Why John Brennan Matters

Believe it or not, beyond the blog pi**ing contests, John Brennan's potential role in an Obama Administration matters a lot. Digby explains why:

On torture, there can be no more blurring of definitions. . . . The CIA needs to know up front that Obama will not have their back if they engage in torture --- and that the torture legal framework under Bush is no longer operative in any way. There really is no other choice on this and I expect that he will do it. He knows very well that his foreign policy will be in complete shambles the minute it is leaked --- and it will be --- that the Obama administration has sanctioned torture, either through commission or omission. His great opportunity across the world to prove that America has changed will be lost.

If this is concern trolling, then we should all be concern trolls.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Newsweek's "The Ruckus" Campaign Blog Ends | Gun Sales Up Since Election >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The issue is not Brennan (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:30:44 PM EST
    The issue is Obama just flatly saying Torture (and then defining it) is not okay.  After that getting advice from somone knowledgable about this nations security is completely justifiable.  Obama sets the guide lines and the experts give him options on how to fill in the details.

    Limiting experts, to which there are very few at that level, makes no sense.  Now if Brennan can't do his job without putting in place (or keeping in place) policies that allow for the violation of civil liberties he should say so, tells us why and then move on as a sign of protest.

    What I want to know (4.50 / 2) (#3)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:34:29 PM EST
    is how much did Brennan know?  Why make one of your top security people (and apparently, Brennan is a contender for a top security job in the administration) someone who knew about the torture while it was happening?  Brennan seems to think that torture doesn't work - he said some of the information produced was bogus.  But he was certainly there when it was happening.  Did he even say boo?  Worth knowing isn't it?

    To be clear (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:16:46 PM EST
    John Brennan was on the analyst side of things.   He was the head of the National Counterterrorism Center for most of his time during the Bush Administration, which ended in the end of 2004.  The NCTC is a intelligence agency responsible for providing advisory information to the White House and other decision makers.

    While I'm sure he had some knowledge of the various interrogation methods, including torture, that the CIA was engaged in, he had no authority over them and little involvement with them.  


    Brennan: (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:22:48 PM EST
    Mr. Brennan served as DCI Tenet's Chief of Staff from 1999 to 2001 and as Deputy Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from March 2001 to March 2003.

    Waterboarding begins March 2002.  Link.  Link.

    So if he was Deputy Executive Director at that time, I do wonder what he knows.  I find it hard to believe he had no authority over the program.  


    He was not in the DoO (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:28:18 PM EST
    The CIA is broken down into essentially two main arms.  The Directorate of Intelligence and the Directorate of Operations.  

    They have very little influence over each other.  The DoI would not engage in interrogation of anyone.

    Brennan was a DoI guy almost his entire career.


    I don't think anyone is suggesting (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:46:34 PM EST
    brennan was atually weilding a knuckle duster in a dungeon.

    That is a fair point. (none / 0) (#48)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:56:29 PM EST
    What is the relationship of the DI to the DO in your view?  

    A heckuva time period to be high up in the CIA.  Tenet, anthrax, Iraq, the beginning of torture.


    Yes, definitely woth knowing (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by robrecht on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:56:08 PM EST
    Especially since Brennan has stated in public that waterboarding is torture and is unacceptable.  If he's lying, we need to make the case clearly to those who put blind faith in Obama and his appointments.

    What I think is good (4.50 / 2) (#4)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:40:13 PM EST
    about Digby's views on national security matters is she recognizes that these people have a much more complicated relationship with the President than a simple "Yes sir."  Take this post for instance:

    I think there is nearly zero chance that Petraeus is apolitical and I would bet good money that he is positioning himself for a role in shaping policy. His willingness to be used by the Bush administration proves it in my mind. in fac, his recent protestations of being above politics are actually very cunning --- if the country devolves back into angry partisanship, which it will (it always does), TMCP will be positioned to be the apolitical outsider with the leadership experience to lead us out of the darkness. There is no doubt in my mind that when he looks in the mirror he sees President Petraeus.

    Obama had better watch his back.

    I think we can apply this reasoning to Brennan as well.  Not that Brennan aspires for a run to the Presidency; what I am saying is more that his complicity with the Bush administration does say something about him and should raise questions for us.

    That's fine (4.00 / 1) (#1)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:30:12 PM EST
    Why is John Brennan relevant to this discussion?  Digby makes no reference to Brennan.

    We all agree that torture should be off limits.  

    We all agree that Obama needs to make that clear.

    Where you lose me is in pointing to John Brennan as some sort of poster child for torture.  

    Are you eliminating all CIA staff from consideration for intelligence positions?  

    Who do you propose should be DCI or NCI?  

    So far all I see is a lot of guilt by association.

    Holy sh*t (3.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:32:05 PM EST
    so if digby does not mention Brennan, you are incapable of understanding the Brennan being the head of intelligence issues is an issue?

    Are you really this far gone? Seriously? Why do you want to comment in my posts? Just to piss me off? I want you to be better. I want a real engagement of ideas but you are just too effing much now.


    As usual (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:07:44 PM EST
    when asked to explain yourself you go into the attack.  

    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.

    No matter what role John Brennan does or does not take in the administration he will not be setting policy.  He will be carrying out the policies defined by Obama and the White House.  


    Brennan in favor of ... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:14:55 PM EST
    Bush administration terrorist "security filters," and favors a go slow approach on changing agency structures.

    That's what I read in those quotes.


    Well ok (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:19:35 PM EST
    You aren't going to find ANY intelligence professionals in favor of rapid change in our intelligence apparatus. Perhaps some politicians will favor it but no one who actually is involved in this.

    It is hard to argue that the Bush "security filters" have not increased homeland security.  

    If you are looking for a civil rights activist in our intelligence community you are going to grow old trying to find him or her.


    hmmmm (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:48:43 PM EST
    It is hard to argue that the Bush "security filters" have not increased homeland security.

    They probably did nothing much at all on balance. Just helped make things like rendition and torture more likely.  


    and expose a lot of stinky feet at airports (none / 0) (#66)
    by sj on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 04:39:38 PM EST
    Not to mention the windfall to manufacturers of personal products who now charge a bundle for the 3 oz size.

    But about homeland security: are we inspecting our ports yet?

    Actually it's pretty darn easy to argue the Bush "security filters" have not increased homeland security.


    In other words ... (3.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:22:13 PM EST

    It is hard to argue that the Bush "security filters" have not increased homeland security.

    Actually it's easy to argue that it hasn't.  But the fact that you think it isn't is pretty telling.

    You voted for Bush last time, right?


    Oh good (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:25:37 PM EST
    Time to revert to ad hominem.  BTD has taught you well.  

    The last time I voted for a Republican was in the 80s and I was a teenager.  

    And unlike many here I never once suggested that voting for a Republican would be an option this year.  

    You can argue that the security filters were a breach of our civil rights.  You can argue that they were unnecessary.  But I fail to see how you can argue that they did not improve domestic security.  If you feel they did then explain how they did not.  


    You do understand that ... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:36:38 PM EST
    the term "security filters" refers to a broad range of activities, and included among that is illegal wiretapping.

    Yes (none / 0) (#34)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:39:21 PM EST
    A policy can be both effective and wrong at the same time.  

    John Brennan isn't going to become the Attorney General.


    Did you just suggest someone STFU? (2.33 / 3) (#23)
    by Buzzybill on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:28:14 PM EST
    Wow, what high level discourse you have here.

    What did you guys lose an election or something?

    That's a shame, because my side won.


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:30:32 PM EST
    this is what passes for discourse among some here.  

    Rather than respond substantively, they can portray themselves as victims who are being bullied by the other side.


    But what are the sides then? (3.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Buzzybill on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:36:14 PM EST
    At least nominally, we are all, I assume, Democrats.  And if you are going to have a "Big Tent" for the Democrats, then we are on the same side.

    We support Democratic candidates and are glad that our guy won.

    We oppose the Republicans trampling the Bill of Rights and oppose torture.

    Our side won.  It has been 7 days.  Give them time.

    Or is there no room for this kind of talk in your "Big Tent"?


    we do? (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:51:40 PM EST
    We oppose the Republicans trampling the Bill of Rights and oppose torture.

    you must have missed the last 8 years then. At least half the party consistently sided with Bush and 4/5s of the leadership of party did like wise--time after time vote after vote.


    I"m not concerned about the democrats (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by lucky leftie on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:58:38 PM EST
    who are open to a discussion, I'm concerned about the ones who want to shut up all criticism, until "after the election," or until Obama is inaugurated or until whatever.  

    If you want to take it on faith that Obama will do all the things he's promised to do, be my guest.  Having already seen him backtrack on retroactive immunity, I'm not assuming anything.  He's a politician; a smart, adept one, but a politician nonetheless.


    I was suggesting ... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:37:14 PM EST
    Fly was saying that to me.

    No (4.33 / 6) (#27)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:34:53 PM EST
    He expressed that he felt he was being told to STFU.

    When you're new at a site sometimes it helps to slow down a little and read things, rather than just launching into the insults.  Then again, what am I saying, this is the Internet.


    Funny thing (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:56:56 PM EST
    I wrote a post that is linked about Brennan. Let me explain how it is done - you click on the link.

    Where (none / 0) (#54)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:02:46 PM EST
    I don't see such a post.  

    Click the link (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:05:37 PM EST
    the link (3.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:12:53 PM EST
    where they are trawling your opinions is getting very kafkaesque armando k, you are the first to be tried for your infractions and incorrect predictions

    Heh (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:56:13 PM EST
    I think my predictions were pretty good.

    If anyone actually cares.

    For example, I predicted Obama would cave on telecom immunity.


    These were very depressing predictions (none / 0) (#59)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:39:18 PM EST
    and damn you before the eyes of the court and they only make your inaccurate ones more glaring.

    Oh my effing sides! (2.33 / 3) (#19)
    by digdugboy on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:22:05 PM EST
    You want a real engagement of ideas? LOLOLOLOL!

    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.

    Keep it up. It's entertaining, even if it is in reruns.


    Coming from you (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:55:10 PM EST
    Assuming you are the same person I remember with that moniker.

    Anyway, enjoy the show.


    I suspect he's about one more rating (3.66 / 3) (#44)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:53:29 PM EST
    or comment from a ban.

    I'm rather interested to hear what he thinks about scotland getting it's own soccer team and parliament while still  having seats in westminster and teh protection of the British Army?

    For crying out loud... (3.00 / 2) (#5)
    by LeBron in Cleats on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:55:40 PM EST
    ...neither you, nor the WSJ news staff, nor John Brennan, nor Digby knows anything at all about what President-elect Obama's policy w/r/t torture will be. That bears repeating:


    As far as Brennan and the "leak" to the WSJ are concerned, for all we know the leaker may have been Brennan himself, or someone he put up to it hoping to somehow box Obama into a pre-existing narrative once he takes office.

    All this "The One" snark aside, it would seem that you have mistaken a leak for an official statement, and have all but decided that any sort of advisory position for Brennan means that Brennan's opinions will become Obama's policy.

    Myself, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until I KNOW WHAT HIS POLICY IS.

    The quote you chose from Digby illustrates the problem here - she believes the Obama administration will do the right thing, and you (if we're to take you at your word thus far) do not.

    News leaks are also (4.75 / 4) (#11)
    by ding7777 on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:08:26 PM EST
    called Trial Balloons to determine the amount of support/opposition on any given subject with total deniablity built-in

    Do you think policy positions spring to (4.33 / 6) (#7)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:01:55 PM EST
    life, fully born, like Athena from whatzisname's head? Taking it on faith that Obama is going to advocate for your preferred position on an issue is a sure route to disappointment.
    He needs to hear what people think, NOW.

    But what's wrong with saying ... (4.33 / 6) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:02:46 PM EST
    hiring Brennan is a bad idea?

    Hiring Brennan was a decision Obama made.  Why can't it be called into question?

    BTD even admitted he titled that original post provocatively so people would read it.

    They did read it.  And, so far, I haven't seen one person making a credible argument why hiring Brennan was a good idea.  Most completely ignore the point.


    When did Obama hire Brennan? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:37:33 PM EST
    I didn't get that memo.

    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.  

    There is nothing wrong with saying that hiring Brennan is a bad idea as long as you explain why it is a bad idea.  


    He was hired when ... (3.66 / 3) (#35)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:44:08 PM EST
    he was named head of Obama's Intelligence Transition team.

    Stop being obtuse.


    He has not been named (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by mantis on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:00:10 PM EST
    as head of Obama's Intelligence Transition team, at least not by Obama or the transition staff.  Have a look.  See Brennan's name on there?

    It has been reported by Hosenball at Newsweek that there is an "indication" that Brennan is heading up the intelligence transition team, along with Jamie Miscik, "reportedly."  This may very well be correct, but it has not been announced by Obama or any of the transition staff.


    UGH (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:47:15 PM EST
    That is the problem?  He's part of the transition team?  That is what we should question?  

    Yes (3.66 / 3) (#42)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:52:22 PM EST
    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:55:22 PM EST
    I'm honestly curious why this is a big deal?

    It is a transitional job.


    I think this is ... (3.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:57:40 PM EST
    where we came in.

    Most completely ignore the point. (4.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Faust on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:03:44 PM EST
    Repeated for emphasis.

    I do not give benefits of doubt (4.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:39:12 PM EST
    You put your finger on the problem - we should know in crystal clear terms.

    yeah we don't know (3.66 / 3) (#15)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:16:44 PM EST
    it ought to be crystal clear though and it very murky right now

    I am advised we must be patient. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:38:56 PM EST
    I agree... (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Buzzybill on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:48:20 PM EST
    That we should be patient.

    What with it just being a week since we won the HUGELY HISTORIC ELECTION!

