Heeheehee. It only gets better :)

Instead of being shocked that a Brennan appointment became recognized as problematic and was derailed, I prefer to be reassured and grateful. The system worked because input was received and intelligently considered. That may be new given the past 8 years, but it is in fact what's supposed to happen.

Professor Turley said it best when referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of habeas corpus and enforcement of the Constitution: "Even an idiot-proof system still has idiots" and the Court's ruling showed that the system could rise above them.

The Obama Administration won't be appointing Brennan to this important post, and for reasons both made clear and, to boot, not ignored. That's refreshing, it's damn near "change". Nice.

And thanks, Glenn, for your efforts and contributions on this one. Just don't be too obviously surprised when truth convinces power, or it may become even harder for it to keep doing so. Truth is supposed to convince power, especially in America, right?

Ann Coulter’s Jaw Wired Shut (see sig)

1) I will not laugh at the misfortunes of others.

2) I will not laugh at the misfortunes of others.

3) I will not laugh at the misfortunes of others.

4) I will not laugh at the misfortunes of others.

5) I will not laugh at the misfortunes of others.

[... snort ... bwa-ha-Ha-HA ... mmph ... Damn it, start again! ...]

1) I will not laugh at the misfortunes of others.

2) I will not laugh at the misfortunes of others.

3) I will not laugh at the misfortunes of others.

...

Like several others have said already, thank you very much Glenn! The public vetting process should hold as much weight as the official one, so keeping us informed on the records of these potential appointees is a true act of journalism. If only CNN and the NY Times would follow your example...

The statement you posted a week or so back from an interview (PBS?) in which Brennan euphemistically discussed the benefits "bringing families in" to the interrogation process via extrajudicial rendition was really the smoking gun in my eyes. Hiding behind doublespeak and spin to endorse a systematic program of rape and child abuse is nearly as despicable as participating in the "renderings" themselves... I'm grateful to the commentators who have refused to let Brennan's weasel-y language obscure the real human cost of the policies he advocated.

Glenn:

You concede that Mr Brennan did not support waterboarding. So that pretty much means what he is guilty of supporting is "harsh interrogation tactics on terror suspects . . . which critics call torture."

Now, I know you think it is creepy for US citizens like myself to believe that one of the main reasons we give the government tax dollars is so the government will--whether it is with local police and fire officials, state police, or a strong federal military--protect us. (Though I am a bit puzzled since the left's primary case against the current Administration concerning Katrina was that government failed to protect the victims of Katrina. Creepy, huh?) But if the Government is going to protect the American people from all sorts of bad guys, it cannot treat them with kid gloves.

And so I say again, if you wonder how it is that a large percentage of Americans could vote for the GOP nominee in a year when everything was seemingly against him, you need look no further than the left's bleeding heart approach to international bad guys.

P.S. At least you are in 'good' company--Go check out the horrific results of the left's naive response during the 20th Century to Stalin and Hitler. It pretty much predicts how the left's "lets have some hot tea and talk things through" with bad guys is gonna work out. And if that does not convince you, check out American cities in the 60s and 70s when "liberal compassion' ruled the day. Did you ever wonder why those Dirty Harry movies and the Charles Bronson Death Wish movies and other movies about citizens taking the law into their own hands were so popular? Maybe it was because it reflected a deep-seated conviction that the touchy-feely folks in charge of the cities were not protecting the people from bad guys. Enter Rudy Giuliani and, voila!, NYC is a very different and much safer place.

In retrospect its a tad annoying to say the least that positive news is the absence of a negative. We're halfway there, now we just need obama to choose a CIA director who will follow the law and pledge not to use darkside strategies. keep up the good work glenn.

in his FISA vote, why should he in his appointments?

Some time after the FISA vote, Michelle said (in a speech) that "Barack always keeps his word." Obama's initial position against FISA, his promise to filibuster the legislation, and his actual vote seem to show that he doesn't always.

So maybe Obama learned something from the intense netroots criticism over his FISA vote, and it influenced his decision about Brennan?

Or maybe all his decisions are so intelligent, well-advised, forward-thinking, cool-headed that he can disregard outside influence from wherever?

After Bush, so far, it's easy to give him the benefit of the doubt.

According to the military analysts at the RAND CORPORATION, those policies you love have, over the past seven years, strengthened Al Qa'ida - - and made the world more dangerous.

Of course, they're all a bunch of wacko compassionate liberals, eh?

"Gates, if he remains, is there as institutional memory and a caretaker."

I agree with your statement, primarily with the "institutional memory" part. It's quite similar to corporate changeovers, e.g., with an M&A situation or other such cases prompting changes in top leadership. Getting rid of the "memory" and up-close-and-personal experience is not NECESSARILY a worthwhile (or, in corporate terms, profitable) exercise. This applies moreso at the "senior management" level. I'm not advocating against getting the "worthless bums" at the top out. It takes deft analysis—and some ol' fashioned luck—to gauge who should stay or who should go now. But anyone who deals with change management in large-scale organizations knows well that people, as a general rule, take time and well-managed process to adapt effectively (gotta get the "buy-in") to change, just as there are various ways of maintaining stability during major change initiatives.

In the past week or so, someone posted to a Salon article (I believe it was one of Greenwald's pieces) about Gates. The poster was/is a soldier, two deployments (at least one extended tour) in Iraq, and he had--what seemed to me, anyway--reasoned and reasonable praise for Gates from the vantage point of those in the field. He was not condoning the war, nor how it has been conducted. But he had much to say about Gates' conduct and offered specific incidents of when Gates made a positive difference to soldiers' lives by speaking out and reaping tangible effects.

I wish I could remember the poster's handle, or at least the article to find the post again. Any clues from readers out there? In any event, no, I don't take my own opinions from "one soldier's POV," but I am interested in what our troops have to say, whether yay, nay, or in-between. If Gates is one of those worthless bum types, better he go. I’d like to know more about his record. Hopefully the transition, with him in for a year (if so accepted), would be helped along.