If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Brennan pick revives the White House leak issue. I know this because I met a man in a dark parking garage who told me that this would go green   (politico.com) divider line 26
    More: Interesting, White House, obama, Saxby Chambliss, parking, garage, stumbling blocks, Bush administration  
•       •       •

675 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Jan 2013 at 7:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



26 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-08 07:49:12 AM
Green with 0 comments, bravo.
/Your headline sucks.
 
2013-01-08 07:50:29 AM
Elections have consequences you farktards. Appointment of Cabinet positions and Judges is one of them. Farking deal with it.

/I know Bush had judges held up
//One reason why Russ Feingold is awesome
 
2013-01-08 07:52:56 AM

Goetz: Green with 0 comments, bravo.
/Your headline sucks.


zero comments because insta-green. Something you've never had.

/can you suck any harder?
 
2013-01-08 07:53:43 AM
Does subby meet a lot of mysterious men in dark parking lots?
 
2013-01-08 07:54:39 AM

seancakes: Does subby meet a lot of mysterious men in dark parking lots?


He learned it from watching his mom...
 
2013-01-08 08:04:03 AM

somedude210: Goetz: Green with 0 comments, bravo.
/Your headline sucks.

zero comments because insta-green. Something you've never had.

/can you suck any harder?


Awful bitey for a tuesday ain'cha?

/Your headline still sucks.
 
2013-01-08 08:05:46 AM

Hillbilly Jim: Elections have consequences you farktards. Appointment of Cabinet positions and Judges is one of them. Farking deal with it.


So someone who was a vocal advocate for torture and was in charge of a program where Americans assassinated people whose names we didn't know in a country we weren't at war with based on "patterns of suspicious activities" shouldn't be criticized when they come up for appointment?
 
2013-01-08 08:17:09 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Hillbilly Jim: Elections have consequences you farktards. Appointment of Cabinet positions and Judges is one of them. Farking deal with it.

So someone who was a vocal advocate for torture and was in charge of a program where Americans assassinated people whose names we didn't know in a country we weren't at war with based on "patterns of suspicious activities" shouldn't be criticized when they come up for appointment?


You know full well that's not why the nomination is being held up. Obama could nominate Dick Cheney for CIA director, and the Republicans would still throw a hissy fit. It's literally their only response to anything that Obama does, has done in the past, or wants to do in the future.
 
2013-01-08 08:18:38 AM
HMS_Blinkin
You know full well that's not why the nomination is being held up.

Isn't it a good reason for his nomination not to be supported by progressives, in any case?
 
2013-01-08 08:19:21 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Hillbilly Jim: Elections have consequences you farktards. Appointment of Cabinet positions and Judges is one of them. Farking deal with it.

So someone who was a vocal advocate for torture and was in charge of a program where Americans assassinated people whose names we didn't know in a country we weren't at war with based on "patterns of suspicious activities" shouldn't be criticized when they come up for appointment?


I think the point is that the second term is a wildcard. Sometimes you get what you thought you would, sometimes you don't.

Remember when Bush tried to privatize Social Security? He just about flew to every Senior in the country to convince them of it. It still didn't fly.

It's all just part of the process.
 
2013-01-08 08:21:04 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: So someone who was a vocal advocate for torture


FTA: . . . and on claims that Brennan didn't strongly protest aggressive interrogation techniques such as waterboarding during the Bush administration when he served as an intelligence official.

Was he actually a vocal advocate for torture? Or just not vocal enough against it?

He did have a direct hand in the drone target "Disposition Matrix" according to wikipedia, at least.
 
2013-01-08 08:23:42 AM

HMS_Blinkin: You know full well that's not why the nomination is being held up


So? The end result is they are holding up the nomination of someone who shouldn't be appointed. That's a good thing.
 
2013-01-08 08:26:15 AM

mrexcess: HMS_Blinkin
You know full well that's not why the nomination is being held up.

Isn't it a good reason for his nomination not to be supported by progressives, in any case?


Yes, it is. But let's just go ahead and read TFA to see if it's progressives that are holding him his nomination.....

FTFA:
"John Brennan has not been absolved of responsibility for the slew of high-level security leaks that have characterized this White House," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told POLITICO in a statement Monday.

An aide to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), speaking on condition of anonymity, said: "The questions about national security leaks by this administration have not yet been answered...

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) signaled that he'll hold up Brennan's nomination until the administration releases more information about its handling of the attack in Benghazi...
(DRINK!)

Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said he has significant concerns about Brennan and Obama's nominee for defense secretary, former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.).

There are legitimate problems with Brennan, from a liberal perspective. That is what makes it all the more amazing that Brennan, who would be a neocon's dream at the CIA, would be so ferociously opposed by, well, conservatives.

