Obama Taps John Brennan for Terrorism Adviser

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 08:07:00 AM EST
Tags: John Brennan (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

President-Elect Barack Obama gets his man:

Barack Obama has picked John O. Brennan as his top adviser on counterterrorism, a role that will give the CIA veteran a powerful voice on the government's use of security contractors and on other sensitive issues in which he recently has played a private-sector role.

.... The president-elect's decision comes only six weeks after Brennan was forced to pull out of contention for the directorship of the CIA because of fears that his statements supporting some controversial interrogation techniques would have complicated his confirmation.

This reminds me of Bush's tendency towards recess appointments to get around Senate confirmation. [More...]

Brennan heads up a firm called the Analysis Corp, which is owned by Global Strategies:

London-based Global Strategies, has been a target of critical news accounts about harsh actions by its hired soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama has criticized the actions of similar firms, such as Blackwater Worldwide, and co-sponsored legislation to ensure that such firms are subject to U.S. laws even when operating overseas.

Not only that,

Brennan also has attracted personal criticism from human rights experts for defending the CIA's long-standing practice of forced renditions, or transfers, of terrorism suspects for interrogations, a position that forced the withdrawal in late November of his candidacy to head the CIA.

In prior positions, he also drew complaints:

He was chief of staff to then-CIA Director George J. Tenet from 1999 to 2001 and director of National Counterterrorism Center from 2004 to 2005 -- provoked an open complaint against his nomination as CIA director from 200 psychologists.

Obama's rationale:

Obama aides said the president-elect accepted Brennan's assurances that he played no role in setting abusive interrogation practices at the CIA and that he had expressed some private dissent about the practices. They said Obama also accepted the judgment of transition team advisers that Brennan was separated from any questionable practices by Global Strategies, which formally purchased Brennan's firm in 2007.

Big Tent Democrat has written a score of posts critical of Brennan, accessible here.

< Ala. Sheriff Arrested After Hearing On Skimping on Inmate Food | Blago Impeached >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Taps John Brennan for Terrorism Adviser | 139 comments (139 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Senate Democrats endorse state terrorism (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Andreas on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 01:10:18 AM EST

More significant is that the Senate Democrats endorse the state terrorism aimed at the Palestinian people.

While president-elect Barack Obama has maintained a discreet silence on Washington's policy toward the bloodbath in Gaza since it began nearly two weeks ago, the resolution backed by his former Democratic colleagues in the US Senate speaks eloquently for him.
There is no question that an Obama administration will maintain US imperialism's backing for Israeli aggression and repression of the Palestinian people and will continue funneling the over $3 billion in annual military aid that provides the Israeli Defense Forces with the weaponry now being used to massacre innocent civilians.

Senate Democrats endorse Israeli war crimes
By Bill Van Auken, 9 January 2009

Turns my stomach (5.00 / 4) (#18)
by ruffian on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 09:29:51 AM EST

I know Hamas has done damage too, but the Israeli response has been obviously beyond the pale. The Senate is supposed to be our representatives. I don't know anyone who is not horrified by the Israeli actions. They certainly are not speaking for the American people on this.


Here's Glenn Greenwalds (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by CDN Ctzn on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 10:01:11 AM EST

commentary on it yesterday over at Salon. Once again, his observations are sobering.


: Greenwald's commentary is singular... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:23:38 AM EST

Where's his Nobel Prize? As an "A-list blog" columnist he has shown unprecedented tenacity and courage in going after the thorniest issues: in a way that puts him at risk of being banned from the polite, post-partisan company of his conformist peers. And damn, the man knows how to translate his razor-sharp analysis into eloquent, succinct, persuasive prose.
Same goes for Krugman. If it weren't for him and Greenwald, sometimes I swear, I'd open up a vein.
Out on the perimeter, Anglachel is another life-line; and she was/is in a "scary smart", stratospheric class of her own. But she hasn't blogged in weeks. Sound the alarm - all hands on deck, please.

What should they fire back with?? (2.33 / 3) (#57)
by samtaylor2 on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 12:09:03 PM EST

If someone attacks someone bigger then themselves, they should be ready to be hit back hard.


It Certainly Looks That Way (none / 0) (#2)
by squeaky on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 01:19:09 AM EST

If this will help, Obama camp said (none / 0) (#4)
by andrys on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 03:09:39 AM EST

it's "prepared to talk with Hamas."

Subtitle is "Incoming administration will abandon Bush's isolation of Islamist group to initiate low-level diplomacy, say transition sources"

I hope they find a way to decrease the power of the extremists on both sides.

Obama has expressed concern for the Palestinian refugee plight before, and so - for that matter - has Hillary Clinton recently.

Obama seems to have an interest (mainly hidden while running for office) in seeing more be done for the Palestinian refugees. He asked sympathizers to be patient while he's running.


Half the Story (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by squeaky on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 11:21:09 AM EST

If this will help, Obama camp said it's "prepared to talk with Hamas."
Subtitle is "Incoming administration will abandon Bush's isolation of Islamist group to initiate low-level diplomacy, say transition sources"

Not just a break with BushCo, but a shift from Obama's repeated early stance. During his campaign he distinguished himself by saying that he was in fact willing to talk to Americas enemies except for Hamas.

Although here is a different story from Israeli press today:

"Sen. Obama strongly opposes talking to Hamas, a terrorist group committed to Israel's destruction. As president, he will work to isolate Hamas and target its resources, and rejects any dialogue until Hamas recognizes Israel, renounces terrorism, and abides by previous agreements."

"Prepared to talk"... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
by pmj6 on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 03:07:40 PM EST

...is unfortunately not the same thing as willing to talk. The Bush administration spent the last 8 years "prepared to talk" with Iran--provided the latter first satisfied a long list of conditions that it wants to be the subject of negotiations, not something it has to sacrifice merely for the privilege of speaking to Bush representatives.

In other words, the Bush policy on Gaza looks set to continue. The Brennan appointment looks like another move aimed at boxing-in Hillary (not that she promised to be any less pro-Israel).


: Wow (none / 0) (#99)
by squeaky on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 04:40:31 PM EST

You have it bad, if you think that any of this even remotely resembles BushCo policy. Obama has made it clear that he will be talking to Iran and the rest of the countries that BushCo froze out, without conditions.
That is a huge difference. Obama drew the line with Hamas and stated clearly that he would not be willing to talk to them as long as they did not recognize Israel, etc.
He has shifted his position regarding Hamas, obviously because of the mounting world condemnation of Israel's recent war crimes in Gaza.
To say this is in any way a continuation of BushCo is patently absurd.

Cripes... I clicked the link (none / 0) (#121)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:38:30 AM EST

on the story cited in comment #48, which is a great read by the way.

But, on the same page as the story (in the IsraeliNationalNews.com) there's an ad from NARTH: the National Association for Research and Therapy of ["unwanted"] Homosexuality. You have to see it to believe it.


Total US aid to Israel is over $5 billion annually (none / 0) (#61)
by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 12:38:44 PM EST

Three billion is often cited, but all told it's over five billion; which is two billion dollars more depressing than three.


Depressing. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by oldpro on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 02:06:47 AM EST

Stay Away (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by CDN Ctzn on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 09:52:55 AM EST

from all sharp objects oldpro. We don't want to lose you!


Not to worry... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by oldpro on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 10:12:03 AM EST

when the time comes, I'll take pills and the cocktail.

I avoid sharp objects in the normal course of events...I am a klutz and a compulsive multi-tasker, resulting in a constant state of black and blue from bumping into furniture as I hurridly cut corners. Sigh...


I broke my arm in November (none / 0) (#42)
by sallywally on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 10:46:10 AM EST

tripping over my own furniture which has been arranged in the exact same way for at least 8 years...

Good excuse to buy new antiques!!


: You broke the furniture (none / 0) (#101)
by oldpro on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 05:00:18 PM EST

as well as your arm?
No broken bones here but it's 'bruise city' most of the time. I could have passed for an abuse victim almost any week of the year.
Couple of weeks ago I sat down on a couch in the Habitat store and a metal display reindeer fell on my head. Nice gash. Not much blood...no stitches.
You know what they say: "No brains, no headaches."

CDN Ctzn, did you follow the discussion (none / 0) (#68)
by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 01:10:25 PM EST

of the Obama poster campaign on Wednesday's, or was it Thursday's, open thread? Increasingly, it appears the Big Brother poster aesthetic may be a matter of style reflecting substance.

It's no accident that the artist, Stephen Fairey, who does the Obama posters also recently did the cover for a re-release of Orwell's "1984". He was commissioned expressly because his graphics have that retro totalitarian quality. The subject has been addressed in some papers including WaPo, LA Times.


