of WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm with lots of Beijing connections which have vast interests in the US defense programs. The interests the firm was eagerly helping to satisfy. And said firm was founded by the current secretary of state Antony Blinken by the way.
tl;dr
Of course what Mr. Muir has done in the past concerns me because of what kind of job he's going to do. But I am more interested in what kind of foreign policies this new admin is going to carry out. Are those going to be worthy of the term Beijing Biden?
Edited to Add:
We should note that it probably was not Morgan Muir's sole decision when he defended CIA's torture program + lied to the committee. That's not how bureaucracy works. Before testifying to the committee, he would discussed with his direct superiors regarding what & how to say in front of the committee. And my guess is that (if not all the way to the top, the director of CIA) at least the head of the anti-terrorism desk would have been aware of said senate committee situation long beforehand.
So, in my opinion, if we're going to hold Mr. Muir responsible for misleading the committee with false information (of course we must), we should also ask those direct superiors of his how they have let it happen. In case you want to do so, you're looking at Lisa Monaco, John Carlin, and possibly John Brennan. Just saying.
So,
the article the OP has linked to here is saying that:
Morgan Muir, the longtime CIA analyst, is now tasked with delivering Biden's daily intelligence briefings, along with Avril Haines, the new director of national intelligence.
However, the record shows in 2013 Mr. Muir played a leading role in defending CIA torture program and lied about said program to the senate intelligence committee.
After the announcement of him being tasked with said briefings at Biden's white house, three members of the 2013 senate intelligence committee came out and said Mr. Muir is not to be trusted.
Okay.
However, the issue I see in this story is that what kind of geopolitical leaning both Morgan Muir and Avril Haines have.
In my knowledge, Morgan Muir is the protege of Paul Wolfowitz who belongs to the Condoleezza Rice clique. And it has long been believed that, together with Mr. Wolfowitz, Morgan Muir was responsible for shaping up George W Bush's Taiwan policy, "We oppose any unilateral decision, by either China or Taiwan, to change the status quo." Meaning, the W will keep respecting the One-China policy.
Then,
there's Avril Haines who, after her Obama admin days, was an employee of WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm with lots of Beijing connections which have vast interests in the US defense programs. The interests the firm was eagerly helping to satisfy. And said firm was founded by the current secretary of state Antony Blinken by the way.
tl;dr
Of course what Mr. Muir has done in the past concerns me because of what kind of job he's going to do. But I am more interested in what kind of foreign policies this new admin is going to carry out. Are those going to be worthy of the term Beijing Biden?
Edited to Add:
We should note that it probably was not Morgan Muir's sole decision when he defended CIA's torture program + lied to the committee. That's not how bureaucracy works. Before testifying to the committee, he would discussed with his direct superiors regarding what & how to say in front of the committee. And my guess is that (if not all the way to the top, the director of CIA) at least the head of the anti-terrorism desk would have been aware of said senate committee situation long beforehand.
So, in my opinion, if we're going to hold Mr. Muir responsible for misleading the committee with false information (of course we must), we should also ask those direct superiors of his how they have let it happen. In case you want to do so, you're looking at Lisa Monaco, John Carlin, and possibly John Brennan. Just saying.
So,
the article the OP has linked to here is saying that:
Morgan Muir, the longtime CIA analyst, is now tasked with delivering Biden's daily intelligence briefings, along with Avril Haines, the new director of national intelligence.
However, the record shows in 2013 Mr. Muir played a leading role in defending CIA torture program and lied about said program to the senate intelligence committee.
After the announcement of him being tasked with said briefings at Biden's white house, three members of the 2013 senate intelligence committee came out and said Mr. Muir is not to be trusted.
Okay.
However, the issue I see in this story is that what kind of geopolitical leaning both Morgan Muir and Avril Haines have.
In my knowledge, Morgan Muir is the protege of Paul Wolfowitz who belongs to the Condoleezza Rice clique. And it has long been believed that, together with Mr. Wolfowitz, Morgan Muir was responsible for shaping up George W Bush's Taiwan policy, "We oppose any unilateral decision, by either China or Taiwan, to change the status quo." Meaning, the W will keep respecting the One-China policy.
Then,
there's Avril Haines who, after her Obama admin days, was an employee of WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm with lots of Beijing connections which have vast interests in the US defense programs. The interests the firm was eagerly helping to satisfy. Said firm was founded by the current secretary of state Antony Blinken by the way.
tl;dr
Of course what Mr. Muir has done in the past concerns me because of what kind of job he's going to do. But I am more interested in what kind of foreign policies this new admin is going to carry out. Are those going to be worthy of the term Beijing Biden?
So,
the article the OP has linked to here is saying that:
Morgan Muir, the longtime CIA analyst, is now tasked with delivering Biden's daily intelligence briefings, along with Avril Haines, the new director of national intelligence.
However, the record shows in 2013 Mr. Muir played a leading role in defending CIA torture program and lied about said program to the senate intelligence committee.
After the announcement of him being tasked with said briefings at Biden's white house, three members of the 2013 senate intelligence committee came out and said Mr. Muir is not to be trusted.
Okay.
However, the issue I see in this story is that what kind of geopolitical leaning both Morgan Muir and Avril Haines have.
