None of this reporting even alludes to, let alone conveys, the central arguments against Brennan and the evidence for those arguments. Unmentioned are his emphatic advocacy for rendition and "enhanced interrogation tactics." None of the lengthy Brennan quotes defending these programs are acknowledged, despite the fact that not only bloggers, but also the much-cited psychologists' letter, emphasized those defenses (that letter complained that Brennan "supported Tenet's policies, including 'enhanced interrogations' as well as 'renditions' to torturing countries"). The seminal article on these CIA programs by The New Yorker's Jane Mayer -- who interviewed Brennan and identified him as a "supporter" of these programs despite "the moral, ethical, and legal issues" -- does not exist in the journalists' world.

Just remember this when you read these so called "journalists" - John Brennan was part of the CIA when Maher Arar was rendered to Syria for torturing and, TO THIS DAY, STILL DEFENDS extraordinary rendition and torture.

In short, if he had to do it over again, John Brennan would render Maher Arar to Syria so that he would be tortured. If that is not disqualifying, then I do not know what is.

Also understand this, that the Media is. by and large (there are notable exceptions) disqualified from having a serious discussion about any issue. This episode that Glenn describes is par for the course with "journalists."

Speaking for me only