Sorry (none / 0) (#111)
by CDN Ctzn on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 07:09:56 PM EST

I missed that one. I'll try to dig it out of the archives.
Are you back on this side of the Border or still in the "Great White North"? Speaking of which, how about those Canuck Kids winning another World Junior Hockey Gold eh?


It's the latter, for the next few weeks... (none / 0) (#112)
by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 08:29:30 PM EST

then on to Europe for a couple of months.

Now, about Canada's National Pastime, the unassailable sport of hockey. I stopped following it years ago when I first moved to the US; evidently many, if not most, Americans don't think it's worth watching on TV. Still, I'm mighty proud of those boys with the World Gold. My younger brother is a total hockey fanatic (i.e. he missed our grandmother's wake to watch a game) and he keeps me somewhat apprised.

OT: I'm sick about Gaza but I can't quite articulate the intensity right now. However, this was very heartening. It's a Statement on Gaza from the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT). Here's a small excerpt:

The Canadian Association of University Teachers is joining others in the international community in calling for an immediate end to the Israeli military action in Gaza...
CAUT is especially concerned about the destruction of civilian infrastructure within Gaza - including educational facilities.On 27 December, Human Rights Watch reported that an Israeli air-to-ground missile struck a group of students leaving the Gaza Training College, adjacent to the headquarters of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in downtown Gaza City, killing eight students and wounding 19 others. Two days later, on 29 December 2008, Israel bombed the Islamic University of Gaza, destroying the science laboratory block and destroying or damaging other blocks of buildings, including the library. Although Israel has claimed that the science laboratory facilities were used as "a research and development center for Hamas weapons," this claim has been denied by officials of the Islamic University, and according to the New York Times of January 1, 2009, Israel has not produced any evidence for its claim. On January 3, the Israeli air force destroyed the American International School, and, on January 6, 30 people were killed and 55 injured when Israeli artillery shells landed outside a United Nations-run school in Gaza...

*It appears the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has issued no statement on the subject to date.


Thanks For The Update (none / 0) (#114)
by CDN Ctzn on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 10:37:32 PM EST

I concur with your feelings regarding Gaza. I've truely been loosing sleep recently over it. It is absolutely staggering to see the degree of denial to the problem and downright misinformation that is being circulated as fact.
What I find particularly frustrating is that people nod their heads and seem to be saying how terrible things are but in reality they can't wait for the subject to change or for the next distraction to come along so they don't have to face the truth; that being that most people here seem to really not give a damn.
It kind of reminds me of Barbera Bush's reaction to Katrina; not wanting her beautiful mind to be troubled by other peoples problems. So, we too pay lip service to the problem and can't wait to move on. I just wish we could be as passionate about this incredible evil that's occuring right now in Gaza, as we are about the BCS National Championship or NFL Playoffs, or who gets seated in the Senate, of if Blago is getting impeached...
We're great at pounding our chests and berating the attrocities in history (ie. the Holocost) and can't imagine how people could have allowed that to happen, while a major human rights violation is occuring NOW and we're afraid to speak up or take to the streets in a show of solidarity for the victims in Gaza.
This is not just a Jewish/Paletinian trajedy, this is a human tragedy, and when I see humanity suffering when it doesn't have to and shouldn't have to, my blood boils.
Sorry for rambling.


Permission to ramble away... (none / 0) (#115)
by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 11:04:17 PM EST

Loosing sleep here too, for real. Can't run a glass of water or have a meal without pain of privilege. Here's to solidarity with you and all fellow travelers who feel for the people of Gaza. Sorry that sounds all corny and passe and Che.

Till next time, let's raise a glass and/or down a recommended dose of prescription meds.


: That's "losing" sleep... (none / 0) (#117)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:06:27 AM EST

Seems spelling is one of the first things to go when you're losing it: sleep that is. Funny how one corrects overly obvious spelling errors so as to not look stoopid.

Obama (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Pepe on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 11:03:36 AM EST

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...


: And we get fooled.... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by kdog on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 12:38:46 PM EST

over and over and over again.

I cannot stand it anymore knowing that for the (5.00 / 7) (#5)
by suzieg on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 05:37:54 AM EST

next 4 years I either have to stop believing most of what my president has to say or be extremely skeptical and he's not even sworn in yet... Some change!!!!

No matter who is president (5.00 / 6) (#12)
by oldpro on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 08:35:23 AM EST

it is always, always wise to maintain skepticism and keep a watchful eye out.

Believe nothing. Demand evidence.


But At Least (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by CDN Ctzn on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 09:32:51 AM EST

he gets to be in an upcoming "Spiderman" comic. Yet another signpost on the steady decline of society.


Don't forget (5.00 / 7) (#20)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 09:36:31 AM EST

The commemorative plates and coin sets.


"Sure to be Collectables!" (5.00 / 5) (#23)
by CDN Ctzn on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 09:39:25 AM EST

They are PRICELESS at 19.99 for 2 :) (5.00 / 2) (#58)
by samtaylor2 on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 12:10:42 PM EST

Or at least that is what the commercial said.


Yes, those kind eyes (none / 0) (#86)
by BernieO on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 03:09:23 PM EST

and broad smile.....


: lol!~ that cracks me up everytime (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by nycstray on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 03:27:36 PM EST

I still have a hard time believing the commercials are real when I see them!

While I am glad to see a black man (none / 0) (#54)
by vicndabx on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 11:54:25 AM EST

elected president. The profiteering off the historic election is disgusting to me.


: You can't make a profit (none / 0) (#104)
by oldpro on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 05:21:00 PM EST

on it if some fool doesn't buy it.
Barnum was right, tho...there IS one born every minute.

What next? Dancing with the stars? (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by oldpro on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 09:36:43 AM EST

Or maybe they can hand that one off to Michelle.


I somehow think that... (none / 0) (#27)
by EL seattle on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 09:45:05 AM EST

... Obama was a disco kid back in the day. So I'm not sure that ballroom dancing is his thing, really.

(Now, if he came out and admitted that the mosh pit is where he'd always felt the most comfortable, that would actually be pretty cool, I think. But it would be a heckuva surprise at this point.)


Nah, not disco (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by sj on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 10:20:38 AM EST

Actually the dude can't dance. He did a little dancing when he was on the Ellen Degeneres show as he came onstage. Some people shouldn't try to dance.

If you're tempted to say it's not so bad, try watching the clip with the sound off.


No rhythm? (none / 0) (#38)
by oldpro on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 10:27:13 AM EST

: Careful with that axe Eugene... (none / 0) (#122)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:55:49 AM EST

Just riffing off your "no rhythm" remark Oldpro, and your other comments about being accident-prone ;-)

I thought I saw a photo of Obama... (none / 0) (#47)
by EL seattle on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 11:06:39 AM EST

... circa 1980 or so that looked a bit Saturday Night Fever-ish to me. But I could be wrong.

Personally, I hope he recognized the opportunity that he had with the Marvel comics tie-in. Assuming that he read comics as a kid, he could have said to the Marvel folks "Hey, me and Spiderman? Cool. But only if you include an appearence by my favorite character from when I was a kid. (Maybe the Vision? or Luke Cage? or Shang-Chi? or Blade? or even Howard the Duck...?) I think that would tell us a lot more about the human the guy than a lot of the near-deification we've seen over the past year or so.


So Bill Clinton would have won (none / 0) (#50)
by oculus on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 11:39:30 AM EST

that dance challenge?


oh hell yes! not even in doubt baby...Big Dawg #1 (none / 0) (#77)
by jedimom on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 02:04:40 PM EST

I dunno (none / 0) (#79)
by sj on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 02:17:38 PM EST

I haven't seen either Clinton rock out :) When HRC was on Ellen she entered smiling and waving, not dancing.

So smart, that lady. Even in the small things.


We do have historical evidence. (none / 0) (#80)
by oculus on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 02:25:54 PM EST

See Inaugural Balls and Times Sq. Dec. 31/09.


: Not the same type of dancing (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by sj on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 02:38:35 PM EST

Which is why I said I never saw either Clinton try to rock out.
Now if we're talking couples dancing of the slower variety, I can say that the Clintons look lovely, don't they? They remind me of my Mom and Dad. No one who ever saw them dance could doubt they loved and appreciated each other.
But I still can't talk apples to apples since I personally haven't seen the Obamas slow dance.

No hopey, (5.00 / 10) (#6)
by kmblue on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 06:15:46 AM EST

no changey.

How horrifying is it to have Jeralyn be reminded of Bush by Obama when Obama is not even sworn in?

I can't help but think that we now have (5.00 / 9) (#7)
by Anne on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 07:12:48 AM EST

to look behind the top-tier appointments that have been so lauded by Democrats and ask whether these are just window dressing designed to placate and lull, and assess whether the secondary appointments and staffing are the ones that best reflect Obama's philosophy and agenda and intended policy.

For some reason, the explanation that boils down to, "I went along with it and did nothing to stop it, but, hey, it wasn't MY policy," gives me no comfort - it's more like a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.

That's an explanation that echoes the comments and attitude of far too many Democrats in Congress who think that claiming powerlessness - "but there was nothing we could do!" - gets them off the hook.

This is disappointing and demoralizing, unless you are a current or former member of the Gang of Eight, in which case you are probably relieved that the truth of the extent of your complicity is probably less likely to be exposed with John Brennan in the house.

This is my concern, as well. (5.00 / 3) (#35)
by KeysDan on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 10:15:21 AM EST

The Panetta nomination to the CIA became "an all systems go" for Senator Feinstein, after being assured that Panetta would have "professionals" around him. Moreover, it seems as if the Brennan appointment (no confirmation necessary) was on the heels of the all systems go statement. Mrs Clinton is as smart as they come, so I trust she is geared up for this.


This is not at all disappointing to me (5.00 / 7) (#41)
by Cream City on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 10:32:13 AM EST

since some of us saw exactly this coming in the campaign statements that pleased conservatives -- and the nonthinking Dems who drank the koolaid and shut down discussion, demanding that we jump aboard.

Even on some blogs that shall go unnamed.

So, we were demoralized already. And so, what's four to eight years more? Been there, done that.


Come on, you're going to miss the (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by ThatOneVoter on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 10:50:41 AM EST

honeymoon!


: Ha. It was over (5.00 / 3) (#49)
by Cream City on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 11:22:36 AM EST

when the Best Man, Biden, opened his mouth again.

A friend who loved Obama said: (none / 0) (#74)
by hairspray on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 01:25:57 PM EST

"Frankly, Obama was the white guy with the tan skin, that all." Now that is probably why it was so important to get rid of the white woman.


Anne, you're getting some rather (none / 0) (#123)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 03:08:29 AM EST

admonishing replies in response to saying you are "disappointed and demoralized" with obama's appointments.

However, if I understand your comment correctly, your feelings are more on the order of having your worst fears come true; rather than having to do with surprise or lack of foresight over the way things are going.


Yes, that's it, exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#126)
by Anne on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 09:17:25 AM EST

His words have been enough at odds with his actions that I didn't trust him enough to vote for him (I was one of those who left the top of the ticket blank, and for the first time since I started voting did not cast a vote for president). Once he was elected, I decided to suspend my skepticism and general uneasiness while he announced his nominations and appointments, thinking that if he got the right people installed, perhaps the collective wisdom, and just the dynamics of governing would prevail over what I see as his inability to ever draw the line or close the door on any policy, even if it is 180 degrees from progressive.

No, he hasn't officially taken over, but the Brennan appointment and some of his other decisions are showing us once again that he's not really going to be changing much - he'll still be giving speeches that lull people into thinking he will, but behind the scenes it will be mostly business as usual.

Some people may be willing to give the Brennan appointment a pass, but I think if you are serious about ending the policies of torture and rendition and the wholesale collection of data on Americans, you don't install someone in your administration who has a company that specializes in the technology related to that collection, among other things, and that is in turn owned by a larger company that specializes in "security solutions," a la Blackwater and other groups that allow the US to outsource torture.

More disturbing to me is that Brennan is being given domestic responsibilities - and I worry how he will be using his "experience" in this country; kind of puts Obama's FISA vote in a whole new light, I think.

I'm wondering what the over/under is on when Obama issues his first executive order, and when he announces that before he can roll back the Bush orders that we all have found so alarming, he will first have to have the experts in his administration (Brennan, perhaps?) take an in-depth look at them to make sure they do " the right thing."


To make myself perfectly clear :-) (5.00 / 1) (#133)
by Cream City on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 03:38:55 PM EST

I never would "admonish" Anne, whose work I always admire, as her commentary is one of the main reasons I keep coming here. I agree with her on this, as on so much else, and just was offering a slightly different take -- perhaps because her comments are so good that there is little else to say. So a reply is a way of saying "I read you," in the many meanings of that phrase.:-)


: "I read you" too, CC... (none / 0) (#136)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 04:39:48 PM EST

I wasn't directing the comment toward you, or anybody in particular. Just wanted to assure Anne she was being appreciated and understood.

If I read this correctly, (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by lentinel on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 07:48:44 AM EST

Obama has appointed someone who is soft on torture as a top advisor.

What can one say?

My guess (5.00 / 10) (#9)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 07:55:43 AM EST

is that I am surprised that anyone is surprised. Those who were paying attention during the campaign knew people like this would be appointed in an Obama administration. Anyone who believed Obama would do a 180 on Bush policies, especially with regards to Iraq, Blackwater, Guantanemo, torture, etc. were not paying attention or completely fooling themselves.

This makes me even more depressed that voters were blinded by personality and empty rhetoric of "hope" and "change".


Mainly fooling themselves ... (5.00 / 8) (#10)
by Robot Porter on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 08:18:50 AM EST

Obama's views on these issues were usually said in simple declarative sentences.

Many strong Obama supporters seemed to believe it was just political posturing and did not relate to the real policies he would enact.

That's the kind of leap of faith I'm not willing to take.


Rationalizations (5.00 / 14) (#13)
by lentinel on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 08:39:45 AM EST

People foisting Obama upon us consistently excused any of Obama's bizarre behavior. They had various ways of doing so.
Emphasizing the "historic" nature of his candidacy was a good one.
Saying that Clinton was just as bad was another all-purpose rejoinder. Demonizing Sarah Palin was good for the final stretch - while Obama went about courting the unsavory.

And of course, the best one of all, as you wrote, he doesn't really mean it.

I will never forget Obama's support and praise for Lieberman during the crucial potentially pivoting election of 2006. That was it for me. I couldn't even look at him anymore - but it was swept under the rug by people who were supposedly against the war.
Most of these same people seldom even refer to the war in Iraq anymore. Bush-Obama and the media who love them have numbed us and dumbed us.

Someday, I don't know how long it will take, someone will write a book chronicling the manipulation of the election of 2008. It rivals what transpired in 2000.


Careful Now! (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by CDN Ctzn on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 09:36:38 AM EST

Someone could parse your remarks and claim they're "racist".


You're right Lentinel, I completely agreee: (none / 0) (#65)
by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 12:51:14 PM EST

Someday, I don't know how long it will take, someone will write a book chronicling the manipulation of the election of 2008. It rivals what transpired in 2000.

Imo, the book will be written by a GOP sympathizer and released just in time to wipe-out the Dems in the 2010 midterm elections. The book is in the works as we speak.


Maybe a Kerry-Edwards (none / 0) (#102)
by oldpro on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 05:06:52 PM EST

tell-all.

Neither one got what they wanted from Obama and both have scores to settle, here and there...if not with him personally, with the team.


Edwards may not write the tell-all book (none / 0) (#137)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 05:08:45 PM EST

on the '08 Democratic Primaries, but he will be featured prominently in the story.

*For instance, who persuaded him to actually run and then act as Obama's side-kick, attack dog during the primary debates?

*When, how, and by whom was he persuaded to endorse Obama?

*Edwards, and those who put him up to it, knew in advance that the Reilly Hunter/adultery/love-child scandal would conveniently force him to drop out and leave the field to Obama.

*Frankly, I think the MSM colluded to hold back the story until Edwards performed maximum service to Obama and maximum damage to Hillary.

That's a lot of dirt - it's in the holding bin and it will fly in due time.


: Yes indeedy. (none / 0) (#139)
by oldpro on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 09:29:37 PM EST

What Can One Say? (none / 0) (#88)
by daring grace on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 03:24:56 PM EST

Well, today Obama is quoted as saying:

"The president-elect also made it clear that Blair and Panetta would be charged with carrying out Obama's campaign pledges to dismantle some of the controversial intelligence programs authorized by President Bush, particularly the CIA's use of harsh interrogation techniques.

""Under my administration, the United States does not torture," Obama said, adding that it "is important for us to do that not only because that's who we are but also because ultimately it will make us safer and help change hearts and minds in our struggle against extremists." "


I think Obama's been studying the (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by Anne on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 03:48:20 PM EST

work of Harry Houdini and David Copperfield, and that it will be more important to watch what he and his appointees are doing, as opposed to what he and they are saying.


That's always the test (none / 0) (#92)
by Cream City on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 03:56:19 PM EST

of any man, as I found in relationships.

And when I had to start dealing with wussy women in management, I applied the same test. Voila, it's a gender-neutral assessment mechanism.:-)

As for politics, I learned to apply that assessment mechanism in the '60s to candidates. This year, I finally learned to apply it to an entire party.

I finally found a good guy in my life. But I'm still looking for a good boss. I'm done looking for a political party that lives up to its platform.


Agreed (none / 0) (#97)
by daring grace on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 04:22:42 PM EST

But until he's the actual president, instead of merely the president-in-waiting we have now, all I can judge him by his is words.

These appointments--the seemingly good ones and the seemingly bad ones--don't mean anything more to me than his speeches now until he (and his administration) start making their moves. But they're all we have so we comment on the appointments and the speeches until we have something more.


Ah, I consider the appointments (5.00 / 3) (#100)
by Cream City on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 04:52:36 PM EST

to be actions of considerable consequence, putting into power people who could screw up our lives even more and telling us just which parts of which speeches by Obama were WORM.

And I consider the action of honoring Rick Warren to be among the most telling of Obama's appointments -- a tip to his unofficial kitchen cabinet. And the action of picking Tim Kaine to head the party. Both Warren and Kaine, plus several of Obama's appointments, tell me that the worst of what we worried about in Obama is real.

The waiting to see what he meant re women, gays, the war, health care, Social Security, and much more is over already. See Favreau, Warren, Brennan, Daschle, etc.


: Of Course (none / 0) (#128)
by daring grace on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:21:14 AM EST

Every political and governmental hiring/election has the potential to put people in power to screw up our lives. I'm sure Obama will be no different than any other politician we elect and will come up with some doozies in terms of ineptitude and bad judgment.
But until things are actually up and running, I myself have little to say about which appointment will be bad (the worst) because I've seen evidence over the years that public servants aren't always who they seem to be, performance wise. For some reason the Supreme Court comes to mind and the disappointment two presidents felt with the work of two of their appointments to the SC: I'm thinking of Warren and Blackmun.
Obama is the one I will pin responsibility on if any of his people screw up or continue the bad policies of the last eight years (or enact new bad policy now).
Until that happens, yeah, I'm comfortable with wait and see. I don't know enough about the CIA and counter-terrorism to have an informed perspective about who is best for this seat anyway.

Obama doesn't rule out extraordinary rendition (none / 0) (#124)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 03:42:43 AM EST

Obama made some assuaging comments today which, no doubt, deflected criticism away from his appointment of John Brennan, who has shown little compunction about torture. Note that the LA Times story (cited in comment #88) also includes this caveat:

The Obama team could decide to keep the CIA facilities under a modified framework and, for the first time, allow them to be visited by monitors from the Red Cross. But some experts believe that it is more likely that the U.S. will shut down the CIA prisons and rely more heavily on "extraordinary renditions," the practice of turning captives over to the custody of other countries.

Evidently, torture may continue to be outsourced, in the future as in the past. Sure, Obama has assured us that "America doesn't torture", but now he needs to expressly state that no other country will torture in our name.


: That is a fantastic (5.00 / 1) (#130)
by lilburro on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:39:30 AM EST

and scary artcle. More from your LATimes link:

"Critics accused the CIA of using renditions to deliver suspects to nations known to engage in torture. But if the United States is no longer willing to hold suspects itself, Obama may have little choice.
'I think it's reasonable to expect [that Obama] would be much more careful about turning prisoners over,' said another former U.S. intelligence official who has advised the Obama team. 'But I would not expect there would be a policy against ever doing renditions.'
John Brennan, a former high-ranking CIA official selected by Obama to serve as his counter-terrorism advisor, could hold wide influence over many of these matters." [emphasis mine]

: Well, Yes Obama 'Could' Continue the Policy (none / 0) (#129)
by daring grace on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:34:51 AM EST

and I would welcome (make that demand) a commitment from Obama in so many words that his administration will not turn prisoners over to countries for torture.
But this WaPo article about the use of extraordinary rendition points out that as a strategy, historically, it hasn't always involved torture, as in its use during the Clinton years.
And then the writer makes this statement (circa 2007):
"It's probably a good bet that Congress or the next administration will reform the program, or abolish it outright."
Dueling speculative journalism, to be sure...

What is so special about (5.00 / 3) (#16)
by ruffian on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 09:24:40 AM EST

Brennan's expertise that Obama feels the need to have him on board his team? I wish he would explain that.

