FW: SHARE THIS: Questions for the New CIA Guy
From: Tree Frog <treefrog@ix.netcom.com>
Talk About Politicizing Intelligence! Meet John Brennan, CIA Chief Designee
President Obama's nominee for the next CIA director has a long and foggy relationship with the truth. He's presided over a number of matters that just don't add up, but that scored political pointsperfect topics for Senate confirmation hearings. A really brave senator would be rubbing his or her hands together in anticipation.
Why was Osama bin Laden killed, and not captured? One reason might be that he was originally "ours' in the early days of fighting in Afghanistan against the Afghani government, before he began his Al Qeada movement and turned against the USA. Sibyl Edmonds has a lot to say about this.
Interesting tribute to Jefferson Morley's real or feigned naivete.
Two points emerge back-to-back:
In a recent piece for theatlantic.com I suggested that the new records indicate two top CIA officials, deputy CIA director Richard Helms and counterintelligence chief James Angleton, may have been guilty of criminal negligence in JFK's death -- with the caveat that key records that might clarify the issue remain classified.
Phil's note: "may have been guilty of criminal negligence in JFK's death"--Oh, did I frame the patsy by manipulating his files? Or, did I set Harvey upon an assassination which brushed up against the Bay of Pigs provocation and collected homicidal Cubans like lint? How clumsy of us, the hollow men, leaning together.
This is where Brennan comes in. The CIA retains at least 1,100 JFK documents that it says it will not release in any form. These documents, located but not reviewed closely by the ARRB in 1998, are the U.S. government's last officially recognized batch of JFK secrets. With the creation of the National Declassification Center (NDC), the Obama administration is now pushing an ambitious campaign to release 404 million unnecessarily secret government documents by 2014. These JFK records are an obvious candidate for review and release. Does the next director of the CIA agree or disagree?
Phil's note: What part of "will not release in any form" do you not understand, Mr. Morley? We will hear of countless inconsequentials but nothing of note central to the business model.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4248[/ATTACH]
Brennan is a sychophant and an Islamophile. There is a caliphate to establish and now's no time to excavate the foundation blocks of the all-see-eye-ay pyramid, that sword and shield of the cabal.
How far did Blumenthal get? Or Little Billy Clinton and Webb Hubbell in re JFK and UFO's and their professed pursuit of the truth.
Brennan is down with the CFR plan for Iran: there will never be war on the Islamic Republic, and the sanctions are evaded through epic laundering.
A hundred years after the Federal Reserve began slouching toward Bethlehem and fifty after the knight was Bravehearted in Deadly Plaza, Morley coyly and rhetorically appeals to the mass of the masses who favor disclosure.
The Nation defends John Brennan, Obama's nominee for the CIA
By Joseph Kishore
January 17, 2013 "WSWS" - -The Nation magazine is home to a particularly odious group of journalists. The "left" publication speaks on behalf of a privileged layer of the upper middle class, deeply complacent, lacking political principles and more and more integrated into the military and political establishment.
Even by these standards, a column penned by the Nation 's Robert Dreyfuss January 22, "Brennan at the CIA might surprise us," stands out. Dreyfuss is no casual commentator. He is the Nation's chief foreign policy correspondent. The article thus presents the magazine's more or less official position in defense of John Brennan, nominated by President Barack Obama to head the CIA.
As Obama's homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, Brennan played the principal role in vastly expanding the administration's drone assassination program. He oversaw the development of the "disposition matrix" to permanently institutionalize the practice of extrajudicial murderdisposing of human beingsin the name of the "war on terror."
Before serving under Obama, Brennan was the director of the National Counterterrorism Center in the Bush administration, where he was implicated in torture and illegal domestic spying. In sum, this is a man with a great deal of blood on his hands.
This is Obama's second attempt to nominate Brennan for the top post in America's spy network. When the president first tried to do so in 2009, the nomination came under criticism from his liberal supporters. Brennan eventually withdrew his nomination.
This time around, there has been much less criticism. The Democratic Party and its milieu have moved even farther to the right over the past four years. Some voices have been raised, however, including from a few liberal commentators cited by Dreyfuss. The Nation takes on the task of providing legal counsel for Brennan and the Obama administration.
