Email This to a Friend
How the Netroots Brought Down Obama’s Spymaster
John Brennan’s chances of becoming the next director of central intelligence were sabotaged by the new media.
Aldrich Ames, the veteran CIA officer and chief of Soviet counterintelligence who single-handedly set the espionage efforts of the United States and many of its allies back decades, knew the weaknesses inherent in the American intelligence community. He exploited those weaknesses for nine years until he was finally caught, early on a chilly February morning in 1994, unmasked and captured by a combined CIA/FBI dragnet.
As Ames was placed inside an unmarked FBI sedan and whisked away to a glamorous new life spent in America’s SuperMax federal penitentiary system, John Brennan was arriving at work on the other side of the Potomac, in Langley, Virginia. At that time he was serving as executive assistant to the deputy director of central intelligence and occupied an office that featured a portrait of the then-President Bill Clinton. In the days after the Ames arrest, Brennan would be intimately involved in the attempts made to assess the damage the renegade officer had inflicted.
A lifelong Republican, it would have seemed fanciful to ponder that, in just 14 years, Brennan would not only be organizing intelligence transition for a Democratic presidential contender’s campaign, but also be the hot favorite for the next director of central intelligence (DCI). It would have been even more unbelievable, perhaps, to suggest that this opportunity would be thwarted by writers whom nobody had ever heard of, reaching a readership of millions via a medium that did not yet exist.
But that is exactly what has happened. Against all predictions, John Brennan, a man with decades of intelligence experience, who is well-versed in the intricacies of counter-terrorism, educated in the cultures and languages of the Middle East, and who has earned the respect of officials on both sides of mainstream politics, will not be the next DCI.
How did this happen? Just a few weeks ago, his nomination was as good as in the bag. Everybody thought so. I certainly did, and was working on an in-depth profile piece on Brennan to be published in the Australian Conservative when his nomination process eventually began. Doing research and gathering opinions, I came across a near-universal chorus of journalists, editors, and former spies who felt Brennan to be a shoo-in.
On November 15, Marc Ambinder in the Atlantic pointed out that Brennan had already taken steps to prepare for a major career transition. Pamela Hess, writing for Associated Press claimed that he was considered a likely candidate for both the DCI slot and the director of national intelligence (DNI) position.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
M. P. MacConnell is a novelist, historian and political analyst. He is affiliated with the American Center for Democracy / Center for the Study of Corruption & the Rule of Law, a Washington DC-based NGO which supplements U.S. government efforts to defend democratic institutions from global threat of radical Islam and terrorism.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
87 Comments
1. RAP:The fact that Brennan was in the CIA for 25 years is sufficient reason to oppose his nomination. The CIA should be abolished and intelligence given back to ONI where it was before WWII. Then it will be in the hands of military officers sworn to defend the Constitution instead of bunch of self perpetuating Ivy Leaguers.
Dec 9, 2008 - 11:07 pm 2. mishu:The CIA should be abolished and intelligence given back to ONI where it was before WWII.
Yeah, they did a bang up job assessing the intentions of the Japanese.
Dec 10, 2008 - 12:34 am 3. canuck:The CIA will continue to be a tool of the left as long as they are allowed to select the leadership in response to political ideology as opposed to what is best for the country.
Now we will get another slug in the Wilson/Plame mode. Some clown without gonads will be appointed and the agency will become further discredited and we will be less safe. Greenwald and Sullivan are really part of the enemy within and should be targets not commentators.
Dec 10, 2008 - 3:23 am 4. Douglas:Mishu,
Dec 10, 2008 - 3:41 am 5. Instapundit » Blog Archive:The CIA has done better? Where? Predicting the breakup of the Soviet Union? Chinese probing of DOD computers? The buildup to 9/11?
[...] How the netroots brought down Obama’s spymaster. [...]
Dec 10, 2008 - 4:11 am 6. mishu:I’m not suggesting the status quo remain but going back to the way it was isn’t going to solve our problems either. We have an alphabet soup of intelligence agencies each with their own budget and fighting turf wars. Let’s start cleaning up that.
Dec 10, 2008 - 4:19 am 7. Stephen Skubinna:Yeah, they did a bang up job assessing the intentions of the Japanese.
How perspicacious of you. They did, in fact, know the Japanese were on the move, and were going to strike – somewhere – around 1300 DC time, on 7 December 1941. They didn’t peg Hawaii as the initial target, but did correctly assess that the Japanese were moving south against Malaya, Singapore, the Dutch East Indies, and most likely the Philippines.
About six months later they had so broken the Japanese naval codes (prior to 7 December they were reading the diplomatic codes, in many cases decrypting messages faster than the Japanese embassies were doing) that they managed an ambush of the First Air Fleet off Midway Island and nearly destroyed the IJN’s carrier strength. Later on they broke Admiral Yamamoto’s itinerary and arranged an ambush to shoot him down.
So yes, ONI certainly had a much better track record than has the CIA.
Or perhaps you thought you were being snide, in which case you are an ignorant clown. Thanks for playing.
Dec 10, 2008 - 4:29 am 8. Tregonsee:Anyone who is career CIA should be presumed guilty until proved innocent. From what I have seen, Brennan passes that test. History has shown that outsiders brought in to clean house are always co-opted, or undercut into irrelevance, by the bureaucracy. Insiders who have managed to keep their eye on the ball for decades at least have a chance of making needed changes, knowing all the tricks and traps.
Dec 10, 2008 - 5:28 am 9. G-Ma:Greenwald and Sullivan are on a mission to control and effect political appointments and careers.
Dec 10, 2008 - 5:28 am 10. fear Obama:Sullivan has a on-going campaign against Governor Sarah Palin. He “demands”
proof that she is the mother of her son, Trig. His other campaign is to
promote gay rights (see marriage).
Seems to me, a mission to control and effect their mission is needed. Is
this the time for counter-intelligence?
Several attacks were allowed to happened because the ONI didn’t want the Japanese to know how good our intelligence was.
Dec 10, 2008 - 5:30 am 11. ajacksonian:I still have mixed feelings about the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor.
Sneak attack, and American isolationist are happy to win the war.
If we had met the Japanese 200 miles off the coast and destroyed them, (Aggression)! No war.
But it would have been nice to have had a few American planes in the air.
I deeply respect the work of those in the CIA – having to drive past the entrance on a January morning in 1993 I would see the price that was paid for those serving in civilian positions to protect the Nation. Those were not spies, nor agents, but secretaries and clerical staff that were murdered in cold blood on our Nation’s soil. That shadow war can and does come home, you know, particularly if you aren’t interested in finding those willing to take such actions.
With that said, the marriage between centralizing intel and covert ops is a poor one, leading to each believing they should guide the Agency. Neither has proven capable of that for the entire Agency, and it has swung from one to the other out of phase with our threats. That is an organization too big for all of its jobs, and needs sub-dividing based on skills and duties, not on bureaucratic placement and fiefdoms in the bureaucracy. An Agency divorced from direct collections, but committed to all source analysis is necessary, and would need to cross all the INTs across civilian and military realms. A small and separate covert ops organization directly answerable to the President and accountable to him is also necessary, so as to cut out the layers of ‘plausible deniability’: if you get caught, fess up to it and stand by your people – don’t leave them out to dry.
That job of crossing all INTEL realms is a hard one, and all of the cobbled together bureaucratic lands at DNI do not make things better, but worse. By increasing ‘oversight’ and staff you decrease ‘accountability’: that must end. So, too, must any INT organization thinking it is the one, sole, key to intelligence gathering. The world is far too complex for that simplistic structure left us from the Cold War. We must adapt to new threats and problems across a broad range of capabilities… that isn’t the CIA, DNI or any other top-heavy beauracracy.
That, of course, requires politicians who are willing to look to the safety of the Nation, remove levels of beauracrats and order the entire system to re-organize or those parts unwilling to do so being chopped and re-built by new hands. You will not find that under ‘hope & change’ mantras or with any of the spineless, wool covered, bleating masses Upon the Hill. It is not the leaders that are the problem: it is the organization itself beyond even the best leader’s ability to cope. To me 25 years at CIA is far too much time there, and a resume that crosses many Agencies, Departments and realms of INT would be much better. We don’t need a super-bureaucrat: we need people who know how to do the job responsibly and help integrate all the INTs to protect us better. That isn’t going to happen the way things are going now. This is assured failure.
