Who wrote:

Two points: The most detailed and broadly based criticism of John Brennan as a DCIA pick is laid out in the letter signed by 200 psychologists who oppose coercive interrogation techniques. I therefore focused on that letter (rather than bloggers’ quotes) in the article to which you link, but in your column you do not include my characterization of their objection to Brennan:

“The psychologists cited Brennan's service as a senior CIA official under former agency Director George Tenet, who approved coercive interrogation methods, PLUS INTERVIEWS BRENNAN GAVE IN WHICH HE APPEARED TO STOP SHORT OF EXPLICITLY REJECTING THOSE METHODS.”

Since you bring up the psychologists, why not quote them accurately? The letter is easily found and can be read in its entirety right here:

http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/11/24/open-letter-to-president-elect-obama-break-with-the-dark-side-do-not-nominate-john-brennan-as-cia-director/

Quoting from the letter:

We are concerned, however, by reports that you may appoint John Brennan as Director of the CIA. Mr. Brennan served as a high official in George Tenet’s CIA and supported Tenet’s policies, including “enhanced interrogations” as well as “renditions” to torturing countries. According to his own statements, Mr. Brennan was a supporter of the “dark side” policies, wishing only to have some legal justification supplied in order to protect CIA operatives. In describing Director Tenet’s views he stated during a March 8, 2006 Frontline interview:

I think George [Tenet] had two concerns. One is to make sure that there was that legal justification, as well as protection for CIA officers who are going to be engaged in some of these things, so that they would not be then prosecuted or held liable for actions that were being directed by the administration. So we want to make sure the findings and other things were done probably with the appropriate Department of Justice review.

Now did you read the letter?

You cannot argue that I dismissed the objections to Brennan as limited to the fact, in your words, “that he just so happened to be at the CIA when these policies were implemented.” That is an unfair summary of what I wrote.

Glenn linked to your article. Here is your article:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97778356

In that article you wrote:

Brennan's withdrawal, offered in a Nov. 25 letter to Obama, came after liberal bloggers mounted an opposition campaign against his possible appointment. They said he was tainted by his service in the CIA at a time when the agency was employing coercive interrogation methods, including "waterboarding," on detainees.

What you say, above, is simply not true. By "not true" I mean: false.

Is there some other way we can get this point across to you? Is it necessary to find a way to write this in big, thick, crayon writing to splash across your apparently dimly lit screen?

No one, but no one, has objected to Brennan because (quoting you again) "...he was tainted by his service in the CIA at a time when the agency was employing coercive interrogation methods, including "waterboarding", on detainees."

Second, I fail to understand how anyone could argue that a statement that some “useful” information has been obtained through coercive interrogation methods is tantamount to supporting coercive interrogations. A policy of using coercive interrogations can be morally and ethically wrong regardless of the quality of information obtained therefrom. I know intelligence professionals who oppose those interrogations even while acknowledging that they produced useful information. I don’t think you can fairly use Brennan's quote that some information was obtained from those interrogations as proof that he personally supported that interrogation policy.

By the way, what is the difference between "coercive interrogations" and torture? Why the euphemism?

Do you not see how you have slipped into a fatal denial of reality, continually referring to "interrogations", as if all we were talking about was a copper sitting a red-mad killer down and demanding he talk, and he won't get another cigarette until he spills the beans?

Anyway, surely you must know by now that your characterization of Brennan's position is - dare I say it again? - wrong?

Hint: why do you think that 200 psychologists were motivated enough to organize and publicly oppose Brennan's possible appointment?

It seems that Brennan and his posse are embarrassed and angry, and have recruited you to help carry their water. Around here, it spills right out of the bucket.

You are making a big issue of the accuracy of my characterization of the arguments put forth by the critics of Brennan. Fair enough. But you have characterized him as “an ardent supporter of torture,” without providing a single quote from Brennan that clearly justifies that characterization of his views. Why not apply the same high accuracy standards to your own journalism as you do to mine?

You continue to make false statements about what Brennan has said, repeatedly, about rendition and torture (or, as you like to characterize it, 'enhanced interrogation techniques'). You continue to make false statements about what "liberal bloggers" say about Brennan - which, by the way, is an entirely different question than whether or not you agree with the criticism.

Now just what is going on? How explicit does one need to be with you? Are you just not reading the relevant interviews and articles?

Glenn in fact has documented, through direct quotes and through linking to articles that contain other direct quotes, Brennan's blithe acceptance of torture, both by agents acting in my name and in your name, and by agents of other countries.

In other countries where, when they want to torture, they torture, without any attempt to go all mealy-mouth about it.