comment: >
context: US intelligence has correctly predicted every move by Russia so far. Odds are they are sharing intelligence about supposed upcoming Russian spring offensive. >
  
  An in person visit is about the least efficient way to share intelligence. This is political- likely a signal to Russia that US backing of Ukraine will not waver. >
  
  It isn't 1800. This is political theater. We don't need high profile visits to convey information. It's posturing. >
  
  That may be, but it sure sends a stronger message than a tweet. >
  
  That’s literally the exact point they are making >
  
  Yes but an in-person meeting sends a stronger message in my opinion. >
  
  I’ll save you a click:  It’s not Jack Ryan. >
  
  Greer would be the one hanging around the CIA director during a visit. Jack is in Belarus keeping them out of play. >
  
  While Clark is outside St Petersburg >
  
  Good, regardless of how you feel about the CIA their intelligence network is outstanding >
  
  Pretty sure I agree with their objectives in this instance. >
  
  I find it weird that people know what the CIA chief looks like. I thought they were all mysterious and nobody knows who works for them. Thanks TV. 😂 >
  
  The CIA director is an administrative position, rarely, if ever, held by a former agent. The current CIA director is a former deputy Secretary of State 2011-2014 and former ambassador to Russia 2005-2008. >
  
  Yep, Leon Panetta was a former Secretary of State and White House Chief of Staff. The job of CIA director needs a seasoned bureaucrat. Someone who can deal with the politics involved and things like budgets etc. >
  
  Again? Wasn't that the story about 3 days ago? >
  
  It’s not about the information… it’s about sending a message!