: FWIW (none / 0) (#127)
by daring grace on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 10:58:06 AM EST

Richard Clarke on the Brennan and Panetta appointments:
"Can you name someone who knows more about counter-terrorism than John Brennan? I think John has very recent operational experience. He did a great job running the National Counter-Terrorism Center. He has extensive history at the CIA. He knows as much about terrorism as anyone I know, from an operational perspective."
Myself, I don't know enough about this subject to name anyone who is knowledgeable about counter-terrorism, let alone who is best. Maybe some of those around here who are more informed on these issues could counter Clarke with better choices.

I wrote a few diaries (5.00 / 5) (#24)
by lilburro on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 09:40:01 AM EST

on Brennan.

Brennan as chair of the INSA - the intel trade association.
Brennan's new appointment.
Why Brennan's claims to have clean hands are a crock of sh*t.

Now I'm glad I kept attacking him after he withdrew his candidacy, because he didn't go away after all.

Brennan LOVES intelligence contracting and has helped make the relationship between the business world and the government world much more intimate - they share secrets, they plan together even. The book to read is "Spies for Hire" by Tim Shorrock. Also IIRC Brennan's company TAC maintains part of the terrorist watch list. It seems likely he will recommend contracting with his own company. I fail to see how that is not a conflict of interest along the same lines as lobbying. Here is a good article on the stuff they do. Is Obama going to work around using them? Why have an intelligence adviser - though intellligent, which Brennan is - who disagrees with you on so many basic questions?

: thanks for doing the spade work on this (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by ruffian on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 09:44:44 AM EST

Seems like he is the very definition of the revolving door from government-business-lobbyist for that business. A one man k-street project. In the most sensitive area possible. Nice.

: Why? Triangulation? (none / 0) (#28)
by oldpro on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 09:46:38 AM EST

: Very Bush family like. (none / 0) (#72)
by hairspray on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 01:18:26 PM EST

In "An American Dynasty" by Kevin Phillips we see how the Bush dynasty were hip deep in finance-weapons-intelligence. The book chronicles the rise of the CIA during the '20' and on to todayunder the direction of the Prescott Bush dynasty. This paradigm is what has led to our being a militaristic society. Brennan is just more of the same. I hope this scenario doesn't trap Hillary into compromising positions.

: You nailed it lilburro in more ways than one! (none / 0) (#125)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 03:58:03 AM EST

Please keep this stuff coming. It's vital to our "national security interests", seriously. Brennan's modus operandi is diametrically opposed to Obama's global promise of "winning hearts and minds". Here in the "homeland", we are readily wooed by words, but in the world at large Brennan's machinations will matter far more than Obama's rhetoric.

Plus (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 09:44:13 AM EST

Brennan might be able to work with this guy.

I love the smell of hope and change in the morning!

Good point. Although (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by oldpro on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 10:07:22 AM EST

I prefer bacon and eggs myself.


Wonderful: (none / 0) (#52)
by oculus on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 11:51:02 AM EST

"We are aware that Mr. Lynn lobbied for Raytheon, and are working with Mr. Lynn to craft a role for him that is consistent with the President-elect's high standards while balancing the need to fill this critical national security position," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

Translation: (5.00 / 4) (#56)
by Anne on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 12:06:03 PM EST

We are hard at work, trying to figure out how to have our cake and eat it, too.

Obama is going to prove over and over again that he regards his judgment as being so superior that he can make exceptions to whatever hard-and-fast standards he established as Candidate Obama, and that no one should find such exceptions troubling in the least.

Argh.


: Except that (5.00 / 4) (#59)
by Cream City on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 12:10:55 PM EST

he doesn't have to prove anything for it to be accepted by the obotomized media -- and public.
If it is pronounced from on high, it just is.

Shameless blather beyond belief (none / 0) (#55)
by Cream City on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 11:57:07 AM EST

unless, that is, we opt to believe that President Obama will be making our mortgage payments.

Since a sizeable proportion of the American public apparently did fall for such or similar nonsense, what the heck: blather on, boyz.


Disgusting (5.00 / 9) (#33)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 10:11:34 AM EST

Nothing destroys our own souls faster. Ask about 50% of the United States military families how the encouraged brutality has changed their own families or the issues we deal with now among ourselves. We are all different and we all long for how we all used to be within ourselves, our families and marriages, and with each other...trusting/at ease. I realize that there will always be a price to pay during times of war, but torture tortures everyone in the room, and everyone that those people live with after that, and everyone who works with and around the tortured and torturin