Dec 10, 2008 - 5:34 am 12. David Thomson:This is awful news. It indicates that Barack Obama, when push turns to shove, will chicken out to the leftist crazies and endanger the country. The less than perfect John McCain would have never backed down to the lunatic fringe. Is Obama a self hating American? Does he believe that we are ultimately responsible for the hatred directed towards our country? If so, we are in very serious danger.
Dec 10, 2008 - 5:56 am 13. Frank:Andrew Sullivan is a bloviating douche.
Dec 10, 2008 - 6:08 am 14. Zarba:If The President-elect can’t stand up to some clown who writes for a website, how will he make the hard decision he’ll be faced with as President?
I was ambivalent on the Brennan nomination, but I was willing to give him a chance to succeed. Now we’ll get some milquetoast bureaucrat who will allow the intelligence services to drift aimlessly while they issue press releases about how they’ve become so much more “sensitive” to the plight of terrorists and the states that sponsor them.
Appalling.
Dec 10, 2008 - 6:21 am 15. fear Obama:I don’t think so, Self hatred is not possible for the anointed one.
But he will rule as Clinton did.
If his Blackberry online polls tell him 51 percent of the bloggers/American public are against fruit trees on the White House lawn
he will have them dug up.
We don’t need a president in the White House,
we need a Conservative computer.
Do they make Conservative Blackberries?
Dec 10, 2008 - 6:26 am 16. Diggs:So Obama turns out to be a weak pushover, cowed into changing a nomination for one of the most important posts in his presidency (a post that may well decide whether history looks upon his term in office as successful or unsuccessful) by two bloggers whose total time in intelligence is zero.
Dec 10, 2008 - 6:38 am 17. fear Obama:Why is anyone surprised by that?
We should be scared sh*tless by the implication that Obama considers the safety of Americans secondary to the support he enjoys from Lefties, sure. But surprised?
No.
The CIA, and all US intelligence agencies, may not be staffed with the best and the brightest at this point, but if we continue to have the leadership of the CIA chosen based on their ability to pass muster with Lefties who would prefer to see islamic terrorists treated to all US Constitutional rights as if they were common criminals, then we are really and truly screwed.
Just one off thread topic before going to WORK.
Did you see Al Gores Global Warming meeting with Obama and Joe Biden in Chicago?
Instead of a snow storm/ice storm disrupting the Global Warming meeting,
we had a Chicago Government meltdown-
Its called the GORE effect!
Hey Al
No one remembers you!
LOL
Dec 10, 2008 - 6:39 am 18. Mike T:1) They weren’t predicting the breakup of the Soviet Union–they were causing it.
2) If you knew anything about the jurisdiction and roles that these agencies and departments have, you would actually know that the CIA has no role over military networks. That role, to some extent, falls to NSA and DIA. The NSA actually has a very good track record of securing the systems it controls.
3) With most of their human intelligence operations castrated by men like Senator Church, what did you expect? Furthermore, the CIA has no domestic jurisdiction, but the FBI does. Why did the FBI so thoroughly botch the domestic side of 9-11? At least the CIA knew something was coming from what little human intelligence gathering capabilities they had left.
Dec 10, 2008 - 6:46 am 19. Mike T:**The CIA isn’t even a military agency, which is why it doesn’t do things like guard the military’s networks.
Dec 10, 2008 - 6:49 am 20. Dr. Lumplevin:I applaud the brave campaign of Greenwald and Sullivan against this human rights monster. Pres.-elect Obama knows that we need a security chief who, before he would allow even one tiniest drop of water be cruelly poured into an insurgent from a different religious orientation’s nasal cavity, he would let the entire nation be obliterated in a nightmarish maelstrom of nuclear holocaust.
After all, without our principles we are nothing, and as Obama made clear during the campaign, we weren’t all that much to begin with anyway.
Dec 10, 2008 - 6:54 am 21. johnc:I’m getting sick of hearing this no-torture crap! Most candy ass Americans think no cell-phone service is torture!
Dec 10, 2008 - 6:58 am 22. Jim:As Capone once said,” give me a blow torch and a pair of pliers, I will make any man talk”!!
I hate to say it but this country is going to need a few more 9/11 style attacks before it wakes up.
G-Ma, the counter-intelligence (I would simply call it intelligence) response is to stop reading the drivel of the Greenwalds and Sullivans; they have every right to express their views, but NO ONE is required to read it, let alone promulgate it by further reporting on it.
Dec 10, 2008 - 7:10 am 23. Robert Hurley:One fact left out is that Brennan continues to advise Obama on National Security matters
Dec 10, 2008 - 7:52 am 24. section9:Mike T:
The CIA knew virtually nothing about the September 11th plot: historians will write that a 65 billion dollar a year agency was blindsided by Men in Caves. They had no men who spoke fluent Pashtu or Arabic in-country, and no inside agents.
All they knew was that “something” was coming. That was what Tenet was telling Condi Rice. The CIA was worse than useless.
And it remains so. Here’s another vote for the Office of Naval Intelligence.
Oh, if you really want to know how incompetent the CIA actually is, I DARE you to google “Operation Merlin”. I dare you.
GO NAVY!!!
Dec 10, 2008 - 7:56 am 25. cfbleachers:I champion the power of weblogging and the internet.
I zealously advocate for fresh, new media to substantially replace the stale, old entrenched media. The latter is polluted, necrotic, diseased and has destroyed our information stream by and through its arrogance and insatiable desire to distort the facts in order to present a false polemic consistent with their far-to-the-left-of mainstream worldview.
I believe that there is NO issue greater, nor more important in our everyday lives than to get our information stream back from the criminals who steal it every day and have for 40 years, in order to serve their leftist message. It impacts on nearly every aspect of how we think, how are culture moves forward…and most importantly, how we self-govern this land of ours.
I believe that Andy Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald have absolutely every right to express their feelings, sentiments, opinions and put forward their intentions in this new media and I will defend their right to do so, without hesitation or reservation in each and every opportunity where such right is challenged or attempted to be abrogated.
And finally, I believe that if President-elect Obama believed Brennan to be the best man for the job and he tucked tail and ran at the first whiff of pushback from a professional provocateur, flamethrower like Greenwald and from an increasingly erratic Andy Sullivan, he is not fit for the office he intends to hold.
In viewing the appointments to date, some folks believe that President-elect Obama has been bold and brave in staring down the lunathuggery of the leftist jackboots. I say, this party’s just getting started. And we will learn as much from the appointments not made, from the appointments that do the “sausage making” in day to day affairs and from the policies implemented…as we will with the titular heads designed to be show horses, not plow horses.
If our new President cannot convince the likes of Greenwald and Sullivan that his appointments are in the best interests of the country, when he selects the best person for the position, then his skills as an orator as overrated, his skills as a leader are questionable and his skills as a political windsock would be the only ones visible.
I don’t know if Brennan is the best person for the job, maybe there is someone better. Leftists are famous for instituting litmus tests. Any President who doesn’t immediatly spit the paper out, isn’t fit to lead this country. I hope this article does not reflect the actual intestinal fortitude of President-elect Obama, and I certainly hope he has more qualified advisors than the likes of Greenwald and Sullivan to help him make decisions about how best to defend this land of ours.
Dec 10, 2008 - 7:58 am 26. jdk.chem:G-Ma,
I would like to see proof that greenwald is actually human.
Dec 10, 2008 - 8:05 am 27. Ron Coleman:What an odd article. It starts out — well, I don’t know how it starts out; is there a missing topic sentence? — but at the beginning the complaint is, “Bad new media!” Then a quote from William Safire about money and megaphones. Does this mean that non-expert writers have had an effect on political and government decision-making prior to the advent of the Internet? Why, I think it does! In fact, while Greenwald is merely a lawyer, and not an expert on intelligence or the like, he is no worse credentialed than Horace Greeley, Carl Bernstein or Rush Limbaugh: Lay people with opinions, agendas and sometimes information that can affect public policy. The Internet has nothing to do with this.
