« | »

Brennan: Public Doesn’t Get Subtle Drone Policy

From the Associated Press:

Brennan defends drone strikes, even on Americans

By KIMBERLY DOZIER | February 7, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — CIA Director-designate John Brennan strongly defended anti-terror attacks by unmanned drones Thursday under close questioning at a protest-disrupted confirmation hearing. On a second controversial topic, he said that after reading a classified intelligence report on harsh interrogation techniques, he does not know if waterboarding has yielded useful information.

Such idiocy should be enough to disqualify him right there.

Despite what he called a public misimpression, Brennan told the Senate Intelligence Committee that drone strikes are used only against targets planning to carry out attacks against the United States, never as retribution for an earlier one. "Nothing could be further from the truth," he declared.

As usual, it turns out we are too damn dumb to understand the subtle nuance of Obama’s policy of killing US citizens without due process. "Drone strikes are used only against targets planning to carry out attacks against the United States, never as retribution for an earlier one."

Even though the leaked DOJ memo specifically states: "The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

And, according to the AP, "Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

Referring to one American citizen killed by a drone in Yemen in 2011, he said the man, Anwar al-Awlaki, had ties to at least three attacks planned or carried out on U.S. soil. They included the Fort Hood, Texas, shooting that claimed 13 lives in 2009, a failed attempt to down a Detroit-bound airliner the same year and a thwarted plot to bomb cargo planes in 2010.

"He was intimately involved in activities to kill innocent men women and children, mostly Americans," Brennan said.

Notice that those are all past activities. So is sure sounds like Mr. Awlaki was killed ‘in retribution.’

In a sign that the hearing had focused intense scrutiny on the drone program, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told reporters after the hearing that she thinks it may be time to lift the secrecy off the program so that U.S. officials can acknowledge the strikes and correct what she said were exaggerated reports of civilian casualties.

Hilarious. Suddenly, under Obama, the Democrats are concerned about civilian casualties being exaggerated.

Feinstein said she and a number of other senators are considering writing legislation to set up a special court system to regulate drone strikes, similar to the one that signs off on government surveillance in espionage and terror cases

Now that is a ‘Death Panel.’ And, mind you, we won’t hear one peep from the usual suspects about this. Whereas Bush caught holy hell for years over the FISA permitting eavesdropping on terrorists.

Still, how come Sen. Feinstein isn’t calling for ‘drone control’ to end all this drone violence that is killing innocent women and children?

In a long afternoon in the witness chair, Brennan declined to say if he believes waterboarding amounts to torture, but he said firmly it is "something that is reprehensible and should never be done again." …

Again, it’s clear that Mr. Brennan is a dangerous fool. Lest we forget, we used to waterboard many of our own soldiers. It is not torture. It is not even slightly "reprehensible."

Here is another footnote to the Brennan hearing, via a ho-humming Washington Post:

Brennan opposed 1990s attempt to capture bin Laden

Karen DeYoung | February 7, 2013

A bit of news early in John Brennan’s testimony: Former CIA official Michael Scheuer has charged that Brennan, as chief of the CIA station in Saudi Arabia during the late 1990s, convinced the Clinton administration not to attempt an operation to capture Osama bin Laden. Asked by Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) whether that story is true, Brennan said it was.

“Based on what I had known at the time,” he said, “I didn’t think it was a worthwhile operation and had low chances of success.”He was not in the chain of command and had no control over decisions made in Washington — Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger ordered the operation canceled. Brennan said he had “no second thoughts whatsoever … chances of success were minimal” and it was likely that “other individuals were going to be killed.” …

Apparently, those "other individuals" were not US citizens, or it would have been as ‘fine as pie,’ since they were cavorting with the foremost terrorist leader. That and Brennan’s comments about waterboarding should be enough to disqualify him from being the head of the CIA.

In any case, it’s clear Brennan is not fit for the job to head the CIA. Which is almost certainly why Obama picked him.

And, of course, there’s this from The Hill:

Feinstein clears protesters from Brennan hearing after repeated interruptions

By Carlo Muñoz | February 7, 2013

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was forced to clear the room during Thursday’s confirmation hearing of CIA nominee John Brennan after protesters brought the proceedings to a halt.

Protesters from the organization Code Pink rushed the witness table at the beginning of the hearing as Brennan took his seat before the Senate panel.

After being warned by Feinstein against any further interruptions, the protesters continued to shout questions at Brennan about the U.S. armed drone program and his role in those efforts.

Holding homemade placards with the faces of those allegedly killed during those strikes, the protesters continued to shout insults at Brennan.

After interrupting Brennan’s opening statement for the third time, Feinstein ordered the Capitol Police to escort the protesters and the rest of the gallery out of the hearing room…

Where upon they were once again gently escorted to Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers’ offices for refreshments, and congratulations on another job well done.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Friday, February 8th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “Brennan: Public Doesn’t Get Subtle Drone Policy”

  1. cali

    Brennan converted to islam while stationed in Saudi Arabia; it’s no wonder that he continuously defends jihadists etc.. and fits right into barry’s administration. We are infiltraded to the highest office.

  2. canary

    Brennan protested the Vietnam War with John Kerry. He’s so against civil wars, and Israel defending itself from rockets attacking it’s country, it difficult to imagine he is so passive about
    drones missing targets.

    And after Brennan protested the civil war in Vietnam, why does he want to find the U.S. aiding in more and more civil wars.

    As far as Brennan being against water boarding.

    How about dripping or spraying a little blood or urine from swine down alleged suspects throat.
    (Of course make sure it’s sterile so they don’t get sick)

    Or put a pig in a cell with the pigs. Maybe throw a smelly dead pig in their cells.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »