HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Democracy Now: "Ask ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:18 AM

Democracy Now: "Ask Brennan" about the blood on his hands from 2,629 dead Pakistanis

This nomination really turns my stomach, and for good reasons, as pointed out here
by Amy Goodman. This is making it extremely difficult to continue feeling very positive
about how Obama is starting his long-awaited second term.



Obama is literally erecting a monstrous National Security State apparatus in broad daylight,
a mission that Bush began, under the banner of "The War on Terrah", in the wake of 911.
Now Obama's doing what ONLY Obama COULD do (like Nixon going to China) i.e. finishing
the job of laying down binding precidents paving the way for the imposition of raw tyranny
under a less benevalent dictator to come. <--This gets to the core of my disgust.




Brennan was/is the Bush Crime Family's bag-man for torture, renditions and drone strikes,
which are both counter-productive and in flagrant violation of international law. Why is
Brennan not in prison?
.. is what I want to know .. instead of being fucking nominated
by Obama to head up the CIA for Christ's sake



____*____*____*____*____*____*____*____*____*____*____*____*____*____*____*


AMY GOODMAN:
"Obama has once already considered Brennan for the top CIA job, back in 2008. Brennan withdrew his nomination then under a hail of criticism for supporting the Bush-era torture policies in his various top-level intelligence positions, including head of the National Counterterrorism Center.

(snip)

I asked Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2002 to 2005, what he thought of Brennan. He told me: “What’s happening with drone strikes around the world right now is, in my opinion, as bad a development as many of the things we now condemn so readily, with 20/20 hindsight, in the George W. Bush administration. We are creating more enemies than we’re killing. We are doing things that violate international law. We are even killing American citizens without due process and have an attorney general who has said that due process does not necessarily include the legal process. Those are really scary words.”

(snip)

The BIJ reports a “minimum 2,629 people who appear to have so far died in CIA drone strikes in Pakistan.” John Brennan should be asked about each of them."


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/brennan_and_kiriakou_drones_and_torture_20130206/

8 replies, 885 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply Democracy Now: "Ask Brennan" about the blood on his hands from 2,629 dead Pakistanis (Original post)
99th_Monkey Feb 2013 OP
ucrdem Feb 2013 #1
99th_Monkey Feb 2013 #2
ucrdem Feb 2013 #3
99th_Monkey Feb 2013 #7
ucrdem Feb 2013 #4
99th_Monkey Feb 2013 #8
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #6
blkmusclmachine Feb 2013 #5

Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:45 AM

1. Amy's go-to guy is a Bushler military apparatchik?

Bush was the torturer-in-chief who started two wars and turned Guantanamo into a Caribbean Dachau, not Obama. And when Goodman asks Wilkerson what he thinks of Brennan in the quotation above, I notice that instead of answering the question he launches into a sermon against a program that in four years has evidently killed less than 1% of the people Bush and Cheney slaughtered annually. And if it weren't for Obama we'd probably be bombing the daylights out of Tehran.

I understand the outrage people feel about drones, but I think this line of objection is intended to shoot down Obama's nominees for reasons unrelated to that program. The problem with Brennan as with Hagel is that they aren't gung-ho enough about bombing Iran and that's probably what the current drone outrage is all about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 05:39 AM

2. I'm concerned that Obama -- and the nation -- will deeply regret this nomination

and for very good reasons .. in not so distant future.

Brennan being a creepy BushCo insider noted for torture, renditions, Kill
lists, and summarily murdering "suspects" -- even US citizens -- at the
President's discretion is apparently of no concern whatsoever to you, which
I find more than a little disturbing.

Your insinuation that those who are adamantly resisting Brennan's nomination
are doing so because of some vaguely defined ulterior partisan motive to make
Obama "look bad" is also laughable on it's face, at least in this case.

So you think Brennan is a prudent politically astute nomination for Obama
to make? You honestly think that his track record is sufficiently aligned with
core precepts of the US Constitution? .. really?

Please proceed, to clarify how Brennan is such a great nominee to run the CIA.

There's plenty more rope where that came from, as needed.

Oh, and welcome to DU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 05:48 AM

3. Who exactly did Brennan summarily murder?

Brennan was an administrator in DC. What track record are you talking about here? Can you get more specific than a quotation from a Bush guy who doesn't even mention Brennan, and if he had I'm assuming you would have posted it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 02:17 PM

7. 2625 dead Pakistanis for starters

did you not read the OP?

The USA's drone warfare program is "Brennan's baby".

He's also murdered at least 2 American citizens that we know about,
of which I'm sure you are also aware, unless you've been living in
a cave for the past 5 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 06:04 AM

4. Reuters: "Brennan had significant concerns and personal objections" to torture:

Brennan was among agency officials who were uncomfortable with the use of physically coercive tactics, despite the legal opinions that supported their use. He expressed concern, according to these officials, that if details of the program became public, it would be CIA officers who would face criticism, rather than the politicians and lawyers who approved them.

"If John says he expressed reservations about some techniques, I believe him because he's an honest guy," said John McLaughlin, who was deputy CIA director at the time.

"Mr. Brennan had significant concerns and personal objections to many elements of the EIT (enhanced interrogation techniques) program while it was under way," a senior administration official said in response to Reuters' inquiries. "He voiced those objections privately with colleagues at the agency."


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/30/us-obama-nominations-brennan-idUSBRE90T07I20130130

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 02:27 PM

8. These "concerns" were lame and ineffectual, if they existed at all

If they existed at all, they were only expressed privately, off the record,
which can be easily fabricated after the fact, which is why here-say is not
allowed as testimony in a court of law. <-- a quaint artifact from when
we lived under the rule of law.

Also, assuming there were concerns, they were primarily that CIA torturers
would be thrown under the bus, once it was exposed. But now with Obama
at the helm, they apparently have no such concerns. In other words,
Brennan expressed no concern whatsoever (nor is he rumored to have any
concerns) about "enhanced interrogation" torture being unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:24 AM

6. So it is ok that Brennen is Bush operative to be in power, but Wilkerson should not be listened to

because he was a Bush operative? How do you work that out?
All the Bush/Republican/Iraq War supporters who Obama nominates, the supporters like to suggest that it is not the torture, not the bigotry, they constantly and instantly go McCarthy...insinuations of ulterior motives, as if torture and open hate speech were not enough, as if supporting the Iraq War was not enough to oppose all of them. Idiots who made the worst military decision in American history.
What I'd like to know is specifically why the supporters of these Bush Guys like them so much. I think they have insidious, hidden reasons, unrelated to American security.
Hagel, anti choice, anti gay, a hate speaking Republican who voted for the Iraq War and every other war he ever was asked to support. Why anyone thinks he'd hesitate to go to war when he rushed to invade Iraq to find WMD that were not even there is something that they need to explain clearly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:59 AM

5. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

All part of The Family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread