I was suspicious of Obama after he pulled a Sister Souljah on the netroots. I very nearly refrained from voting after he pussied out on FISA and said he was honored to be endorsed by a war criminal responsible for a MILLION deaths (i.e. Colin Powell). Clearly we have to keep an eye on Obama. Sure he's better than McCain but that leaves a lot of room to still be bad.

And consulting this Brennan fellow doesn't make me feel any better because based on the quotes Glenn posts here, this Brennan fellow is a seriously sick fuck. For example:

"Also I think it's rather arrogant to think we're the only country that respects human rights. I think that we have a lot of assurances from these countries that we hand over terrorists to that they will, in fact, respect human rights.

I'll tell you what's arrogant: calling us arrogant because we're not stupid enough to think that human rights will be respected when Brennan and his buddies send a prisoner to a country like Egypyt for the express purpose of having him tortured. Quit jerking us off, Johnny.

"And there are different ways to gain those assurances. But also let's say an individual goes to Egypt because they're an Egyptian citizen and the Egyptians then have a longer history in terms of dealing with them, and they have family members and others that they can bring in, in fact, to be part of the whole interrogation process."

This statement sent a chill down my spine. Brennan seems to want us to believe that the Egyptians are showing their respect for family values or something when they are so kind as to invite a prisoner's family to join in and be a part of the interrogation process. Surely the prisoners' stay in the nice human rights respecting Egyptian prison is made all the more hospitable by the presence of their family members, no?

Brenann is a sick,sick fuck -- he knows why they bring in family members. Yet he still touts it as an advantage of the wonderful rendition program he defends.

Hey Johnny, why do they bring in family members? It's so they can rape your wife or daughter in front of your eyes (or worse) to make you talk.

What a sick, sick fuck.

And Obama chose him. Not very encouraging.

They consider it a good thing because they hope it will stay the wrath of their Republican and Village overlords.

Rahm Emanuel isn't tough. He's a big pussy.

The ACLU had a poll done at the beginning of this year by Harry Reid's pollster that showed conclusively that the vote to weaken FISA was the minority view. People who voted that way were not taking the center position, they were taking the unpopular right wing position.

The Democrats are a big bunch of pussies who habitually let the Villagers and the Republicans intimidate them into capitulation time after time.

Just imagine if the cowardly Dems actually took a forthright stand on their positions and defended them instead of only sheepishly supporting them or acting embarrased about them even when they are popular. Watch how fast the "center would move to the left.

A couple people have posted links to the AP article reporting that Obama will not hold anyone accountable for torture. But that article gets a couple things wrong.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081117/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/obama_interrogators/print;_ylt=Akk_opCLqAU170m1WRNqTTmWwvIE

1) "Bush could take the issue of criminal charges off the table with one stroke of his pardons pen."

Well no, not exactly. But Bush could significantly limit the potential targets for criminal charges to one man: George W. Bush, Torturer in Chief. Seriously, the AP author acts like the prospect of Bush's pardons moots the entire idea of criminal charges -- but it doesn't. I suspect the real reason that Obama is afraid to pursue charges is because it will inevitably lead right to the Perpetrator In Chief, His Wness.

2) Under the Constitution, the president's power to issue pardons is absolute and cannot be overruled.

This is false. The president's pardon power is limited. Article II reads "He shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." (emphasis added).

So Obama could encourage the Democratic majority in Congress to impeach the offenders thus ensuring that they can never hold office again.