Having said that, the remaining four-fifths of the article is a defense, on the merits, of Brennan. It may very well be a great defense of Brennan — I’m only a lawyer, not an intelligence expert! But it’s a non-sequitur as regards the first paragraphs, the title and the concluding paragraph.
Guess what, M.P.: Political decisions, or decisions by politicians regardless of merit, need to be supported, defended and sustained in political environments such as the media, online or off. If you haven’t gotten used to that, or if you don’t like it, why on earth do you write for Pajamas Media?
Dec 10, 2008 - 8:43 am 28. Dave:Dr Lumplevin;
Our Father Below is pleased with your work.
You appear to be a marginally adequate replacement for the departed Wormwood.
I shall take over your mentoring forwith.
Uncle Screwtape
Dec 10, 2008 - 8:56 am 29. Dave:Dear section9:
Shall I tell you how ONI got its posterior saved
a couple of times by a combination of Jarhead ITTs and Dogface 96Cs?
Some Zoomies also assisted as did a CIA Contract Officer who had retired from Army CI.
In short the Navy pulls on its britches one leg at a time just like everyone else. ONI has had its failures as well as its successes.
Two Annapolis graduates have pointed out the need
for humility in these matters.
Their names? Nimitz and Heinlein.
Dec 10, 2008 - 9:06 am 30. Mike T:The ONI knew next to nothing about Pearl Harbor. They knew that something was coming, but they didn’t know what until it was raining bombs down on the Pacific fleet in a move that was far worse than 9-11. The ONI should go down in history as an agency that couldn’t stop the single worst attack on the US military in the history of our country if the CIA deserves to be shamed for 9-11.
Furthermore, it’s a hell of a lot easier to track the movements of entire fleets of Japanese warships than a loose, cell-based terrorist group which already has many of its people on US soil where the CIA has no legal jurisdiction.
Dec 10, 2008 - 9:36 am 31. Mike T:We’ll never know the success-failure ratio of the CIA, NSA, NRO, NGA, etc. versus the FBI which was also very guilty of failure on 9-11. Why? When the former succeed, we typically don’t know. When the FBI succeeds, they plaster it on TV to make us watch it. When they fail, the media plasters it all over TV as well to make them watch it.
Dec 10, 2008 - 9:38 am 32. Staring In Disbelief:I think Brennan’s trip under the bus was a sop to the Nutroots after losing on a bunch of other cabinet and staff appointments. They were going to demand the blood of some innocent victim, so Obama tossed them Brennan to keep them happy enough. For now. He needs to remember that feeding this kind of beast only makes it hungrier.
As for the CIA, it has certainly been politicized beyond a safe point for its role, and it certainly has had some inexcusable cock-ups (9/11 being the worst), but it’s organizational and functional role in our government has been defined over decades of wrangling and struggle, so it’s probably close to where it should be from that perspective – it just needs better management of people, resources, and most importantly EXPECTATIONS. Predicting the future behavior of states and non-state actors is one hell of a hard business, and some spectacular mistakes are inevitable. Neither do we always hear about the successes and victories – they are often silent, classified, or uninteresting to a news media only interested in scandal and bad news. Those subjects sell more advertising space.
Dec 10, 2008 - 9:54 am 33. fear Obama:Mike T.
I am glad Reagan didn’t let them disrupt the nuclear power plants.
Would not be able to live in Moscow for 6,000 years. ha.
Reagan was a freaking Cowboy and I am happy he was.
I also worked hard and made more money during his Presidency.
We should be so lucky to get another man for the job.
Dec 10, 2008 - 10:11 am 34. Ed:The cluelessness that you ascribe to the netroots can also be used to describe the main stream media, most of who, as journalism majors and lifelong writers, have little or no expertise on the subjects on which they write. Many journalists merely regurgitate talking points fed to them by “sources” who have major axes to grind.
Witness “Leiutenant Hussein” of recent Baghdad fame quoted endlessly in the AP dispatches from Green Zone hotel bars. The guy was a psuedonym for a group of AQ operatives feeding propaganda to the west.
Dec 10, 2008 - 10:37 am 35. AOracle:Wouldn’t DIA be considered the modern equivilent of ONI?
Dec 10, 2008 - 10:47 am 36. AnninCA:DIA has some very capable people working for them, and they seem to play well with NSA too.
Nobody likes the current bunch of clowns over at Langley.
And then, there is the intel people at State, if they can be called that.
When they created DNI, they lost a great opportunity to remake the entire community, but too many interest groups seemed to have veto power over that reorginization.
The interest groups prevailed, and the country lost.
I don’t really see how the netroots has so much power, other than it’s a mob that tears into mainstream media on cue.
If the media continues to kowtow, then I guess they have decided to give that niche the power.
I personally don’t watch most of the mainstream news any longer. When they are running stories on fictious aides to McCain smearing Palin and aren’t absolutely and thoroughly red-faced with some heads rolling as a result? Why would I pay a bit of attention?
And the netroots are mostly just riding off of the paid press coattails.
It’s circular, in other words. And not worth a lot.
Dec 10, 2008 - 11:34 am 37. Mike T:Such is the price we pay for having the domestic safety of having a decentralized intelligence community. An IC that truly worked together would be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, with the right people it would be a very powerful weapon against groups like Al Qaeda, especially if the CIA got freedom to restore its special operations and human intelligence to the same level or higher that they were at during the middle of the Cold War. On the other, in the wrong hands a well-integrated, cooperating IC without much friction between agencies would be a weapon against the American people that makes the Stasi and KGB look almost tame.
Dec 10, 2008 - 12:08 pm 38. M. P. MacConnell:@ Ron Coleman
Hello to you too, Ron. I would have expected at least a pleasantry or two from a Facebook pal before the sudden evisceration.
I’m sorry that you can’t follow the article. To summarize for you, the point is this: the arguments put forward against Brennan by Greenwald and Sullivan were essentially all noise, no content. But because they are in a unique position (money and megaphones – a phrase applied specifically to the Netroots by Safire and Joe Klein before me) they can still force an administration to dump an experienced man from consideration.
I never stated that they don’t have the right to express their opinions. I merely pointed out that they aren’t all that qualified to have such a large say in presidential appointments – something that seemingly doesn’t bother Obama’s team.
The fact that they and their readership do have such an unwieldy influence bothers me. And further, I don’t believe that such important posts should be filled with an eye on the immediate political ramifications. I think the president should go with those most qualified, and if a few hysterics don’t like it, tough.
I like to think that the same people who attend Code Pink rallies won’t have the ultimate say in who runs American intelligence agencies.
Dec 10, 2008 - 1:11 pm 39. Doug:Will President Elect Obama continue his support of “Community Organizers” as some may think of the “netroots”, as they continue to undermine any thing that they don’t agree with?
Dec 10, 2008 - 3:48 pm 40. Paul Daniel Ash:Mr. McConnell:
You haven’t presented a case – unless post hoc ergo propter hoc counts, I guess – showing that Greenwald and Sullivan “force[d] an administration to dump an experienced man from consideration.”
The outcries from the blogosphere didn’t affect Obama when they involved Lieberman or Gates… what is your evidence that the blogs were behind Brennan’s withdrawal?
For one who rails against bloggers who are “all noise, no content…” yours seems a little thin, sir.
Dec 10, 2008 - 5:23 pm 41. cabdriver:If you don’t like Glenn Greenwald’s views, why don’t you go over to his website and debate him, instead of indulging in straw-man caricatures of his views on the Brennan situation?
And who made you the Great Sensible Arbiter Of Intelligence Matters, anyway?
Greenwald doesn’t have a background in intelligence, true. But he’s interviewed plenty of those who have, and who hold similar views.
Where are your interviews?
Greenwald is also a specialist in Constitutional law- a field which I gather you think should have as little relevance as possible, in the Permanent and Unending War On The Awesome Threat Of Islamic Terrorism That Dwarfs All Preceding Threats To National Security.