    It make take another couple of weeks to iron out the details.


    My cpmment was snark. (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:02:32 PM EST
    I am also advised:  would you rather McCain had been elected?  I'm getting really tired of this already.

    You'd think ... (3.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:18:45 PM EST
    and the fact that it isn't is pretty damning.

    And if the naysayers and advocates are silenced it may never need to be clear ... until it's too late.


    I have a question (1.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Buzzybill on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:13:25 PM EST
    I see in your bio that you live in Puerto Rico.  I have some things I had always wondered about Puerto Rico, so maybe you can fill me in.

    Why does Puerto Rico get to vote in the US Presidential Primaries, and also get to field their own team at the Olympics?

    I am just curious.  It would seem to me that you are either sort of part of the US (51st State, getting to vote, etc.) or you are not (having a basketball team that beats the US in the Olympics).

    It seems to me that your opinions on this issue are every bit as important as the wild-ass speculation your post indulges in.

    Thanks for your quick response.

    I like this comment (3.66 / 3) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:52:37 PM EST
    Unabashed bigotry. You a fan of Poblano?

    Bigotry???? (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Buzzybill on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:19:51 PM EST
    I am the person here who is supporting the first Minority to be elected to the office of President of the United States of America.

    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.

    But Racist!  I think this charge is flatly unsupported by anything I have written.


    This is my favorite comment. The IOC now (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Joelarama on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:36:18 PM EST
    defines citizenship for the U.S., and not Congress (which conferred citizenship on Puerto Ricans by statute).

    Correction: the Constitution confers citizenship, (none / 0) (#60)
    by Joelarama on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:41:30 PM EST
    but I think I'm right on the statute part as it relates to Puerto Rico.

    Congress passed a statute in 1917 (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:50:52 PM EST
    conferring citizenship on Puerto Ricans. The Constitution protects that right from being taken away.

    But does the Constitution (none / 0) (#65)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 04:13:28 PM EST
    protect the USA's right to win a gold medal in basketball?  Because if it doesn't, it should.

    I said bigotry, not racism (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:39:15 PM EST
    BTW, I think most everybody here voted for the President-Elect.

    "Bigotry" would be about your... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:44:08 PM EST
    ...religious chauvanism. Although that is an older use of the word.  It is now blending with other terms like racism and sexism in modern usage. Pretty soon the language will resemble a goopy gray paint.

    How interesting, (none / 0) (#63)
    by puckthecat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 04:02:48 PM EST
    Digby takes a passage in CQ and develops a careful analysis of why it matters.  By the end, the reader is more informed and Digby has made her point:  Obama must be firm and clear regarding torture.

    You take a WSJ article, excerpt a particularly meaningless passage, slap an inflammatory headline on it, and call it good.  You then spend the next few days calling people names and explaining that you did in fact have a point, you just failed to mention it at the time.

    It's pretty clear why Digby is one of the most influential writers in the blogosphere while you're trying to scare up readers by starting flame wars.

    Heh (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 04:11:50 PM EST
    you know what is funny - Digby and I are pretty close - I was one of her champions as she herself will tell you.

    But the force of the Cult is strong with you.

    But do tell, John Cole, one of your favs?


    Cult, eh? (none / 0) (#67)
    by puckthecat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 04:43:00 PM EST
    [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.

    You aren't advancing your arguments, and you're making yourself look much, much stupider than you are.


    No (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 05:43:44 PM EST
    You have just criticized me for criticizing Obama as far as I can tell.

    I wish you did have something of substance to say actually.


    Seriously, (none / 0) (#69)
    by puckthecat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 06:29:24 PM EST
    Have you actually read what I've written?

    I know it's very comfortable and safe for you to think that this is all about you offering legitimate criticism and getting hammered for it by thoughtless cultists.  It's a nice little self-perpetuating construct, and avoids any need for introspection.  But that's really not what this is about.  You had a substantive contribution to make to an important issue, and you have almost totally obscured that contribution because of either an unwillingness or an inability to express yourself clearly.

    If you really want what you claim to want--to have a positive effect


    Arg... (none / 0) (#70)
    by puckthecat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 06:31:30 PM EST
    Hit post accidentally (no edit?).

    If you really want what you claim to want--to see your ideas have a positive effect on the course of our government--you would do well to express them clearly.


    I missed the substance again (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 06:32:21 PM EST
    I have a feeling (none / 0) (#72)
    by puckthecat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 06:43:55 PM EST
    you've been "missing the substance" of criticism like this for years.

    But whatever, it's your life.


    Wow (none / 0) (#73)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:35:34 PM EST
    The cultists seem to be proving BTD's point with every post.