Month: November 2008

Anonymous Liberal counters:

The universe of people who have the experience and expertise necessary to competently oversee our enormous intelligence apparatus is very small. When looking for someone to run our intelligence agencies, a candidate’s competency from an operational standpoint is arguably more important that his policy views (remember that policy decisions are generally made by others, a point I’ll get to in a moment).

I understand this point. But any confusion about a clear break with Bush-Cheney destroys Obama’s potential for a fresh start with our allies and muddies the rule of law. It is going to be very difficult to take over what have been lawless and criminal policies without some taint. All the more reason to get someone at the top who is clearly not on the "dark side." Brennan does not do that. And this core, central mandate for Obama cannot be muddied. There must surely be someone capable of running the place who isn’t implicated in the defense of war crimes.

Felix Salmon says the stock market slump isn’t another meltdown:

The TED spread today is 213bp — more or less exactly where it’s been for the past few weeks. Which says to me that for all that financial stocks are being crushed, this is no reprise of the financial crisis we saw in the wake of Lehman’s collapse. Rather, it’s an old-fashioned economic crisis, which severely erodes the equity of leveraged banks, but where money still flows and even the occasional IPO can get away if it’s priced at a discount. Or, to put it another way: it’s a bear market, not a financial meltdown. Which might be little solace to anybody whose stocks have been crushed of later, but which might help reassure policymakers at least a little.

Greenwald, who raised the alarm in the first place, explains why it’s a betrayal:

To appoint someone as CIA Director or Director of National Intelligence who was one of George Tenet’s closest aides when The Dark Side of the last eight years was conceived and implemented, and who, to this day, continues to defend and support policies such as "enhanced interrogation techniques" and rendition (to say nothing of telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping), is to cross multiple lines that no Obama supporter should sanction.  Truly turning a page on the grotesque abuses of the last eight years requires both symbolism (closing Guantanamo) and substantive policy changes (compelling adherence to the Army Field Manual, ensuring due process rights for all detainees, ending rendition, restoring safeguards on surveillance powers).  Appointing John Brennan to a position of high authority would be to affirm and embrace, not repudiate, the darkest aspects of the last eight years.

Nate Silver wonders which websites that were extremely popular in the election season will retain their readerships in the aftermath. I’m delighted to see that the Atlantic has so far done the best of all of them. Because we’re still working our butts off.

Two major Clinton hacks are among the transition team – Fred Hochberg, perhaps the central pillar of the Human Rights Campaign and Clintonite dead-ender, and Roberta Achtenberg, formerly at HUD. The legacy of these people was DOMA, a doubling of the rate of discharges of gay servicemembers, and the perpetuation of the irrelevant Human Rights Campaign. Appointing people like these Clinton retreads and establishment Dems is of a piece with pushing DADT repeal back years.

Let us review the politics of this: the most recent poll shows 75 percent of the American public favors lifting the ban, including 64 percent of Republicans. But Obama cannot go there until 2010. It’s sooo controversial. I understand the need not to repeat Clinton’s errors, especially at the very beginning of an administration. Delaying and consulting is fine. But the way in which gay servicemembers, risking their lives for their country as we speak, are still regarded as radioactive in the Democratic establishment, enabled by the internalized homophobia of the Human Rights Campaign, is appalling.

Marc reports the Republican, former chief-of-staff for George Tenet (who authorized war crimes as CIA head), admirer of Dick Cheney, CEO of the company one of whose contract employees improperly accessed Obama’s and McCain’s passports, and defender of renditions and "enhanced interrogations" is still Obama’s front-runner pick to head the CIA. No, I’m not making this up. Brennan was high up in the agency during the run-up to the Iraq war and has since conceded this about the intelligence he was in part responsible for:

Looking back on it now, as we put pieces together, it probably is apparent to some, including Paul, that it was much more politicized than in fact we realized.

So Brennan was complicit and naive in the run-up to the Iraq war. And Obama wants to reward him? Brennan is also a believer in Cheney’s term "the dark side," wishing merely to have some limits within it. He clearly has a mindset that has far more in common with the war crimes of his former boss than with the clear, and indisputable beliefs of the Obama movement. Listen to the ambivalence about torture here:

I think George [Tenet] had two concerns. One is to make sure that there was that legal justification, as well as protection for CIA officers who are going to be engaged in some of these things, so that they would not be then prosecuted or held liable for actions that were being directed by the administration. So we want to make sure the findings and other things were done probably with the appropriate Department of Justice review.

But at the same time, there is a question about how aggressive you want to be against terrorism in terms of, what does it mean to take the gloves off? There was a real debate within the agency, including today, about what are the minimum standards that you want to stoop to and beyond where you’re not going to go, because we don’t want to stoop to using the same types of standards that terrorists use. We are in this business, whether it be intelligence or the government, to protect freedom, democracy and liberty, not to violate that.

When it comes to individuals who are determined to destroy our nation, though, we have to make sure that we take every possible measure. It’s a tough ethical question, and it’s a question that really needs to be aired more publicly. The issue of the reported domestic spying — these are very healthy debates that need to take place. They can’t be stifled, because I think that we as a country and a society have to determine what is it we want to do, whether it be eavesdropping, whether it be taking actions against individuals who are either known or suspected to be terrorists. What length do we want to go to? What measures do we want to use? What tactics do we want to use?