Also, from reading some of the comments: I presume that the “Netroots” only become the “Nutroots” in the case that one holds an opposing position. Then it’s ad hominem time- a clear indication that you got nothing else.
Don’t yo wish there was a way to shut us up, once and for all?
The Comments section on Glenn’s Unclaimed Territory blog over on Salon is always open (with the very occasional exception made for particularly abusive comments.) Unlike the usual run of right-wing blogs that I’ve encountered.
Come on over. Bring it.
Dec 10, 2008 - 5:43 pm 42. Theothertexan:Glenn Greenwald is a former constitutional lawyer. He has every right to be questioning and commenting on a federal appointee’s attitude towards human rights and the rule of law. He is one of the most informed, consistent and high-integrity journalists writing today.
As to ‘Netroots’ and ‘Community organizers,’ I suppose you are referring to the loyal Democratic base that helped elect Obama. In your mind, when do we get to have leaders who actually represent our views and wishes, rather than the spineless, self-serving and law-breaking politicians who call themselves Democrats today?
Dec 10, 2008 - 5:44 pm 43. M. P. MacConnell:@ Paul Ash Daniel:
My evidence? You mean aside from the remarks made by John Brennan when he withdrew, in which he blames those exact critics?
@ Cabdriver:
I’m not seeking to shut anyone up. That’s something of a straw-man argument. I’m merely pointing out the power that some new media writers clearly exercise but don’t comprehend.
They didn’t expose anything. No lies were uncovered. No laws broken. Yet a man’s career aspirations are ended – on the assumption that he would someday go against Congress and the President he was intent on serving under. It was a non-story that, once upon a time, a responsible editor would have turned away. A non-story that affected a man’s life and the future security of the United States.
I’m merely suggesting that before writers like Sullivan and Greenwald confidently boast “yes we can” they should ask themselves “should we?”
@ Theothertexan
I never suggested that his right to question or comment be removed. I’m just old fashioned in that I feel a man who has spent 25 years serving his country should have been afforded the opportunity to do wrong before being hounded by a pitchfork-wielding mob.
Dec 10, 2008 - 7:32 pm 44. Rich Gardner:John Brennan’s career is a good deal more impressive than mine. Do I have the right to pass judgment on his statements in favor of torture? Yup, I’m an American citizen and it is my right to determine that my government has violated American values. And yes, our values as Americans takes priority over whatever government happens to be in power at the moment.
Dec 10, 2008 - 9:01 pm 45. cabdriver:Does it complicate matters if torture under G. W. Bush had ever proven to be effective? It might, but many people have looked into the subject and there’s absolutely zero proof that even as much as a single life has been saved by torture. I need a whole lot more than just John Brennan’s word for it that torture has ever accomplished anything positive.
No, the revelations that G. W. Bush had authorized torture did not get him tossed into jail but that says more about the moral bankruptcy of the US these days and the complicity of the decadent, corrupt media in this country than it does about what Bush is accused of.
You aren’t seeking to shut anyone up…you simply wish there were some way to keep them from actually having an effect on the debate. Like back in the Good Old Days, when 10 letters to the editor per issue, in a format difficult to archive or retrieve, was about the maximum of public feedback ever found in the realm of the information media.
As far as the apparent withdrawl of Brennan for consideration of the job at CIA: there’s no need to place the responsibility- or blame, as you would have it- on “the netroots”, and pointing to that one decision as a way to smear the entire phenomenon of grassroots public feedback as advise-and-consent by lynch mob.
The decision was Barack Obama’s- as was his final FISA vote, to point out a similar example where a groundswell of vocal “netroots” opposition to FISA was not successful in swaying him.
As to whether any “laws were broken”- within the context of Brennan’s simply offering a sympathetic view toward the torture tactics inaugurated by the Bush administration: I suppose not. But in my view as a citizen, those tactics are not on legally assured ground, and they deserve to be challenged, not given passive assent. And I don’t want someone at CIA who supports their use.
It isn’t a matter of whether John Brennan might someday disobey the President or Congress, either. It’s a matter of whether he might influence them to retain a status quo that many Americans, including myself, consider unacceptable. So I’m not regretting my decision. And it remains to be seen whether John Brennan’s “career aspirations are ended”, as you would have it. You make it sound as if- due to the Netroots Lynch Mob- he’s been cashiered, or something similar. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think that’s the case.
There are many worse tragedies than reaching the top step on a career ladder, with nowhere further to go. Not many make the cut from Lieutenant Colonel to Colonel to General in the officer ranks of the US military, but they manage to cope.
My Dad got a Purple Heart and a Silver Star in Korea fighting a regime that used the very same tactics endorsed by the Bush administration’s “war on terror”, and I was always led to believe that he did so in order that those inhumanities wouldn’t become part of the American legacy.
Here- read all about it: http://www.amazon.com/Brainwashing-Edward-Hunter/dp/B000J1HOGS
If Brennan didn’t have the fortitude to speak up in opposition to the official imprimatur for torture as American policy given by the Bush administration, then I’d rather the job be given to someone who did.
I’m not acting in any capacity, as a part of any “Netroots PAC.” That’s just my personal opinion. And I will continue to air it, and other political opinions, on the wonderfully empowering technology of the Internet. As long as I’m able.
Dec 10, 2008 - 9:01 pm 46. M. P. MacConnell:@ Rich Gardner
The simple fact is, Brennan had reversed his earlier stated position on the use of enhanced interrogation, rendering most of the complaints moot. Was he being truthful, or pragmatic? I honestly don’t know.
In any event, was he ever in a position to effect a change in policy? He never directly administered or participated in the interrogation/rendition program to my knowledge.
So I guess it comes down to “you’re a bad guy because you didn’t immediately resign”. But why would he do so? Resigning on principle would have achieved what? A ten second feature on nightly news?
He was being paid to keep Americans safe and no laws were being broken. He seems merely to have wanted to do his utmost in the positions he occupied. Which is hardly something worth condemning him for.
@ Cabdriver
Again, I fail to see how you derive from my article that I want to keep anyone from having “an effect on the debate”. These reflexive attempts to accuse me of suppressing dissent totally miss the point. My complaint was about undue, unmerited influence from a source that lacked both restraint and experience.
As for assigning responsibility for his withdrawal, I think the ultimate arbiter has to be Brennan himself, and he was quite open in blaming his online critics. The broad belief that they were responsible was later independently confirmed by an AP source who said:
“…Obama’s advisers had grown increasingly concerned in recent days over Web logs that accused Brennan of condoning harsh interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, which critics call torture.”
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=78&sid=1525895#
Most of the analysis that has come out in the aftermath of his withdrawal confirms that the condemnation was by no means universal. He was really only being hammered by a few online columnists. Yet their influence is such with the Obama administration that his preemptive withdrawal was accepted.
Try to see it from another point of view. Imagine that McCain had won the election and he was so seemingly in thrall to a handful of conservative columnists that he would dump a promising Sec-State or UN Ambassador with almost 30 years of relevant experience – all for fear that she might lead McCain off on a slightly more liberal approach. I suspect that you might take greater umbrage to that.
Why exactly should Brennan “speak up in opposition” when, from his point of view, EI&R were yielding real, tangible results and they were perfectly legal? Your expectations remind me of a lecture I once sat through, in which an earnest bunch of postgrads all swore blind that if they had been Pope Pius XII, they would have gleefully gone to their doom rather than pretend to assuage Hitler and Mussolini for one moment.
I couldn’t help wondering then, is that truly the case? Just how easy is it to hurl away a life’s accomplishments? The stakes for Pius were huge – Hitler already had plans to take him out if required. For Brennan they were considerably less so. No one has died as a result of the CIA’s EI&R programs. But lives have been saved as a direct result of them.
I think for someone in Brennan’s position, it was a little bit tricker a proposition than what you suppose.
