Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/11/22/2008-11-22_barack_obama_doesnt_fear_the_enraged_imp.html
Allowed to exercise more influence over the party than they already do, the Netroots would have the same disastrous effect that the presidential nomination of George McGovern did in 1972.
- - JAMES KIRCHICK, Saturday, November 22nd 2008
Let's hope this is good news. It remains to be seen who he actually does end up choosing.
I sincerely would have never expected this to be possible--even more so if it was Brennan himself who removed his name, voluntarily, from the list. It looks almost like something out of a movie. Or is he doing this to claim he also has moral qualms, and doesn't want to do what the people doesn't want? I suppose I should be more cynical and say he probably has something he doesn't want the public to know about, and he fears a very high position now, in a Democratic administration, would make whatever he is hiding more likely to hit the fan. But I do like to be a starry-eyed optimist and think that maybe he did that because he thought it was the right thing to do. Who knows? Stranger things have happened...
Thanks, Glenn, for educating us on Brennan's background. I had just emailed the transition team on change.gov that this pick was unacceptable. Now he is gone. We don't need a Bush apologist in the CIA. It sounds like Obama booted him if he is blaming the decision on liberal bloggers. Good news for the blogosphere!
I'm looking to freelance as a proofreader (quick turnaround and reasonable rates!).
Two misspellings here, dear:
I think Obama is entitled to a lot of leeway on appointments and is entitled not to be condemend -- or praised -- other than for things he actually does. And while I have found some of his appoitnments...
This sentence should be repeated until January 2013 (at least).
Thank you.
I almost feel like we live in a democracy. Bear with me as I try to work my way through this:
(commence internal monologue) So, it comes out that a president-elect wants to make a decision deeply offensive to the people that elected him, those people speak out against it, and the will of the people (one way or the other) is responded to? What is this strange sequence of events?
*head explodes*
ps - congrats to Glenn and the other rabble-rousers (I think that includes us in the comments section). you/we made a difference.
"The fact that I was not involved in the decision-making process for any of these controversial policies and actions has been ignored," [John Brennan] wrote, in a letter obtained by The Associated Press.
They ignored the fact that Saber Lahmar was not involved in controversial policies and actions or decision-making, too. But that was okay, he wasn't in line for DCI.
Systematic torture isn't a controversial policy, it's a crime against humanity.
OT-Hmmm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/nyregion/26spitzer.html
My sentiments exactly.
I'm sure that Obama's team does pay attention to key bloggers, but the rigorous vetting process also plays a role. Hard to say which was more influential and what the vetting process revealed. I doubt that Brennan took action without any prodding.
But I do like to be a starry-eyed optimist and think that maybe he did that because he thought it was the right thing to do. Who knows? Stranger things have happened...
If had a sudden attack of morality, I doubt he would have said, as Glenn noted, "disingenuously," "The fact that I was not involved in the decision-making process for any of these controversial policies and actions has been ignored," while failing to acknowledge (again, Glenn) he was an ardent supporter of those policies, including "enhanced interrogation techniques" and rendition, both of which he said he was intimately familiar with as a result of his CIA position.
No, I think it is what it seems: people spoke out before the nomination, thus creating pressure from those who insist that these political values not be de-prioritized or ignored. (final Glenn).
sysprog--Allowed to exercise more influence over the party than they already do, the Netroots would have the same disastrous effect that the presidential nomination of George McGovern did in 1972. JAMES KIRCHICK, Saturday, November 22nd 2008.
That's a really strange comparison to make. McGovern lost and there were no Netroots in 1972.
and hours of talk-show analysis on this major victory for liberals, along with re-calibrated estimations of our influence.
Exactly. See what happens when you, uh ...?
I think he was blaming Watergate on the Dems.
Well done, Glenn and other bloggers who spoke out when it was needed, despite some nasty criticisms from others.
I wonder who else, from Obama's circle, stepped up and said "no way" to Brennan.
Could 'not torturing people' be considered 'progressive'.
gj Bush
But Robert is apparently staying on as Defense Secretary.
(commence internal monologue) So, it comes out that a president-elect wants to make a decision deeply offensive to the people that elected him, those people speak out against it, and the will of the people (one way or the other) is responded to? What is this strange sequence of events?
I'm not sure, but it seems like it must be unconstitutional. Or at least immoral.
Hey, you don't change warhorses in midstream. Look what happened to Barbarossa.
I doubt getting a progressive into that slot would help much, frankly. What would a progressive defense secretary do---wipe out the militaryindustrialcorporatemedia complex?
Congrats to you and the other key bloggers.
One can wish, can't one?
We take a sigh of relief that Brennan is not considered for position of CIA Director or DNI.
Now that that boogeyman is vanquished, we get some unknown, lesser career NSA officer who loves America's new patriotic, surveillance and torture manifestations in all their glory.
In comparison (without much notoriety or track record) he/she sits before senate confirmation as an innocuous innovator of a new intelligence community (same as the old-but sexed up a bit).
...but, If he "removed himself from consideration" from a post which he would be appointed to and not elected because a bunch of bloggers who get no say in the appointment didn't like him then he is either:
a.)An insecure six year old schoolgirl.
b.)A pathalogical liar.
c.)Both.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
