... doesn't The NYT = liberal media and aren't they in bed with the dem base!?

Or, do you mean the NYT isn't part of the progressive movement!

I'm shocked. Imagine that bastion of liberalism finding it curious that we on the left are a-twitter about rendition, torture or other X-filean madness quartering off our liberties (well, not mine as I'm in Asia).

For him to have to withdraw, and to do so in a conspicuously -- and what seems to me to be a gratuitously -- dramatic way, is the first drama -- the first difficulty -- the transition has had.

-- GlennGreenwald

Good, that's what I was hoping. I think Obama has taken a lot of pride in his calm, drama-free persona. Indeed, many of the high profile conservatives who endorsed him cited that as a reason (though McCain's Palin pick seemed to be the main issue for them). Hopefully, this "set back" (so to speak) will cause him to choose other appointments with care.

Well, I won't hold my breath, but you never know. This really is a fasciating and potentially telling development.

The LAW defines waterboarding as torture.

To reduce the law to mere opinion -- and that the opinion of of "critics" -- is a subversion of the rule of law, in support and defense of gov't, not a check on it.

What's the excuse for that insupportable "politeness" this time? "Patriotism"? "Respect for the office" -- which overlooks the occupant of the office, and his conduct?

Just when we thought that Obama was a solid, pragmatic politician who was ready to put ideology on a shelf, he goes and caves to the bloggers on national security.

What happened to Obama being no different from Bush? What happened to bringing the sort of change to Washington that Washington says is okay? What about not making waves? No drastic shifts in policy? Not rocking the boat?

Look, why is it so hard to understand that America is in a state of emergency? Never mind the economy, and global warming, and the energy crisis — although those are bad enough. But remember being terrified? By terrorists?

The threat of possible terrorism-related activities is still here with us, right now. Ish. And Obama promised a smooth continuity of the nice, safe, secure authority that has held the tempest of fear at bay for the past 8 years.

Everyone was on board this — conservatives were just starting to feel okay about having lost, Democrats were getting ready for business as usual, and the loony blogospheric left-wing was wailing and gnashing its teeth over how Obama had, in less than 4 weeks and with nearly 2 months before he even takes office, already sold them completely down the river for the next 8 years.

But no, Obama had to go and mess it up. It turns out that he does listen to these out of touch left-wingers, if they bother to assert themselves. And all of a sudden the safe, good, reasonable pragmatist is turning out to be some kind of idealist!

Or at least, some sort of close approximation, wherein he does the so-called "right thing" if he senses that the people are paying attention, and that the "right thing" has widespread popular support.

Well that doesn't sound pragmatic to me at all. It sounds ... almost ... ideological! Who is this stranger that we elected? And when will these bloggers quit, and go back to complaining that Obama sold them out and nothing will ever change?

...is that David Axelrod or maybe even...could it BE?!?...BHO himself??...actually read Glennzilla at Salon!?! How awesome would THAT be?? Evidently somebody in his circle is getting him the inside scoop...wonder who his National Netroots Advisor is??

"Still, the episode (over Brennan) shows that the CIA's secret detention program remains a particularly incendiary issue for the Democratic base ..."

- Mark Mazetti

- N.Y. Times

As Ondelette keeps saying: it's about the rule of law, not a funk being suffered by a political faction.

Keep you eye on that newspeak!

Brennan's withdrawal came three days after a group of about 200 psychiatrists and academics wrote to Obama opposing his appointment, saying Brennan was tainted by his association with some of the CIA's most controversial policies of the Bush era. They include the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods against captured al-Qaeda leaders in secret CIA prisons.

ad_icon

"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," the coalition stated in the letter. The group said Brennan's appointment would "dishearten and alienate those who opposed torture under the Bush administration."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/25/AR2008112501028.html

Here is the letter:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/108504/psychologists_to_obama:_don%27t_name_torture_apologist_john_brenner_cia_director/

More likely the Obama administration is looking to be as ripple free as humanly possible. Ruffle no feathers.

http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/

and Dr. Soldz has a handy link in his first para that leads back to here.

... making it difficult for Mr. Obama to select someone for a top intelligence post who has played any role in the agency’s campaign against Al Qaeda since the Sept. 11 attacks.

This is such an important argument. To understand why, think back to the beginning of the war on terror.

By this time in 2002, the US had enjoyed massive successes and nearly obliterated al Qaeda proper, reducing its main cadre from some 20 thousand to an estimated 200 or less, and cutting off the free movement of funds and personnel that had allowed al Qaeda to stay at the center of the militant Islamist movement worldwide.

But George Bush and his dedicated team of national security advisers didn't just wrap it up and throw the towel in, no sir. They stuck it out, expanding the operation against al Qaeda for another 6 years, into whole new countries, and against whole new people who had heretofore not had anything to do with al Qaeda.

These people have spent trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives prolonging a fight that might have been over in mere months if it weren't for them. They are serious. They are experts.

And now, despite sacrificing so much that other people aside from them hold dear, none of those men and women will be advising the new president. Obama may very well end up entirely bereft of the wisdom and sagacity that has kept us in Iraq all these years — not to mention expanding what was set to be a wrap-up in Afghanistan into yet another, full-blown war.

How can Obama govern in a serious, responsible way without the input of any of the people who have led the fight against al Qaeda? Who could possibly think that they could somehow do a better job?

If America gets lulled into another few decades of peace, prosperity, and relative good relations with the world — blithely ignoring the risk of possible terror due to some know-it-all outsider insisting that al Qaeda is basically moribund, or would be if we'd leave well enough alone in the Islamic world — well, don't say you weren't warned!