Dec 10, 2008 - 10:09 pm 47. RAP:The people commenting missed my real point which is the desirability of getting rid of a rogue organization like the CIA in favor of the rule of law. The proper approach to terrorists is not to coddle them, the leftist view, or to torture them, the rightist view, but to shoot them or hang them. They are the equivalent of 19th century pirates and should be dealt with accordingly. Holding them at Gitmo and torturing them is just KGB style sadism.
Dec 10, 2008 - 10:17 pm 48. Kitt:Could you possibly be more hyperbolic and ridiculous?
Dec 11, 2008 - 4:28 am 49. Kitt:Brennan had no ulterior motive for whining about the “netroots”? And everything you read in the papers, and specifically provided by some anonymous source to the AP, is true? But Glenn Greenwald sits in an easy chair so what the hell does he know? You’re a riot, Mr. MacConnell. No really, you’re not making any sense whatsoever.
Dec 11, 2008 - 4:44 am 50. Rich Gardner:@ M. P. MacConnell: I quite honestly don’t remember seeing any commenters suggesting that Brennan should have resigned. There may have been, but what I remember was that Brennan had made statements that very clearly endorsed torture. I’ll have to look into just what his “climb-down” statements were before I’ll agree that those statements were relevant.
Dec 11, 2008 - 6:19 am 51. John Payne:I think the confusion on torture, SecState Rice just the other day repeated that the US never tortured anybody, is that the Bush Administration is using secret memos, locked away in safes, to twist around the plain meanings of laws and to somehow come up with “meanings” that bear no relationship to the relevant laws. As we know, the John Yoo memos did precisely this.
Sorry, but just because the laws haven’t been enforced doesn’t mean the laws weren’t broken.
It’s very entertaining that a “netroot” is complaining about the “netroots”. Who is MP MacConnell? His bio says he’s a “novelist”. Try to find his novel. (I know that’s not unusual… so let’s let that slide.) Almost all of his two line bio is actually a description of the American Center for Democracy with which he claims to be “affiliated”. I wonder if they know about this affiliation? There is no mention of the name “MP MacConnell” on their website, nor does a google search of the two names together return any hits. In fact I couldn’t find anything via a google search on the name “MP MacConnell” other than in blog references.
As far as I know that makes “MP MacConnell” a netroot.
Dec 11, 2008 - 6:24 am 52. Titonwan:Jumping on Glenn Greenwald is about the funniest thing I’ve ever read! Not only are his articles well linked and organized, they’re logical and clear. I think a lot of folks that can’t shed their ignorance and silly party loyalty will always have issues with the truth. If there was but one writer I’d go to for the unvarnished truth, yes, it’d be Mr. Greenwald. He’s forgotten more Constitutional law than many here will ever learn. The very BEST part about Glenn is he will take anyone to task, if they deserve it, Democrat or Republican. THAT’S a very rare quality that you should appreciate, regardless of your political leanings. He writes to protect YOUR rights, nothing more. So if you read more into it than what’s there, that is your problem, NOT his! A most ridiculous hit piece.
Dec 11, 2008 - 6:25 am 53. Lee:Brennan knows the cultures and languages of the Middle East? Get serious. Anyone who has read Brennan’s paper recommending that Hezbollah be offered a larger piece of the political pie in Lebanon in order to empower the group’s “moderates” knows that we all owe thanks to the netroots for tanking this guy’s candidacy.
Dec 11, 2008 - 6:42 am 54. Valkyrie607:And again, one more article that perpetuates the false dichotomy between torturing and getting accurate intelligence.
Mr. Brennan defended rendition, and, in a qualified manner, torture by U.S. agents, on the grounds that “it saves lives.”
This is a dubious proposition. Apparently Mr. MacConnell agrees with Brennan, otherwise he wouldn’t be defending him. But what evidence, aside from Mr. Brennan’s word, do we have that torture actually works as a way to obtain accurate, timely intelligence? And, supposing that evidence exists, how does it stack up against the testimony (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html) of professional military interrogators that non-sadistic methods of intelligence gathering are actually far more effective?
Dec 11, 2008 - 7:23 am 55. Andrea in NY:Valkyrie607: “And, supposing that evidence exists, how does it stack up against the testimony (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html) of professional military interrogators that non-sadistic methods of intelligence gathering are actually far more effective?”
********************************
Matthew Alexander is “personally opposed” to torture, which led him to develop another technique. If his claims of its superior effectiveness are legitimate, I wonder why it didn’t make it into our new counter-terrorism procedures. After all, so much has been written about the Sunni Awakening and our new COIN manual.
Yours is a good question, but I would not rule out the effectiveness of hardcore techniques based on the claim of this person.
What we may never learn is of the circumstances wherein hardcore techniques were effective. I would tend to doubt the claims of their “saving lives” are fabricated.
Dec 11, 2008 - 8:12 am 56. Paul Daniel Ash:So let me get this straight: you really think that Brennan, a “a 25 year veteran of government, intelligence, and counter-terrorism service” was so scared of skinny little Glenn Greenwald and his terrifying Salon blog that he turned down the opportunity to be the DCI? This makes sense to you?
Either he’s so timorous that he’d have been a horrible Director… or a terrible liar, which would have made him a worse Director. I don’t see how you can read it another way.
Dec 11, 2008 - 9:17 am 57. llama:“Nothing unseemly has been unconvered.” Either you don’t understand US Code (i.e. law) regarding torture and war crimes (See the War Crimes Act of 1996) or are patently ignorant of Bush’s public proclamations regarding US torture policy. You can persist in calling torture “enhanced interrogation techniques,” but note two things: reality will not bend to the semantic distinctions you make and torture is and remains a war crime under US statutory law.
Dec 11, 2008 - 9:31 am 58. Rich Gardner:@ Andrea in NY: Matthew Alexander did not “invent” any new interrogation techniques. He went back to the old ways, the tried, true and tested ways that were developed during World War II. Interrogators learned everything they possibly could about their subjects and then built a rapport with them and then simply talked to them, often taking them out to dinner to get more detail. It worked and worked well. The “new” method was simply to revert to the more ancient methods of the Spanish Inquisition (the guys who invented waterboarding).
Dec 11, 2008 - 9:54 am 59. cabdriver:M.P. MacConnell: I think that other commentators have done a pretty fair job in addressing your last response to me.
And I’m not ready to unpack your analogy, which casts John Brennan in the role of Pope Pius XII, and Bush as Hitler.
So I guess the only thing left to do is wonder what happened to your “netroots” allies in this discussion, in the interim. They aren’t posting over at Glenn Greenwald’s Unclaimed Territory blog, I can tell you that.
Dec 11, 2008 - 10:38 am 60. pointus:“This is a hallmark of the Netroots; they are bound and determined to bring about change.”
I seem to recall that “Change” is the mantra that Obama built his campaign upon. Since the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Yoo policies involved torture (oh, sorry, I meant “enhanced interrogation techniques”) and the kidnapping of people from various foreign countries in order to deposit them into “black sites” (while subjecting them to “enhanced interrogation techniques”) without judicial review… OR shipping them off to dungeons like Egypt & Syria (where the methods are even more crude than ours), wouldn’t it follow that a “change” from said policies would preclude anyone, no matter how “credentialed,” who was involved with or advocated said policies?
Dec 11, 2008 - 11:20 am 61. Evan:Why do you lie? Nothing “unseemly”?
And who are who to challenge Glenn for not being a diplomat or a member of the intelligence community? Who are you? OH, nothing.
We all have a right to voice our opinions, whether or not we are involved directly, indirectly, or not at all. What a waste of space in you fact-devoid puff piece to spend time questioning somebody else’s credentials.
Where is your challenge to the points put forward by Glenn or anybody regarding Brennan for that matter?
And honestly, when will we admit that torture doesn’t work, is illegal, and creates more animosity towards America than it is worth?
Dec 11, 2008 - 11:37 am 62. M. P. MacConnell:@ Kitt
Could you argument have any more ad hominem attacks and any less content?
@ John Payne
Google “Michael MacConnell” which is what I write my novels under. They have been published in Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand thus far (not bad for just under two years, I like to think).
Oh, and a netroot is someone who writes online in hope of effecting political change. Go look up “activism” in your dictionary, then compare that with “writer”. You might note that there’s a subtle difference.
