Brennan Pulls Out Of Running For CIA Chief, Blames Liberal Blogs

[Unsane]

See, we CAN make a difference.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25/brennan-pulls-out-of-runn_n_146419.html

No Bush, torture appeasers running the CIA.

I like the notion of Richard Clarke or Wes Clark as CIA chief.

[always_saturday]

1. Why did Obama have a rendition/waterboarding apologist Bushite as an adviser in the first place?

VERY troubling.

[tabatha]

3. He has denied having anything to do with it.

[always_saturday]

5. He is on record as defending both.

[tabatha]

10. Well, then he should not have denied supporting it.

maybe speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

[IndianaGreen]

16. Good riddance!

He could have resigned, but he chose to stay with CIA.

[lapfog_1]

2. Or even Roger Cressey.... I like the team of

Cressey and Clarke to run a great deal of our intelligence and counter terrorism ops.

[tularetom]

4. I read that article three times and although the headline said he blamed "liberal blogs"

I never read in the body of the article where he actually blamed anybody. He merely stated that his appointment would detract from the important work the CIA had to do.

He does seem like kind of a jerk so if the "liberal blogs" in fact contributed to his demise, good for them.

But as far as I know only the writer of the Huffington Post's headline, blamed "liberal blogs".

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. Hey Brennan, you torture loving piece of shit......

SUCK IT, MOTHERFUCKER!! :evilgrin:

[RollWithIt]

7. You guys do realize he PUBLICLY opposed Iraq and Water Boarding

Did you even bother to read the article?

[Unsane]

8. meanwhile he actually supported it

[Tempest]

9. That's not what the article said

Here's what the Huffington article said:

"It has been immaterial to the critics that I have been a strong opponent of many of the policies of the Bush administration such as the pre-emptive war in Iraq and coercive interrogation tactics, to include waterboarding."


Here's what a Denver news stations said:

Brennan has PRIVATELY told colleagues that he opposed waterboarding and questioned other interrogation methods that many in the CIA feared could be later deemed illegal.


Despite his private opposition, he PUBLICLY supported waterboarding by the Bush administration.

[beachmom]

12. Waterboarding has turned into a strawman argument. It is only ONE form

of torture Bush Co used. Heck, even Bush has foresworn waterboarding for the time being. It's a big giant whoopee de do.

[beachmom]

14. Actually, let's let Glenn Greenwald smack down your assertion:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/25/john_brennan/

Brennan's self-defense here is quite disingenuous. Whether he "was involved in the decision-making process for any of these controversial policies" is not and never was the issue. Rather, as I documented at length when I first wrote about Brennan, he was an ardent supporter of those policies, including "enhanced interrogation techniques" and rendition, both of which he said he was intimately familiar with as a result of his CIA position. As virtually everyone who opposed his nomination made clear -- Andrew Sullivan, Digby, Cenk Uygur, Big Tent Democrat and others -- that is why he was so unacceptable.

I think Obama is entitled to a lot of leeway on appointments and is entitled not to be condemned -- or praised -- other than for things he actually does. And while I have found some of his appointments questionable, Brennan was the only prospective appointment that, speaking only for myself, was completely unacceptable. Advocacy of Bush's interrogation and rendition programs should exclude anyone from consideration for any important position, let alone CIA Director or Director of National Intelligence.

Reports had repeatedly indicated that Brennan -- who served all year as Obama's top adviser for intelligence matters -- was the leading candidate for either of those positions, especially CIA Director. It's unclear if it was Obama or Brennan who was the catalyst for this decision, but either way, it's to be celebrated. And as Big Tent Democrat wrote today: "In case people were wondering, THIS is why you do not wait to express your 'concern' about issues and personnel."

This is an important victory. It's absolutely vital that these bright lines be re-established. Brennan's being denied a top intelligence positions due to his past advocacy of these abuses is a big step towards achieving that, particularly since it was due to pressure from those who insist that these political values not be de-prioritized or ignored.

[RollWithIt]

15. Here's my problem... is there a link to something that proves the authors assertions?

The author states "he was an ardent supporter of those policies, including "enhanced interrogation techniques" and rendition, both of which he said he was intimately familiar with as a result of his CIA position."

I have yet to read any article that quotes this guy that makes it sound like he's an "ardent supporter."

[bridgit]

11. Pft, pansy-ass, if that's his take he's got no fucking bid'nis *in* da'CIA the duuph!!

[NewJeffCT]

13. If he can't take criticism from a few liberal blogs...

he has no fucking business being CIA chief. Excuse my French.