Waterboarding begins March 2002.  Link.  Link.

Let me show how it's done, since you seem to think that you arguments are compelling simply because you asserted them.

Let's go to his interview with National Journal earlier this year.

Q.  As a counterterrorism professional, is there one path that you see as more productive?

I am a strong proponent of trying to focus more of our efforts on the upstream phenomenon of terrorism. I make the analogy to pollution. We learned that pollutants kill us when they get into the water we drink or the fish we eat or the air we breathe. But I think we also learned that we have to go upstream to identify and eliminate those sources of pollution. Terrorism is a tactic, and we have to be more focused upstream. Since 9/11, understandably we've focused downstream, on those terrorists who might be in our midst or trying to kill us, the operators. I think there needs to be much more attention paid to those upstream factors and conditions that spawn terrorists.

We also have to have a full discussion about the appropriate techniques we're going to use when individuals are captured or detained. But we have to be looking at what are those foreign policies, aid programs, international efforts that we need to be engaged in, that are going to try and stem the flow of those terrorists further upstream. I think a lot of our resources have been dedicated to that downstream phenomenon; I think the United States is a lot safer because we put in place the security filters to prevent terrorists from coming into our country. Now we have to look at the longer-term issues that are more difficult to deal with -- why individuals are succumbing to a lot of the recruitment efforts on the part of terrorist groups.

Q. Then what will it take to finally push this through and make agencies feel compelled to change?

It certainly isn't something that should be done quickly or without appropriate thought. I'm an advocate of having a review of the U.S. governance structures that's going to transcend administrations. It's going to be something that people are going to get together and say, "What type of governance structures and changes need to take place so that we can deal with the challenges of 2015, 2020?"

The interview goes on to talk about FISA quite extensively.  We can discuss what he has actually said and argue the points.  Or you can continue to act like assertions are equivalent to facts.

You dismiss your antagonists by labeling them cultists. Where's your engagement of ideas?

You're working up your head of steam here, relishing conflict for conflict's sake, to feed your overweening ego, and I can see the train wreck coming, the same one you had at DKos and the same one you had at MyLeftWing.

John Brennan is an intelligence professional of 25 years with a detailed understanding of the Middle East(former station chief in the M.E.) and years of experience analyzing terrorists threats.  

How is that race baiting?

I merely asked a question about the game on August 15, 2005, in Athens, Greece, in which the Puerto Rican National Basketball team defeated the United States.  This made them only the second team, after the USSR, to defeat the US Men's team.

If you can't answer how it is possible to field your own team, that beats the US in the Olympics, and at the same time vote in our primaries, then say you don't know.

[T]he force of the Cult is strong with you.

Wait, what?  Have I disagreed with any substantive point made by you or Digby thus far?  I thought when I first read it that this Digby post was an excellent bit of analysis and note of caution.  I thought your initial post yesterday was blindingly stupid, but I think the points you made in comments and later posts regarding Brennan were worthwhile.

Look back at your posts on this issue.  Compare how much time and energy you've devoted to making substantive arguments on the merits with how much time and energy you used ridiculing people and defending your personal history.  It isn't even close.