This is just more obstruction from the GOP. I swear, these people are getting as predictable as single-celled organisms. They have only one response to EVERYTHING the president wants to do, and that is to obstruct it. Period.
 
2013-01-08 08:27:19 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: HMS_Blinkin: You know full well that's not why the nomination is being held up

So? The end result is they are holding up the nomination of someone who shouldn't be appointed. That's a good thing.


And you think they won't hold up the nomination of someone who SHOULD be appointed? They'll fight even harder if Obama dares to nominate someone who would pass a progressive "litmus test."
 
2013-01-08 08:30:48 AM

incendi: Was he actually a vocal advocate for torture? Or just not vocal enough against it?


December 5, 2005 on News Hour with Jim Lehrer, via Glenn Greenwald

JOHN BRENNAN: I think it's an absolutely vital tool. I have been intimately familiar now over the past decade with the cases of rendition that the U.S. Government has been involved in. And I can say without a doubt that it has been very successful as far as producing intelligence that has saved lives.

In this case, rendition means moving suspects to places outside of US jurisdiction where they can be subjected to torture.
 
2013-01-08 08:31:41 AM
What White House leak issue?
 
2013-01-08 08:34:24 AM

PanicMan: What White House leak issue?


The one that Republicans invented in yet another attempt to contrive a fake scandal. At this point, the GOP has cried wolf so much that if Obama ever DOES do anything really bad, it's going to be really hard for the GOP to make it stick, since most people aren't taking them seriously anymore.
 
2013-01-08 08:35:43 AM

HMS_Blinkin: And you think they won't hold up the nomination of someone who SHOULD be appointed? They'll fight even harder if Obama dares to nominate someone who would pass a progressive "litmus test."


Of course they would - calling modern Republicans a plague is an insult to y. pestis. But as long as Obama is going to make bad appointments, and Republicans are going to provide a good platform by being dickwads, it provides the chance for sane people to talk about it.
 
2013-01-08 08:38:17 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: HMS_Blinkin: And you think they won't hold up the nomination of someone who SHOULD be appointed? They'll fight even harder if Obama dares to nominate someone who would pass a progressive "litmus test."

Of course they would - calling modern Republicans a plague is an insult to y. pestis. But as long as Obama is going to make bad appointments, and Republicans are going to provide a good platform by being dickwads, it provides the chance for sane people to talk about it.


That's true. It's just obnoxious that we can usually get more consensus and level-headed thinking in a Fark thread before breakfast than the Senate can do in a week.
 
2013-01-08 08:40:28 AM

PanicMan: What White House leak issue?


There's some evidence that the Obama administration arranged for the filmmakers of Zero Dark Thirty or whatever it's called to be given classified information, while at the same time blocking the information from being released to the public by saying it's top secret.
 
2013-01-08 08:43:25 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: PanicMan: What White House leak issue?

There's some evidence that the Obama administration arranged for the filmmakers of Zero Dark Thirty or whatever it's called to be given classified information, while at the same time blocking the information from being released to the public by saying it's top secret.


Is THAT was this is about? Oh for goodness sakes.
 
2013-01-08 08:46:05 AM

HMS_Blinkin: That's true. It's just obnoxious that we can usually get more consensus and level-headed thinking in a Fark thread before breakfast than the Senate can do in a week.


No argument there.
 
2013-01-08 08:48:14 AM
The only leak mentioned in the article is once he said "inside control", which got interpreted as " U.S. had a mole inside Al Qaeda".
 
2013-01-08 09:04:53 AM

theknuckler_33: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: PanicMan: What White House leak issue?

There's some evidence that the Obama administration arranged for the filmmakers of Zero Dark Thirty or whatever it's called to be given classified information, while at the same time blocking the information from being released to the public by saying it's top secret.

Is THAT was this is about? Oh for goodness sakes.


Not so much evidence as allegation. Based on a Judicial Watch investigation. This is an organization that launched 18 lawsuits against the Clinton administration and (as far as I can figure out) 1 against the Bush administration. They describe themselves as conservative and non-partisan. Does not mean there were no leaks, but it does beg for a closer examination of their investigation.
 
2013-01-08 12:06:17 PM
Is this thread broken?
 
2013-01-08 08:14:05 PM
HMS_Blinkin
There are legitimate problems with Brennan, from a liberal perspective. That is what makes it all the more amazing that Brennan, who would be a neocon's dream at the CIA, would be so ferociously opposed by, well, conservatives.

And equally amazing that he would not be opposed by liberals, no?

It seems that everyone in Washington has thrown out their principles in the name of party allegiance. That being the case, why pick solely on Republicans?

Oh, right. Because they're the other party.

/sigh
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report