I think I’m going to let someone else pick this up if they care to as I honestly can’t discern a coherent pattern here. You normally make more sense to me even if I disagree with your point.

I don’t believe we ever had truly unreliable intelligence about the Middle East in the case of Iraq (nor do I think what we knew was handled dispassionately or apolitically). In fact, all of the intelligence we needed from prior to 9/11 apparently existed, but we failed to put together the correct scenario or to act on it (no blame, just saying). Which is not to say that we do not have more established and reliable channels of info on Russia, but our intelligence gathering on virtually everything has likely never been more complete thanks to the vulnerable nature of communications, satellite technology, etc.

All of my current misgivings about the intelligence community come from what particular officials say and what they do, or what they electively choose not to say or do, despite what they demonstrably know. The lies, misdirection and meddling are indefensible. “The Russians” could only DREAM of pushing election results around at the level of one entitled, self-congratulatory man named James Comey.

I have no clue about Metaxas’ claims. He makes my head spin these days. But I have to say, having listened to primarily NPRs coverage of the Butina/NRA/Republican story, what was lacking was any specific information about scale and results. The same is true of the Russian election meddling. I understand that the Russian government is not a trustworthy entity, and that they have avidly sought to penetrate our own defenses on every front for decades. But the concern from certain quarters about Russia and some decidedly inept actors seems suddenly outsized and alarmist.

Thank you Dr. Throckmorton for your clarity, evidence-based decision-making, and commitment to truth.

Yes, they are cartoonish stereotypes that the left invented to ridicule cold war conservatives.

I don’t think we should extend unearned trust to anyone in authority over us or in positions of great power, rather we should look carefully at what they do. The Russians (government? self-interested individuals or factions? companies?) interfering in our affairs should be dealt with accordingly, and any aggression by Russia against its neighbors should be dealt with. IMO, the greatest threat from Russia is that they will cooperate with China to topple the American dollar, but we apparently have no problem dancing with brutal, totalitarian China. Thankfully, Russia can’t make dirt cheap flat screen televisions.

In terms of our intelligence agencies? I see little to give me encouragement, and IMO it has only gotten worse since Bush was the President. I have been appalled at the actions and statements of James Comey, but he’s just one entitled meddler in an intelligence community with no substantive outside accountability.

Intel about Russians is historically more reliable than intel about what middle east players are doing. We have a long history with the Russians. You are also conflating the intel Bush received and what he and Congress chose to do with it. Furthermore, it is not logical to reason from a past incident to the current situation. Because the intel was inaccurate in certain aspects before doesn’t mean the intel is wrong now.

If Metaxas has evidence for his position he should say what it is. The evidence I found is the best that can be gleaned by those outside the situation. Given the history of the Russians and their disinformation campaign, I will still choose US institutions over Mickey Mouse or Putin.