What I can not understand is the ridiculous Cult of Obama who believes that not a negative word should be said about Obama ever. Oh sure, they'll say "wait till he is President. But then they'll say "wait till he finishes his first year. And after that, "wait for the mid terms." And then "wait until after reelection." In short, members of a cult can never have the leader of the cult criticized. That is how the Republicans have done it and no one is as zealous as a convert.

I think they'll just defend his assaults on civil liberties if they come.

In short, members of a cult can never have the leader of the cult criticized.

This people are crazy cultists.

Mr. Obama is being advised largely by a group of intelligence professionals, including some who have supported Republicans, and centrist former officials in the Clinton administration

Now which of these is most important?  And which one should we most hope we have Obama's ear on?

All he is trying to do is take a slow, methodical approach--it's in his personality to take it easy and listen to everyone before making a decision.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Obama is going to end up taking positions that anyone here would disagree with--people are getting up in arms way too early.

Knowing that sometimes leaders can test the waters to see what sinks or swims, these are the times to be listening to what people close to Obama, (Mr. Brennan), are saying. If we do not like what we are hearing, then we need to alert him to that fact.

SMITH: Is that torture?

BRENNAN: I think it is, certainly, subjecting an individual to severe pain and suffer, which is the classic definition of torture. And I believe, quite frankly, it's inconsistent with American values and it's something that should be prohibited. But I think Judge Mukasey is in a very difficult position right now, as the attorney general nominee, to be asked whether or not this is torture and if torture then is unconstitutional or illegal, they're asking whether or not water boarding is illegal and whether or not the individuals, which includes the president and others, if it was used, who authorized and actually used this type of procedure, may be subject to some type of judicial action.

SMITH: You know, this all becomes such a giant issue because the president has gone on record so many times saying the United States does not torture. If we acknowledge that this kind of activity goes on, you know, what does that mean, exactly I guess?

BRENNAN: Well, the CIA has acknowledged that it has detained about 100 terrorists since 9/11, and about a third of them have been subjected to what the CIA refers to as "enhanced interrogation tactics." And only a small proportion of those have, in fact, been subjected to the most serious types of enhanced procedures.

SMITH: And you say some of this has born fruit.

BRENNAN: There has been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has, in fact, used against the real hardcore terrorists. It has saved lives. And let's not forget, these are hardened terrorists who have been responsible for 9/11, who have shown no remorse at all for the death of 3,000 innocents.

SMITH: John Brennan, we thank you very, very much for enlightening us this morning. We really do appreciate it.

Much of the shrieking I've heard is over non-decisions that have been rumored but not confirmed and the furthest from official. If progressives want to cry wolf over stuff that hasn't happened and may never happen, then go ahead I guess. But I'm not going to going to get excited by watching a movement that I identify strongly with make itself irrelevant.

And this:

Oh sure, they'll say "wait till he is President." But then they'll say "wait till he finishes his first year." And after that, "wait for the mid terms." And then "wait until after reelection."

I think the reasons should be clear to anyone who actually cares about civil liberties.

I'd like to think I care about civil liberties...maybe I'm just slow.

Is it because he pushed for telecom companies to get immunity for cooperating with the government after 9/11?  I hold Obama accountable here.  Brennan seems like an advisor who was giving appropriate perspective on the issue, that the telecom companies were told by "appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context" to cooperate.  I'm disappointed in Obama for going back on a promise.  It was up to Obama to listen to all of his advisors -- and remember his promise -- and make the right decision.

If that's not it, is it because your convinced that Brennan would push for a continuation of the current policy allowing torture?  If that's your concern, where is the evidence that Brennan is pushing for Obama to retain those policies?

You've always had such insightful comments, BTD, that I'm probably just missing something here.  But so far I can't connect the dots to understand why you're so opposed to Brennan.

I'm trying to make an honest effort to understand the issue here since I agree with Brennan on at least this:

Sometimes a superficial understanding of a problem leads one to making superficial decisions.

I wonder what's next for you BTD?  Do you start railing against the Kos Kidz, and the Hateful Liberal bloggers?

I'm sorry that I'm not taking you seriously.  But as Marshall over at TPM noted, there hasn't really been many decisions made, it's all thinly sourced speculation and hardly worth responding to.  And yet here you are, getting yourself all into a froth.

I don't think Brennan was being disingenuous when he rather clearly stated his belief that torture was against American values.  That's a pretty tough statement to walk back from.

Now, how his opinion on torture has been construed to dovetail with his opinion on telecom immunity is a mystery to me.  There's a logical leap there that is in no way clear.