In my knowledge, Morgan Muir is the protege of Paul Wolfowitz who belongs to the Condoleezza Rice clique. And it has long been believed that, together with Mr. Wolfowitz, Morgan Muir was responsible for shaping up George W Bush's Taiwan policy, "We oppose any unilateral decision, by either China or Taiwan, to change the status quo." Meaning, the W will keep respecting the One-China policy.
Then,
there's Avril Haines who, after her Obama admin days, was an employee of WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm with lots of Beijing connections which have vast interests in the US defense programs. The interests the firm was eagerly helping to satisfy. Said firm was founded by the current secretary of state Antony Blinken by the way.
tl;dr
Of course what Mr. Muir has done in the past concerns me because of what kind of job he's going to do. But I am more interested in what kind of foreign policies this new admin is going to carry out. Is it going to be worthy of the term Beijing Biden?
So,
the article the OP has linked to here is saying that:
Morgan Muir, the longtime CIA analyst, is now tasked with delivering Biden's daily intelligence briefings, along with Avril Haines, the new director of national intelligence.
However, the record shows in 2013 Mr. Muir played a leading role in defending CIA torture program and lied about said program to the senate intelligence committee.
After the announcement of him being tasked with said briefings at Biden's white house, three members of the 2013 senate intelligence committee came out and said Mr. Muir is not to be trusted.
Okay.
However, the issue I see in this story is that what kind of geopolitical leaning both Morgan Muir and Avril Haines have.
In my knowledge, Morgan Muir is the protege of Paul Wolfowitz who belongs to the Condoleezza Rice clique. And it has long been believed that, together with Mr. Wolfowitz, Morgan Muir was responsible for shaping up George W Bush's Taiwan policy, "We oppose any unilateral decision, by either China or Taiwan, to change the status quo." Meaning, the W will keep respecting the One-China policy.
Then,
there's Avril Haines who, after her Obama admin days, was an employee of WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm with lots of Beijing connections which have vast interests in the US defense programs. The interests the firm was eagerly helping to satisfy. Said firm was founded by the current secretary of state Antony Blinken by the way.
tl;dr
Of course what Mr. Muir has done in the past concerns me because of what kind of job he's going to do. But I am more interested in what kind of foreign policies this new admin is going to carry out. Is it going to be worthy of the term Beijing Biden?
So,
the article the OP has linked to here is saying that:
Morgan Muir, the longtime CIA analyst, is now tasked with delivering Biden's daily intelligence briefings, along with Avril Haines, the new director of national intelligence.
However, the record shows in 2013 Mr. Muir played a leading role in defending CIA torture program and lied about said program to the senate intelligence committee.
After the announcement of him being tasked with said briefings at Biden's white house, three members of the 2013 senate intelligence committee came out and said Mr. Muir is not to be trusted.
Okay.
However, the issue I see in this story is that what kind of geopolitical leaning both Morgan Muir and Avril Haines have.
In my knowledge, Morgan Muir is the protege of Paul Wolfowitz who belongs to the Condoleezza Rice clique. And it has long been believed that, together with Mr. Wolfowitz, Morgan Muir was responsible for shaping up George W Bush's Taiwan policy, "We oppose any unilateral decision, by either China or Taiwan, to change the status quo." Meaning, the US will respect the One-China policy.
Then,
there's Avril Haines who, after her Obama admin days, was an employee of WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm with lots of Beijing connections which have vast interests in the US defense programs. The interests the firm was eagerly helping to satisfy. Said firm was founded by the current secretary of state Antony Blinken by the way.
tl;dr
Of course what Mr. Muir has done in the past concerns me because of what kind of job he's going to do. But I am more interested in what kind of foreign policies this new admin is going to carry out. Is it going to be worthy of the term Beijing Biden?
So,
the article the OP has linked to here is saying that:
Morgan Muir, the longtime CIA analyst, is now tasked with delivering Biden's daily intelligence briefings, along with Avril Haines, the new director of national intelligence.
However, the record shows in 2013 Mr. Muir played a leading role in defending CIA torture program and lied about said program to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
After the announcement of him being tasked with said briefings at Biden's white house, three members of the 2013 Senate Intelligence Committee came out and said Mr. Muir is not to be trusted.
Okay.
However, the issue I see in this story is that what kind of geopolitical leaning both Morgan Muir and Avril Haines have.
In my knowledge, Morgan Muir is the protege of Paul Wolfowitz who belongs to the Condoleezza Rice clique. And it has long been believed that, together with Mr. Wolfowitz, Morgan Muir was responsible for shaping up George W Bush's Taiwan policy, "We oppose any unilateral decision, by either China or Taiwan, to change the status quo." Meaning, the US will respect the One-China policy.
Then,
there's Avril Haines who, after her Obama admin days, was an employee of WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm with lots of Beijing connections which have vast interests in the US defense programs. The interests the firm was eagerly helping to satisfy. Said firm was founded by the current secretary of state Antony Blinken by the way.
tl;dr
Of course what Mr. Muir has done in the past concerns me because of what kind of job he's going to do. But I am more interested in what kind of foreign policies this new admin is going to carry out. Is it going to be worthy of the term Beijing Biden?