@ Titonwan
If Greenwald were as fantastic as you say and my argument as ridiculous as you suppose, then perhaps you might have spent less time singing Greenwald’s praises and more time critiquing what I’d written.
@ Valkyrie607
You make entirely too many suppositions. I pointed out that Brennan was neither vehemently against nor advocating for EI@R. He merely pointed out, when questioned, what he viewed as the programs’ utility and effectiveness.
I don’t express my personal opinion of EI&R in the piece.
@ Paul Daniel Ash
I don’t believe that Brennan was scared of netroots. As I wrote, his withdrawal was clearly done because he knew Obama’s campaign placed great value in their continued goodwill. He spared his boss hurling him under the Obama express.
@ llama
As liberals are so fond of pointing out – everything’s relative. So no, from my point of view, as no laws were broken, bent or sidetracked, nothing ‘unseemly’ occurred.
@ pointus
EI&R as practiced by the CIA was approved by the White House, then reviewed and approved by the Justice Department. It wasn’t made illegal until last year.
@ Evan.
Do try to calm down.
As for your ‘argument’, need I really go to the effort of pointing out that my article is underlining the shortcomings in the knowledge and experience of netroots in deciding presidential appointments?
Show me, please, where I stated that while Greenwald isn’t sufficiently credentialed, I am.
The answer? Nowhere. The entire point of the article is to show the breathtaking arrogance of some columnists whose egos are easily able to override that safety mechanism in their brain that asks: “do I really know enough about this subject matter to lobby against someone’s appointment?”
Ask yourself this: Do you know, right now, without looking it up, who the current Director of the National Clandestine Service is? How about the name of the former government minister who now commands Taliban Forces in Eastern Afghanistan?
You didn’t know either of those answers, and neither would Greenwald or Sullivan. But you can bet Brennan did. Why? Because it is his business. Experientially, Brennan has as much place approving or disapproving Greenwald’s next legal appointment as Greenwald does Brennan’s next national security appointment. In a word, none.
Please don’t try to spin it around on me and falsely claim that I believe myself to possess the insight that Greenwald lacks. I am in no better position to decide the next DCI appointment than he is.
No more straw-men, please.
And, once more, if you’d like to debate, do try to be civil.
Dec 11, 2008 - 1:26 pm 63. M. P. MacConnell:Just to condense, for those Greenwald fans who are having trouble with basic logic, I am not a netroot claiming that netroots are evil. I am a writer who believes that some online writers-cum-activists have allowed their inflated hit-count and sense of importance to lead them beyond the boundaries of their individual skill-set.
I am not claiming that I am in a better position than Greenwald or Sullivan to choose the next DCI. I shouldn’t have the deciding vote any more than they should.
Any more efforts to sidetrack debate into some byzantine Greenwald vs MacConnell resume comparison will simply be ignored. He has a background in law. I have a background in politics, history and law-enforcement. NEITHER of us should have a disproportionate influence in deciding who will be the next DCI.
I merely pointed out that a great many people believed it would be Brennan, and that because of his experience in intelligence and counter-terrorism, it would be foolish for a person ignorant of intelligence matters to oppose his appointment on the basis of assumptions.
We clear now?
Dec 11, 2008 - 1:47 pm 64. Paul Daniel Ash:As I wrote, his withdrawal was clearly done because he knew Obama’s campaign placed great value in their continued goodwill.
I understand that’s what you believe. I don’t think it passes the smell test. Obama has appointed a number of people that have raised the ire of the blogosphere, and “the Obama Express” continues to hum down the track. I would say this: watch and see if Obama keeps McConnell and Hayden in place, despite the opposition of the fearsome Greenwald.
In any regard, it seems your beef should be with the President-elect rather than “some online writers-cum-activists [who] have allowed their inflated hit-count and sense of importance to lead them beyond the boundaries of their individual skill-set.” The idea that people shouldn’t opine on whatever subject they want to, “qualified” or not, seems odd to me.
Dec 11, 2008 - 2:25 pm 65. M. P. MacConnell:@ Paul Daniel Ash
I see what you’re saying, but where are the denials? If the Obama team isn’t overly influenced by a select bunch of online columnists, why weren’t Brennan’s remarks or the AP story refuted? They haven’t even bothered with the stand non-denial denials. They have ignored the issue and obliging reporters haven’t asked.
I personally don’t think Brennan should have stood aside. It seemed unnecessary in that Greenwald and Sullivan aren’t Woodward and Bernstein. They hadn’t exposed anything beyond the opinions he freely and frankly offered.
Then again, who knows for certain how voluntary his discounting of a future intelligence role really was.
And you’re partially right – I should have made more of an issue with Obama. The problem, however, is information. I have no sources inside the transition team and anything I write about the Pres. Elect’s reactions and how it was actually handled would be mere conjecture.
Dec 11, 2008 - 2:55 pm 66. Paul Daniel Ash:If the Obama team isn’t overly influenced by a select bunch of online columnists, why weren’t Brennan’s remarks or the AP story refuted?
I don’t know, Mr. MacConnell. And I’m not pretending I do. Did Brennan misrepresent his reason for withdrawing? Obviously, I have no way of knowing. It makes marginally more sense to me than the idea that some bloggers can force the withdrawal of the leading candidate for DCI-designate. But that would be “mere conjecture.”
Dec 11, 2008 - 3:15 pm 67. Doug:As Evan pointed out, MacConnell is remarkably dishonest: “Nothing even slightly unseemly has been uncovered”. Then MacConnell proceeds to slime Evan. What a joke.
Dec 11, 2008 - 3:16 pm 68. M. P. MacConnell:@ Paul Daniel Ash
Yes, it would be, Paul, because you would otherwise be claiming that Brennan was openly lying. As you have nothing to indicate that is the case and the Obama team – for which he still works – isn’t disputing his claim, I think the answer is relatively self-evident.
@ Doug
Show me where I am being dishonest. Show me where I ’smeared’ Evan. I made no personal attack on him. I can, on the other hand, show where he ’smeared’ me.
Don’t waste my time with infantile gibberish.
Dec 11, 2008 - 3:32 pm 69. Paul Daniel Ash:you would otherwise be claiming that Brennan was openly lying
I thought I was making it clear that I couldn’t make that claim. My only observation – and I’ll make it one last time – is that it strains credibility that this 25-year Washington insider to fold his tent and give up, merely because two bloggers wrote about information (relatively uncontroversial in today’s environment) already in the public record.
There was no outcry, no letter-writing campaign, no explosion on the talk shows or in the editorial pages. Just a couple of blog posts – probably read by fewer peoplethan the dying Chicago Tribune was enough to end the career of this veteran intelligence officer.
This doesn’t seem the slightest bit… suspicious to you?
Dec 11, 2008 - 4:08 pm 70. M. P. MacConnell:@ Paul Daniel Ash
Not really. The thing I take from this is that Obama’s team has a myopic focus on certain liberal columnists. If that weren’t the case, if any other option were possible, then Brennan’s withdrawal would have either been refused or his post-withdrawal protestations denied by Obama’s people.
What is your thinking? That there is an as-yet unknown reason for his withdrawal? Fear of something coming out, perhaps? Surely if that was the case, Obama would have placed serious distance between Brennan and the transition team – which he hasn’t done.
Dec 11, 2008 - 4:30 pm 71. Paul Daniel Ash:The thing I take from this is that Obama’s team has a myopic focus on certain liberal columnists.
First off, we’re not talking about columnists, we’re talking about bloggers, people he didn’t even kowtow to during the election, when they might plausibly have at least something to offer him. At this stage, they’re less than even an annoyance – come over to Greenwald’s comments on a day when he says something critical of Obama. The vitriol is intense.
Again, if Obama keeps McConnell and Hayden in their jobs, he’ll have shown that he doesn’t care about Greenwald. So what happens to your thesis then?
What is your thinking? That there is an as-yet unknown reason for his withdrawal?
I’m thinking that the stated reason literally makes no sense. I have absolutely no basis to speculate on what a different reason may be.