Hopefully, that "dark side" is not going to be something that’s going to forever tarnish the image of the United States abroad and that we’re going to look back on this time and regret some of the things that we did, because it is not in keeping with our values. …

Sometimes there are actions that we are forced to take, but there need to be boundaries beyond which we are going to recognize that we’re not going to go because we still are Americans, and we are supposed to be representing something to people in this country and overseas. So the dark side has its limits.

The simple answer to the question – what length do we want to go? – is to abide by the rule of law. Why is that so hard to understand? And yet Brennan and Tenet didn’t. They authorized clear torture sessions. Why is such a man even considered for the post under Obama? This man cannot end the taint of Bush-Cheney. He was Bush-Cheney. In fact, if Obama picks him, it will be a vindication of the kind of ambivalence and institutional moral cowardice that made America a torturing nation. It would be an unforgivable betrayal of his supporters and his ideals. It would be an acknowledgment that Tenet himself is not a war criminal, while the facts indisputably prove that he was.

In fact, I’d like to see much more evidence of whether Brennan himself is implicated in the war crimes and unlawfulness of the past eight years. If nominated, the Senate should find out. Whatever his qualities, Brennan is not change. He has even used Tenet’s disgusting adoption of the Gestapo euphemism "enhanced interrogation." Here he is arguing against change earlier this year:

Even though people may criticize what has happened during the two Bush administrations, there has been a fair amount of continuity. A new administration, be it Republican or Democrat — you’re going to have a fairly significant change of people involved at the senior-most levels. And I would argue for continuity in those early stages. You don’t want to whipsaw the [intelligence] community. You don’t want to presume knowledge about how things fit together and why things are being done the way they are being done. And you have to understand the implication, then, of making any major changes or redirecting things. I’m hoping there will be a number of professionals coming in who have an understanding of the evolution of the capabilities in the community over the past six years, because there is a method to how things have changed and adapted.

It’s fine not to uproot the entire agency and to have some continuity. But for Obama to appoint a Bush-Cheney apologist to the CIA? How on earth did this idea get this far?

It may be that Brennan will stop torture under any euphemism. But the trouble with this area of policy is that it is necessarily secret and so trusting the people running the CIA is essential. I don’t trust Brennan. On the question of torture, it is absolutely vital that there be a clean break with Bush-Cheney at the top of the agency. Many CIA staffers have been implicated in war crimes, and their cover-up. If you were to de-Cheneyize the entire place after eight years of entrenchment, you’d have few people with real skills left. So the top leadership is vital. It needs to signal that there is no longer any doubt that the US is abiding by Geneva, including Article 3, in all its branches of government.

The least we know is that Brennan is ambivalent about this. Ambivalence on this matter is unacceptable. We haven’t fought for decency and reform and a return to American values for so long to be turned back now. We didn’t work our butts off to elect Obama only to get Bush another four years at CIA. If Brennan emerges as the pick, those of us against the continuation of war crimes and the prosecution of war criminals will have to oppose him strenuously in the nomination process. We will, in fact, have to go to war with Obama before he even takes office.

And if Obama doubts our seriousness, I have three words for him. Yes we can.

(Photo: John Brennan by Brendan Smialowski/Getty.)

A reader writes:

I’m certainly no fan of Gov. Palin’s, but the widespread reaction to the turkey-slaughter backdrop — the horror, the horror! — is pretty amusing to me. See, when I was 14, I took a job at a turkey farm near my parents’ house. Part of the job included working in the slaughterhouse. I didn’t kill the birds myself, but I was privileged to yank out their still-warm innards with my bare hands. This tends to shock people when they find out — they can’t hide the disgust that flashes across their faces. Yes, it was truly disgusting. But all these people are excited to sit down to their piping-hot turkey dinners next week! That food has to come from somewhere.

In fact, the week before Thanksgiving, I always spend a moment remembering my old friends at the turkey farm, knowing they’re out there in the slaughterhouse working 10-hour days, Sunday through Saturday, in preparation for the rush next week. I’ve worked all kinds of jobs since then, and that one was far from the worst. My co-workers were good people who worked hard, and the result of our labor was to play an integral part in thousands of people’s holidays. Yeah, there’s blood involved. But also a lot of heart.

Best caption ever:

Seriously, Matt Scully wrote a speech for this woman?

Three post-mortems for No on 8: here, here and here.

Holder, Obama’s AG, has unapologetically supported the war on drugs in the past. Radley Balko talks to drug policy reform groups about the pick:

The consensus seemed to be mild disappointment tempered with cautious optimism that despite his recent staff selections, Obama will keep his campaign promises to end the federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries and work to ameliorate the discrepancy in crack/powder cocaine sentencing…Who Obama ends up choosing to head up the DEA and ONDCP will be a far better indicator of whether he intends to continue the Bush administration’s aggressive prosecution of the drug war, or if he’s looking at a more tempered approach.