Brennan At CIA ??? - This Is The Price You Pay For Only Looking Forward...

[WillyT]

...
...
...

Still, this is worth commenting on because the drastic change between the reaction to Brennan in 2008 and now is revealing. The New York Times article this morning on the appointment claims that "it is uncertain whether the torture issue will now cause any problems for Mr. Brennan." Of course, there is nothing at all uncertain about that: "the torture issue" won't cause any problems for Brennan, as it did in 2008, because Obama has buried that issue with his "Look Forward, not Backward" decrees; because most people who claimed concern over such issues back in 2008 have resigned themselves to Obama's posture in this area; and because, with very rare exception, there are no more serious campaigns mounted against Obama's decisions except from the American Right.

It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus.

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/07/john-brennan-dishonesty-cia-director-nomination

UPDATE

There's one more point worth noting: the reason Obama needs a new CIA chief is because David Petraeus was forced to resign. Here we see the ethos and morality of imperial Washington: past support for torture and rendition does not disqualify one for a top national security position; only an extramarital affair can do that.

UPDATE II

The ACLU today said that the Senate should not proceed with Brennan's nomination "until it assesses the legality of his actions in past leadership positions in the CIA during the early years of the George W. Bush administration and in his current role in the ongoing targeted killing program".

[Solly Mack]

1. "the drastic change between the reaction to Brennan in 2008 and now is revealing."

Yes, it is. (sadly)

" 'the torture issue' won't cause any problems for Brennan..."

It sure won't. (sadly)

[KoKo]

2. Thanks...and the Updates, too. K&R

[bvar22]

3. The Guardian??!!!

That Right Wing Rag???
The Guardian clearly hates Obama
and has no credibility here.

It is frightening how much further to the Conservative Right
we have lurched in just 4 years,
and how many really don't care as long as long as its the Democrats who are leading the way.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[WillyT]

4. LOL !!!

[Octafish]

5. I agree with WSWS -- The Brennan nomination: A government of torturers and assassins

The Brennan nomination: A government of torturers and assassins

Bill Van Auken
WSWS.org
9 January 2013

“He has worked to embed our efforts in a strong legal framework,” President Barack Obama declared Monday during an appearance in the East Room of the White House. “He understands we are a nation of laws. In moments of debate and decision, he asks the tough question and he insists on high and rigorous standards.”

The president was describing his nominee as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, who currently serves as Obama’s homeland security and counterterrorism adviser. He also lauded Brennan’s “integrity” and “commitment to the values that define us as Americans.”

One would hardly guess from this high-flown rhetoric that Obama was describing Brennan’s role as the nation’s assassin-in-chief. He has demonstrated his “integrity” and commitment to values, law and standards by chairing the so-called “terror Tuesday” sessions at the White House, putting together “kill lists” for the president to approve, and overseeing remote-controlled murder by Predator drones.

The “strong legal framework” refers to his development of the so-called “disposition matrix,” a system for “codifying and streamlining” the extrajudicial executions that are carried out by means of drone missile strikes on a virtually daily basis. This framework, developed by a cabal of military and intelligence officials, has as much to do with a “nation of laws” as the decrees issued by Hitler during the Third Reich.

CONTINUED...

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/01/09/pers-j09.html

Call me a commie or a conspiracy kook, I don't care which. And while I don't agree with every position WSWS takes, I don't support this guy to head CIA.

[Dragonfli]

6. It would appear that in the new Dem paradigm, everyone is above the law

except for those that are not the rich or elite.

Torture?
No problem (as long as you are elite, but you or I would face charges)

Laundering money for terrorists and drug cartels?
No problem, (as long as you are elite you are too big to prosecute, if you are brown and in the ME you will face a drone strike as will any civilians near you)

Lying to go to war resulting in the death of at least a million?
No problem (as long as you are elite, in which case nothing in the past counts as illegal, look forward, you and I can not get away with killing one let alone a million)


We are a nation of men and NOT laws, the top class are completely exempt from criminal charges no matter what they do, and yet you and I can't even expect our 4th amendment rights.

When exactly did our party join the GOP as a crime syndicate whose sole purpose appears to be to rationalize why the elite are above the law while at the same time we voting non-elites no longer have privacy, whistleblower or habeas corpus rights?

Also, why do most of you appear to be OK with all of this?

[Dragonfli]

8. I guess this is now a "given" that we no longer need discuss.

That's a fucking shame...................................

[Wilms]

7. ^

[TwilightGardener]

9. It would be hard to imagine how Petraeus could have stayed--he didn't just have

a girl on the side, she had insinuated herself into his professional life, and had access to classified materials and seems to have misused her clearance. I really do think Obama just wants to NOT have to worry about the CIA for a while, especially since the whole Benghazi episode. No-drama Obama does not want any more scandals, and wants someone he trusts who knows the culture and will have a handle on things over there.