Dec 11, 2008 - 4:56 pm 72. M. P. MacConnell:I am having difficulty registering with Salon, so in response to Greenwald, who writes about my article:
“After excoriating me for having the audacity to opine on CIA policies even though I never worked in the intelligence community and then proceeding to defend both Brennan and the CIA’s policies, the author describes himself this way in his bio line: “M. P. MacConnell is a novelist, historian and political analyst.”"
I must (sadly) point out to Mr. Greenwald that this is a straw-man argument. My credentials are immaterial as I have never sought to question the legitimacy of a national intelligence appointment.
I drew attention to Greenwald’s lack of grounding in Brennan’s field of expertise because he had done so. It simply makes no sense to turn around and say “well, you aren’t qualified either”.
I know I’m not… that’s why I show restraint and I wouldn’t attempt to effect presidential nominations even if I could.
I’ll say it slowly, so that Greenwald’s readership can follow.
His uneducated, unfounded rants against Brennan helped cause the man’s career aspirations to be terminated. He did so from a position of total ignorance of the intelligence world. I myself have never sought to hamper a presidential appointment based solely on my dislike of that appointment’s personal opinions – which is what Greenwald did.
Why, I wonder, would such a vaunted columnist make such a simple retaliatory mistake? Food for thought.
That’s two false arguments that have (so far) been reflexively made against this article; the other being that I am seeking to suppress debate. I’m not – there is a distinct difference between urging sensible restraint and commanding silence.
Dec 11, 2008 - 5:18 pm 73. M. P. MacConnell:Greenwald also writes:
“Among the many perversely entertaining claims he makes, marvel at this assertion about Bush’s interrogation and detention policies: “American laws were not broken. . . . Nothing even slightly unseemly has been uncovered.” Pardon me, but I have to repeat that: nothing even slightly unseemly has been uncovered. It seems that Chairman Reyes sees things generally the same way. Hence: “continuity” is what we need.
That sentence, in its entirety, read this way: “Nothing even slightly unseemly has been uncovered — indeed, Brennan has a proven history of complete candor in discussing his views on those subjects with the media.”
It is quite clear that I was talking about Brennan and desperate failed attempts by Greenwald and Sullivan to find any kind of impropriety or illegality in his background. Not whether or not the EI&R practices themselves were ‘unseemly’.
Reflexive straw-men responses, taking partial sentences and placing them into different contexts… is this really the man whose opinion counts with President Elect Obama?
Dec 11, 2008 - 5:34 pm 74. Kitt:M.P. MacConnell: Don’t you think that just maybe a boat load of psychologists writing an open letter to PE Obama to urge him not to select Brennan as Director could have had some bearing on Obama’s decision? Maybe Glenn Greenwald and “Code Pink” didn’t deliver the crushing blow to Brennan’s hopes after all?
Dec 11, 2008 - 5:55 pm 75. Peg C.:1. What David Thomson said.
2. Please do not confuse the Netroots with rightwingers on the net. We conservative activists are NOT “netroots.” We may or may not be RightRoots (some of us dismiss that silly term), but the term “netroots” or the more appropriate “nutroots” is exclusively reserved for leftist moonbats who activate online.
3. Greenwald is a proven sockpuppet who is devoid of content, period. See Patterico and others. That the Obaminators would take Greenwald seriously tells you all you need to know about the extreme damage about to be perpetrated on our country – damage a bare majority willingly voted for.
Dec 11, 2008 - 6:47 pm 76. Kitt:That would qualify as an “ad hominem attack”. You whined about supposedly being the ‘victim’ of an “ad hominem attack” as an excuse for you to dismiss my comments to you earlier.
How would you know if Greenwald is “uneducated” about and in “total ignorance of the intelligence world”? Do you really think the ‘intelligence world’ is some super special world that no one could possibly be informed about unless they are on the ‘inside’? Do you not think it could be possible that Greenwald reads and listens and speaks to people who know something about the intelligence world? Just the other day he spoke with Retired Rear Adm. John Hutson about that very subject. The Mr. Hutson expressed many, what I, and I’m sure he, would call, educated opinions on the subject. So, again I ask, why would you surmise that Greenwald is in a position of “total ignorance” on the subject?
Dec 11, 2008 - 7:33 pm 77. Jelperman:If only MacConnell put as much effort at making up fanciful tales in his novels as he does in his blog posts, he might get published in the US of A.
EI&R as practiced by the CIA was approved by the White House, then reviewed and approved by the Justice Department. It wasn’t made illegal until last year.
That’s funny, the United States government has prosecuted and imprisoned sadists who use water torture (and other kinds of torture) for over a century. Japanese officers were given 15 years in prison for using water torture. A Texas Sheriff was given a ten year sentence for using water torture back in the 1980s.
The fact that the Crawford Caligula got his henchmen to say that torture only includes death or loss of organ function is irrelevant. Torture has been illegal (with no exceptions) since the 8th Amendment outlawed it over two hundred years ago. It doesn’t matter how many trained monkeys see, hear and speak no evil about it.
Torturers are war criminals who need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law -not rewarded with government jobs. Morally retarded individuals who aren’t sure if torture is illegal must also be barred from public service.
Dec 11, 2008 - 7:34 pm 78. Paul Daniel Ash:desperate failed attempts by Greenwald and Sullivan to find any kind of impropriety or illegality in his background.
I reread the Greenwald and Sullivan posts that you linked here. Neither deals with “impropriety or illegality;” rather, both talk about exactly what the man said in various interviews and expresses disagreement with those opinions.
Sullivan concludes with “Appointing Brennan to the CIA does not mean change from Bush,” while the hystrical and unqualified Greenwald closes his piece with “His views on past administration conduct are, in many important instances, clearly disturbing and bear watching.”
Again, I’m really not sure what you’re suggesting these writers should have done. Even given your thesis that they are influential pundits with the awe-inspiring power to approve or deny Presidential appointments… should they then not give their honest opinions?
I mean, it’s not like Obama disn’t know that he was taking his cues for DCI from a couple of unqualified libertarian bloggers… right
Dec 11, 2008 - 7:45 pm 79. M. P. MacConnell:@ Peg C
Point taken.
@ Kitt
I never complained about being a victim. I merely pointed out that your replies only consisted of personal attacks.
@ Jelperman
Be careful with the American-centric remarks. Your liberal pals might become upset with you.
@ Paul Daniel Ash
I would encourage you, if you are still having difficulties, to re-read my post and subsequent comments.
Dec 11, 2008 - 9:11 pm 80. Paul Daniel Ash:re-read my post and subsequent comments.
Mr. MacConnell, I’ve read your post and your comments more closely than, I think, most people: your supporters as well as your critics.
Absent any real response or engagement from you other than repetition, I’ll have to concude that yes, you really do think that a 41-year-old libertarian blogger who spends half his time in Brazil is “the man whose opinion counts with President Elect Obama.” And furthermore, that you would rather criticize Glenn for writing than criticize Obama for basing his senior appointments on a couple of mildly-critical blog posts.
A lack of embarrassment is sort of an admirable quality; a lack of curiosity, not so much.
Dec 12, 2008 - 5:29 am 81. cabdriver:M. P. MacConnell: you say that you’re having trouble registering at Salon…I’m not sure how that is, since a subscription isn’t required. It was a long time since I registered a name with a password, but my recollection is that it could scarcely be easier.
Please don’t give up, just yet.
As I pointed out, previously, Glenn Greenwald is an attorney whose specialty is American Constitutional Law. You seem to think that doesn’t give him any added expertise in commenting on American Constitutional questions like whether pervasive surveillance measures, detention without trial, and brutal interrogation tactics are just and legal- evidently because you believe the authority of the American President and the American intelligence community is so sancrosanct that their decisions and actions can only be criticized by others members of that fraternity.
But that isn’t how the game works in this country.
At any rate, Mr. Greenwald has found remarkable support for his views from the ranks of the U.S. military and intelligence communities- and, as of yesterday, from the Executive Summary released by the bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee investigating those very matters.
That’s more expertise than you have brought to bear on the issue, Mr. MacConnell.