"Were you a terrorist or member of Al Qaeda, you wouldn't want to meet John Brennan in a dark alley," Dreyfuss begins. "He's an Irish tough guy, and he doesn't apologize for wanting to obliterate Al Qaeda. For four years, as Obama's top adviser on counterterrorism, that's been his job… Often innocents have died."
"But Brennan may surprise us."
In the end, the massacre of hundreds of civilians by US drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and other countries is of little concern to Dreyfuss. "Maybe, just maybe, John Brennan won't be a bad CIA director." What, one might ask, is a good CIA director ? The notion that the Nation might take a principled stand in opposition to the American government's chief spying and dirty tricks agency does not cross Dreyfuss's mind.
The article resorts to lawyerly sophistry. There are "widespread accusations, not necessarily accurate, that he [Brennan] supported torture during the George W. Bush administration." He "may or may not have objected to the use of waterboarding and other violent techniques." To claim that he is "a supporter of torture," is "an accusation without proof."
Really? Brennan is on record as declaring in 2007, "There has been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the [CIA] has, in fact, used against the real hard-core terrorists. It has saved lives." We must "take every possible measure" against those "determined to destroy our nation," he declared in another interview given at that time.
As for drones, Dreyfuss goes on, "it's a mixed bag." He boasts that "on several occasions, I met and interviewed Brennan." In these discussions, the Nation assures its readers, Brennan came off as a principled man, even "left," animated by a belief that "the military is the wrong instrument in fighting terrorism." He quotes an article in the Washington Post portraying Brennan as guided by a "moral compass" in his selection of drone targets.
Parroting the line of the Obama administration, Dreyfuss insists that Brennan has sought "to limit, not expand, drone warfare." This can only be taken as an endorsement of the "disposition matrix."
Dreyfuss refers to claims that Brennan has lied about the impact of the administration's drone killing, asserting that it has not killed any civilians. However, Dreyfuss observes, "Brennan made clear that he was talking about a specific stretch of time" of about a yearsuggesting by implication that the hundreds of people killed during this period all deserved to die. The administration automatically categorizes any adult-aged male it happens to kill as a "terrorist."
If this defense does not suffice, Dreyfuss has another one prepared. "To be sure," he writes, "as the White House's counterterrorism chief and as a spokesman for the administration, Brennan has no choice but to defend the administration's policy of carrying out a global drone warfare program." Brennan, after all, was just following orders.
The attitude of Dreyfuss and the Nation magazine toward basic democratic rights is summed up in the comment's treatment of the administration's policy of assassinating US citizens. Mention of this violation of fundamental constitutional principles is confined to the final paragraphs, in which Dreyfuss notes that "Senator Ron Wyden says he wants answers about the administration's legal justification for killing American citizens via drone attacks."
The confirmation hearings next month, Dreyfuss assures us, "should be seen as an opportunity to get answers to all these questions, on the record."
This is an obvious fraud. Dreyfuss is well aware that the administration has adamantly refused to make available its pseudo-legal justifications for assassinating American citizens, successfully blocking in court efforts to force it to do so.
Dreyfuss personifies a social layer that, through the mechanism of the Obama administration, has reconciled itself to imperialism, becoming in fact one of the most adamant supporters of American aggression at home and abroad. There is nothing remotely left-wing about these forces. They are capable of supporting and defending any crime.
Quote:The Free Dictionary:
1. Intense, overpowering fear. See Synonyms at fear.
2. One that instills intense fear: a rabid dog that became the terror of the neighborhood.
3. The ability to instill intense fear: the terror of jackboots pounding down the street.
4. Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes.
5. Informal An annoying or intolerable pest: that little terror of a child.
Merriam Webster:
1 : a state of intense fear
2a : one that inspires fear : scourge
b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion>
c : a cause of anxiety : worry
d : an appalling person or thing; especially : brat
3: reign of terror
4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>
The military-multinational-intelligence complex is clearly preparing a rebranding of the discredited and nonsensical War on Terror.
I have a suggestion for them.
The use of drones on civilian populations, in countries with which one is not at war, murdering men, women and children, is clearly an act of Terror.
Therefore, I propose that the War on Terror be renamed:
THE WAR ON DRONES
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War." Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta." The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
