Sundance misinformation on the IC

I wonder what Col. Lang would have thought about 

what seems to me to be a piece of misinformation and disinformation about the U.S. intelligence community and its supposed power to control events:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/04/02/house-speaker-mike-johnson-3-point-plan-to-fund-ukraine-senator-graham-happy/

Here is an excerpt:

<Blockquote>The key [U.S.] politicians within the dynamic exist inside information silos, essentially control mechanisms, 

where the intelligence community (IC) constructs reality by briefing the politicians about what is going on in the world.

[Like those politicians don't have other sources of information, and advocacy groups tugging at their sleeves.]

The IC tells the politicians what is happening, defines the importance and instructs the politicians on the priorities.  

The IC is never challenged because ultimately the IC has “seven ways to Sunday” to target the politicians if any non-compliance is identified.

[U.S. House] Speaker Mike Johnson is one of the “gang-of-eight” members within the legislative branch.  

The Go8 are briefed <b>and controlled</b> by the IC, using the exact same intelligence given to the President.  

Speaker Johnson has the funding of Ukraine as his top priority, 

because <b>the IC officials who set priorities</b> have told him it must be.</blockquote>

What misinformation, IMO.

I thought the IC provided information to policy-makers, but did not itself set policy.

There may have been gray areas, but has anyone heard such a one-sided, paranoid, view of the intelligence/policy relation before?

The politicians, decision makers, and public receive pro-Ukraine, anti-Russian information from a wide variety of sources, surely many not controlled by the IC.

Most are, in fact, controlled by whoever funds them.

The old "Golden Rule."

And as to

<Blockquote>Speaker Johnson has the funding of Ukraine as his top priority, 

because <b>the IC officials who set priorities</b> have told him it must be.</blockquote>

surely the wishes of the big campaign donors hold significant, if not decisive, weight.

I think most of us can agree that Sundance is using the IC as a scapegoat to avoid identifying whatever really is determining 

the overwhelming support for Ukraine at top levels of government on both sides of the Atlantic.

As an example of that support, see

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/02/allies-consider-moving-ukrarms-group-into-nato-to-shield-it-from-trump-00150151

There is disagreement on what accounts for that consensus.

Some argue it is somehow stupidity on the part of those who have risen to the top.

I have a different, less acceptable to some, opinion.

I don't think it is stupidity.

Rather, a different view of WHOSE interests are to be served.

Consider the near identity of 

1. the policy positions advocated by the ADL, 

on many issues ranging from 

support for transgenderism and homosexuality in general, 

policies towards Ukraine, Russia, and Israel,

immigration policy, and DEI, 

with

2. the policies advocated in the media and adopted by the government (in practically all Western countries), 

and ask yourself "Who is really in control?"

It isn't the IC.