Though i bitterly despise where we are now, and i know there will be a thousand fights ahead, the netroots is solidly placed to keep the game more honest than ever in the last 40 years.

This I like. Hope there's enough time remaining in "the game" (which, as Ondelette has pointed vis a vis the climate, is growing increasingly questionable).

...harsh interrogation tactics on terror suspects, including waterboarding, which critics call torture.

One can only shake one's head over that attribution. Critics, eh?

Regardless, well done, Glenn.

The guy did the right thing. He bowed out. He brought out the usual face-saving persiflage about why he bowed out, and you kicked him around, even though he was already out, about that face-saving persiflage. Lord knows, Brennan's sins were small potatoes compared to the many many democratic high rollers that went much much further into the dark side; could you not show him a little bit of, well, politeness or mercy or something like that? Refusing to engage with every statement of a defeated enemy makes is not an endorsement of that enemy, a chance for new life for them; a lesson that lord knows the Republicans could never manage to learn.

I think it is just as incumbent upon bloggers, as on any kind of pundit, to show some magnanimity when you win, is all. A cheap ill-based excuse statement by a defeated opponent on his way out the door should be greeted with silence, not a kick in the ass for the silly, stupid, face-saving exercise it was.

(Though I got no problem crowing about the win, of course. A little victory dance is in order of course, just not the taunting.)

New York Times' Mark Mazzetti: "... 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."

VERY odd statement. Anyone opposed to torture, rendition, wiretaps and violations of the Fourth Amendment are necessarily opposed to the "campaign against Al Qaeda" ????

As though there were no way to deal with that threat except by those means.

OK. Maybe that is the only kind of campaign the CIA can operate. In which case, let's close down Gitmo AND Langley.

The opposition to Mr. Brennan had been largely confined to liberal blogs, and there was not an expectation he would face a particularly difficult confirmation process.

Is it only me, or does the "liberal blogs" excuse look increasingly thin?

If he could have been confirmed without any "particular[] difficult[y]," what was the real reason? Certainly not to throw a bone to the "netroots," who as Glenn recently pointed out made no demands and wield little power.

Anyone else smell a setup?

GG, give yourself a truly well-deserved pat on the back!

How strange, this sensation - reaching again for the sun out of hungry habit, and finding your fingers kissed with buttery warmth.

Did you read my previous post? Stephen Soldz, who organized the 200 sigs from psychologists, psychiatrists and others, is not nobody. He is the one who first started the revolt inside the American Psychological Association for not forbidding its members to work on interrogations. They networked with PHR and ACLU, and he is pretty well connected. Some of the sigs are from people at known torture treatment centers.

He appears to read Glenn.

the American Psychological Association, which is a huge, rich, powerful professional lobby (and landlord), right up there with AMA, finally came down hard against torture.

This has been a brewing controversy for several years, because military psychologists are sent in to ensure that "detainees" aren't driven insane. The profession has been in turmoil about this for some time.

I don't want to pop any bubbles, but if these people really decided to make an issue of something, they could. They are as powerful as the blogs, if less visible outside the Beltway.

Aha! There you have it. I'll have to read that link.

P.S.: DCLaw1, I declare you Poet of the Day. I'll let Jebbie know.

It makes sense to keep Gates at Defense. Replacing Bush with Obama is already changing horses. Replacing Gates would be like trying to change both horses and saddles in midstream. Institutional memory is important at Defense, especially during active conflicts, because people's lives depend on it. When Gates took over, Rumsfeld was kept on as a consultant for some time afterwards.

Gates has been both competent and professional in his office. That's a pretty low bar that Rumsfeld set where mere competence and professionalism makes for an outstanding SecDef, but after Rumsfeld, Porky Pig would have seemed competent and professional.

On another appointment note, it appears that Clinton may be constitutionally ineligible for Secretary of State:

Article I, Section Six :

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Since cabinet secretaries' salaries were raised last year, this would seem to make Clinton ineligible. It would also make Kerry ineligible.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/is_clinton_barred_from_state_j.php

It isn't a matter of popping bubbles. Some of them read this blog and others. We don't know whether they in fact first were alerted to it here, Dr. Soldz does ref. Glenn on today's piece. But we should know what the dynamic was, because if it has to happen again it's good to know who to access.

Let no bubbles be popped, then. Yes, Soldz reads Glenn---and is himself a blogger. An inside-the-Beltway blogger, but a blogger nevertheless.

But surely the WaPo called him personally to tell him about Brennan not just because he blogs, but rather because he has brought APA over to the right side and in the process has made himself known to them. And they wanted his remarks.