And Greenwald pounds his chest. You go, sock puppeteer. Brennan gave his reasons in a letter, which factually pointed out that he was hardly on Bush's Christmas card list. But anything short of a Jamie Gorelick/Jimmy Carter approach to terrorism evidently isn't good enough for the roots. And geez, even Iran's Press TV was intrigued with the possible selection:
“A critical step toward improved US-Iranian relations would be for US officials to cease public Iran-bashing,” The New York Times quoted Brennen(sic) as saying.Maybe Obama is just trying to mess with their heads.
We'll throw out the obligatory question as to whether this was an orchestrated move for the purpose of throwing a bone to the left base after all the stories recently in the MSM and blogs about how they've been shut out of the transition sweepstakes. Here's the LA Times:
It was unclear whether Brennan had been pressured or asked to submit his letter of withdrawal. A former senior U.S. intelligence official close to Brennan indicated that Brennan was pushed. "John's not the kind of guy who would run away from a fight,"Sorta backs up the bone throwing thing, but with spooks it's always hard to say. Gotta wonder who the former intel source was as well, other than perhaps Drumheller.
As to a new choice the Times goes on to say that if they're looking for someone with CIA experience who wasn't onboard with rendition (which first came around in the mid 90s, ruling out Scheuer) or the secret prisons/interrogation they're gonna have to dig pretty deep. Greenwald and his fellow goons appear desirous to use the CIA Director appointment to force US policy on terrorism, specifically a return to either law enforcement only or full Geneva no questions asked but they would probably settle for a fellow far lefty of any stripe.
The question is whether Langley will settle for anyone Obama picks if they're from the outside or mindful of reform. They seem to have a history of regurgitating such appointments. Brennan was the devil (or maybe an angel) they knew.
2 comments:
I don’t know why, but for some reason, we Americans have developed an odd penchant for public disembowelment over the issue of foreign intelligence collection. I suppose part of this comes from previous not-so-secret incidents of CIA intrigue, which may have led to the assassination of foreign leaders. The moralists among us fail to understand that intelligence gathering and operations is indeed a dirty business, but I have to ask an obvious question: if water boarding produces information that saves American lives, how is it morally objectionable? And why is this objectionable to some (noting that no one has ever died from it), but at the same time there is no public outcry against the ever-popular terrorist act of sawing off people’s heads on camera?
Even though we are living in a tough world, we are not a nation of thugs; CIA do not deserve, nor is it appropriate, to have public discussions about secret operations; that would be because once there is a public discussion, there are no more secrets. Maybe I’m missing something.
Semper Fi
Nope, you're not missing anything. The dragging of WoT secrets through the press has always been about getting Republicans, specifically Bush, and hardly much more. Nothing of this nature occurred during the 90s, even after the 93 WTC bombings and 4 other deadly bombings...and even after Scheuer started the rendition program.
What always amuses me is the lack of outcry every time we blow away another Mohammed in the desert with a CIA predator. No habeas corpus there, just a corpse.
Post a Comment