Peg C.: like it or not- vast though it is, there’s only one Internet. You can go through word games like “Please do not confuse the Netroots with rightwingers on the net”, but it doesn’t matter. This is the most enabling technology for an authentic “free market of ideas” ever, and the most level free speech playing field ever. And if the most effective thing the Right Wing can do with it in order to keep their views in play is to set up their own little gated communities to keep dissenters and uncomfortable facts out, they’re going to continue to get creamed in this arena. Steamrollered by Reality.
I do feel the need to give credit to M.P. MacConnell and Pajamas Media for allowing an actual debate to take place on this comments page. That’s a marked contrast to the usual run of websites with a pronounced rightward political slant that I’ve run across.
Remember- it’s easy to register at Salon, no charge.
Dec 12, 2008 - 11:41 pm 82. M. P. MacConnell:@ cabdriver
I am still unable to comment at Salon, because of a technical error. I have registered, but whenever I attempt to comment on his story, I get this message on a blank screen:
——————-
This webpage has a redirect loop.
The webpage at http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/10/reyes/new/ has resulted in too many redirects. Clearing your cookies for this site may fix the problem. If not, it is possibly a server configuration issue and not a problem with your computer.
——————-
I have cleared my cookies several times. No change.
This aside, you seem to be snidely implying that my lack of comments on his page is evidence that I have no reply to his masterful denunciation of me.
Well, sorry to disappoint, but as soon as I realised I was unable to comment at Salon, I went with plan B and got a blog there:
http://open.salon.com/user_blog.php?uid=12975
My reply to Greenwald’s silly remarks have been there for three days now. Yet he still hasn’t replied. Do you think that means he’s unable to?
Now, hurry along and repost your ever-so-clever comment to Greenwald’s page. I may not be able to comment myself, but that hasn’t prevented me from reading his comments and observing the bizarrely sycophantic habit Greenwald’s readers (yourself included) have of making a comment in his defense elsewhere, then reposting it on his blog, in the vain hope that he will show you some favor.
It would be cute if it weren’t quite so servile.
Dec 13, 2008 - 5:05 am 83. Kitt:You make strawman assumptions about people and then you snidely post your “ad hominems” at them based on your made up strawman assumptions. The irony of you pissing about – or, as you insist, remarking upon — an ad hominem has become increasingly absurd as your thread here continues along with one smart aleck remark after another posted by you.
Dec 13, 2008 - 8:24 am 84. cabdriver:M. P. MacConnell: I posted only my first comment in this thread in the comment section of Greenwald’s blog. I did so for one reason- because when it turned up on your board, I read that it was “awaiting moderation.” That indicated to me the possibility that it might be censored outright, and kept from appearing- a fate that my comments have met on other boards when they’re deemed too threatening to the minds of the audience to be allowed to appear.
Since you were gracious enough to publish my first comment, I haven’t felt any need to re-post any of my comments here since then.
Despite your snap-judgement characterization of me, I’m not one of Glenn Greenwald’s flunkies. And Salon isn’t the only website where I comment. I was saying the same things I’m saying now in regard to the Bush usurpations of power in the name of the Terror War- for years before I ever encountered his Unclaimed Territory blog, which I found before he linked it to Salon.
I make no apologies for being tremendously impressed by Mr. Greenwald’s articulate exposition of views on Constitutional protections, and his spot-on critique of the Bush administration, and his excoriations of the American mass media (if you’re looking for a proper place to employ the term “servile”, look no further than that cohort of overpaid stenographers.)
It’s been a welcome thing to find support for my impressions from others who aren’t simply unlettered laypersons like myself, but rather legal professionals with expertise in Constitutional law. Other voices with similar backgrounds were few and far between, for a long while. I had heard many of the same observations by a couple of my fellow posters on other websites who were attorneys, but it was Glenn Greenwald who made it his personal mission to focus an ongoing chronicle of observations that rose to the level of historical documentation. And he from the outset, his frequently scathing critique was on-point, time and again. Go back and read those early columns. He wasn’t simply doing it as sensationalism to get netclicks for Salon, either. As I’ve noted, he wasn’t on Salon.com when his blog began.
The result was an end run past what amounted to a massmedia blockade during the first years of the Bush administration against hearing any such voices on the air, or given any more than cursory mention in the press. (You’ll search far and wide- and most likely in vain- to find even one on-air interview with the venerable civil libertarian Nat Hentoff on Bush’s attempts to roll back civil rights protections and institute an autocratic torture regime in it’s place, for instance.)
That’s what the Internet was meant to do. If “freedom of the press belongs to those who own one”, then the Internet has been a quantum leap. The empowerment of the ability of individuals to speak truth to power has increased to an unprecedented degree. Greenwald was one of those who has taken that ability and run with it.
I respect Glenn Greenwald enormously for doing that. But “servility” is out of the question. He doesn’t even know my actual name, unless he’s looked it up in the comment registry. And although apparently a few of the regular commentors on his blog are socially acquainted with each other, as yet I haven’t had any personal contact with any of them. Furthermore, because I’m (re)starting a couple of writing projects of my own, I’ll probably be doing less commenting there, not more. Although I’ll be around.
As for Greenwald’s lack of response to you, as yet- that’s up to him. But from the notice given in his blog, you seem to have caught him at a busy time. I wouldn’t give up trying, just yet.
Dec 13, 2008 - 10:13 am 85. Jelperman:I see you didn’t even try to argue against my point that the Bush Junta (by its own admission) carried out torture, which has been illegal since the Republic was founded.
Concession accepted.
Dec 14, 2008 - 7:20 am 86. Evan:Thanks for telling me to try and calm down MacConnell. I really should not be jumping and screaming while typing. It is so difficult. AHHHHHHHHH.
Now, seriously. Cmon. How could you spend time responding to me be telling me to be civil and calm down? You have no idea what my temperament is. I think you have written the words ‘reflexive’ and ‘knee-jerk’ around two dozen times each. And plus, I have never seen a poster respond so much to people in the comment section. Don’t you have something to do? A job perhaps?
I love how you change the justification for your piece over and over. In response to me, you wrote this:
“As for your ‘argument’, need I really go to the effort of pointing out that my article is underlining the shortcomings in the knowledge and experience of netroots in deciding presidential appointments?”
First, I love how the word argument is in quotes, just to remind me how you are better than me and I have no real standing here (which is your main point about all people not within the intelligence community, I gather). Second, I do you think you needed to give us some effort to explain the main point of your very rant-ish piece. I had many questions when I was done reading. Do you support Brennan for CIA director, even though he took his name out of the running? Should we close Guantanamo? Do you believe torture to be effective? Or should no person who you don’t deem qualified speak on any subject ever?
Somewhere in this comment section you wrote this:
“These reflexive attempts to accuse me of suppressing dissent totally miss the point. My complaint was about undue, unmerited influence from a source that lacked both restraint and experience.”
Now, it may just be me, but that is a little disingenuous. If you don’t want to suppress dissent, then how can you write a whole piece about how you think people influencing politics away from your preferred ideological base position through attacks on credentials. And don’t deny that that’s your main point. You think Glenn has too much power on the ‘netroots’ while knowing too little. So you are not directly suppressing dissent, you are just putting forth an argument, a full, lengthy, emotional, fact-free argument, about how one person, specifically Glenn, should not have much influence because he doesn’t, according to you, really know shit.
I personally, disagree. I would never have questioned your credentials if you didn’t do it to Glenn first, and that is a main point here. You try to deny that bringing up your credentials is out of scope, when that remains the crux of your argument – Glenn doesn’t have the credentials. And as I said in my first post: Who are you?
Try not to go crazy with this Mac. Have a great Sunday.
Dec 14, 2008 - 8:10 am 87. M. P. MacConnell:@ Jelperman
Please try to look at how many comments I did respond to, yours included. Then remember that most contribs don’t have the time to reply to comments at all.
@ Evan
We’ll have to agree to disagree. But it is nice to see you feeling more chirpy.
Oh, and it’s Monday morning here, by the way. Not much to enjoy.
Dec 14, 2008 - 12:34 pm