http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/07/john-brennan-dishonesty-cia-director-nomination
President Barack Obama could announce this week his choice to nominate Jack Lew to be the next Treasury Secretary, Bloomberg's Hans Nichols is reporting.
John Brennan's extremism and dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director nomination
Obama's top terrorism adviser goes from unconfirmable in 2008 to uncontroversial in 2013, reflecting the Obama legacy
Email
Counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan is reportedly Obama's pick to lead the CIA. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP
(updated below - Update II)
Prior to President Obama's first inauguration in 2009, a controversy erupted over reports that he intended to appoint John Brennan as CIAdirector. That controversy, in which I participated, centered around the fact that Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsedBush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program. As a result, Brennanwithdrew his name from consideration, issuing a bitter letter blaming "strong criticism in some quarters prompted by [his] previous service with the" CIA.
This "victory" of forcing Brennan's withdrawal proved somewhat Pyrrhic, as Obama then appointed him as his top counter-terrorism adviser, where he exerted at least as much influence as he would have had as CIA Director, if not more. In that position, Brennan last year got caughtoutright lying when he claimed Obama's drone program caused no civilian deaths in Pakistan over the prior year. He also spouted complete though highly influential falsehoods to the world in the immediate aftermath of the Osama bin Laden killing, including claiming that bin Laden "engaged in a firefight" with Navy SEALS and had "used his wife as a human shield". Brennan has also been in charge of many of Obama's most controversial and radical policies, including "signature strikes" in Yemen - targeting people without even knowing who they are - and generally seizing the power to determine who will be marked for execution without any due process, oversight or transparency.
As it typically does in the US National Security State, all of that deceit and radicalism is resulting not in recrimination or loss of credibility for Brennan, but in reward and promotion. At 1 pm EST today, Obama will announce that he has selected Brennan to replace Gen. David Petraeus as CIA chief: the same position for which, four short years ago, Brennan's pro-torture-and-rendition past rendered him unfit and unconfirmable.
Although I actively opposed Brennan's CIA nomination in 2008, I can't quite muster the energy or commitment to do so now. Indeed, the very idea that someone should be disqualified from service in the Obama administration because of involvement in and support for extremist Bush terrorism polices seems quaint and obsolete, given the great continuitybetween Bush and Obama on these issues. Whereas in 2008 it seemed uncertain in which direction Obama would go, making it important who wielded influence, that issue is now settled: Brennan is merely a symptom of Obama's own extremism in these areas, not a cause. This continuity will continue with or without Brennan because they are, rather obviously, Obama's preferred policies.
Still, this is worth commenting on because the drastic change between the reaction to Brennan in 2008 and now is revealing. The New York Times article this morning on the appointment claims that "it is uncertain whether the torture issue will now cause any problems for Mr. Brennan." Of course, there is nothing at all uncertain about that: "the torture issue" won't cause any problems for Brennan, as it did in 2008, because Obama has buried that issue with his "Look Forward, not Backward" decrees; because most people who claimed concern over such issues back in 2008 have resigned themselves to Obama's posture in this area; and because, with very rare exception, there are no more serious campaigns mounted against Obama's decisions except from the American Right.
It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus.
UPDATE
There's one more point worth noting: the reason Obama needs a new CIA chief is because David Petraeus was forced to resign. Here we see the ethos and morality of imperial Washington: past support for torture and rendition does not disqualify one for a top national security position; only an extramarital affair can do that.
UPDATE II
The ACLU today said that the Senate should not proceed with Brennan's nomination "until it assesses the legality of his actions in past leadership positions in the CIA during the early years of the George W. Bush administration and in his current role in the ongoing targeted killing program".
and.......
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/07/hagel-ive-shown-unequivocal-total-support-for-israel/
Hagel: I’ve shown “unequivocal, total support for Israel”; Update: AIPAC standing down?
POSTED AT 6:01 PM ON JANUARY 7, 2013 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
Yeah, listen. If we’re going to confirm this guy, let’s please confirm him without sugarcoating his record.
Chuck Hagel said Monday an accurate assessment of his record will demonstrate “unequivocal, total support for Israel” and endorsement of tough international economic sanctions against Iran…[T]he fact is that there is “not one shred of evidence that I’m anti-Israeli, not one (Senate) vote that matters that hurt Israel.”…Critics have hammered Hagel for not joining most of his Senate colleagues in signing on to a number of policy pronouncements that sometimes were sought by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the influential pro-Israel lobbying organization in Washington.“How does that further the peace process in the Middle East?” Hagel asked. “What’s in Israel’s interest is to help Israel and the Palestinians find some peaceful way to live together.”
There’s not one shred of evidence that he’s anti-Israel? Go read Alana Goodman’s post at Commentary quoting extensively from a 2007 critique of Hagel on Israel published by — ta da — the National Jewish Democratic Council. He’s a “bipartisan pick” insofar as both Republicans and Democrats have raised eyebrows at him over this subject for years. But for the White House, that’s a feature, not a bug: Half the reason that liberals are rallying behind him is that he hasn’t shown unequivocal support for Israel. The left is willing to overlook the fact that he’s a Republican precisely because his elevation to SecDef would help move opposition to Israel further into the political mainstream. (Turns out people who say things like “Let the Jews pay for it” are Israel’s “true friends,” you see.) The other half of the reason is that after four years of shrugging at Obama’s Bush-like counterterror policies, replete with scores of drone strikes across the world and military action in Libya unsanctioned by the War Powers Act, the left thinks it can regain some of its anti-war brand by pushing Hagel through at the Pentagon. Never mind that he voted to invade Iraq, like so many of the Wise Men and Women who populate Obama’s cabinet; never mind that his position on the surge was both wrong and embarrassingly grandstand-ish. Nominating him is Obama’s way of reclaiming his own, and the wider left’s, dovish cred on the cheap.
The point here is that almost nothing about the battle over Hagel has to do with his actual qualifications. Will he be an effective manager of an enormous bureaucracy at a moment when it’s facing budget cuts? Will he demonstrate the same keen foreign-policy insight as SecDef that he did as a senator when he greenlit the Iraq war and then railed against the surge? Dunno. Doesn’t seem to matter. I don’t think I’ve seen a single piece online making the case that Hagel would be better on the merits than Michele Flournoy or Ashton Carter or any of the other shortlisters. Given his lack of Pentagon experience, he might be considerably worse. But who cares? His nomination fight will be a political proxy war, which is loads more fun than having the best possible person fill the most important cabinet position at a critical moment, and it’ll let President Buckpasser share responsibility with a nominal Republican if things go sideways on foreign policy (especially post-withdrawal Afghanistan) in his second term. Although, given O’s interventionist tendencies, I wonder if that might backfire on the left: Philip Klein thinks nominating Hagel is O’s way of signaling to Iran that there’ll be no bombing over the next four years, but I’m less sure. He might also be a political insurance policy in case things do come to that, someone at whom Obama can point and say, “Even my dovish, anti-interventionist, Israel-critic defense secretary thought a military strike was a good idea.” The One hates taking blame; even on Benghazi, he waited until Hillary admitted culpability before doing so himself. Having Hagel around at the Pentagon will be useful cover to him if/when the no-fly zone over Damascus comes or we start ramping up drone strikes in Mali or wherever his next target is.
Update: I’m increasingly convinced Hagel will be confirmed relatively easily, and this is one reason why:
“Staffers and members are trying to find out what AIPAC thinks of Hagel and we are not getting anything,” one Senate Republican staff member said. Another Senate staff member said, “AIPAC will be sitting this one out.”…The group’s apparent neutrality on Hagel is likely a big relief to the White House. On Sunday, senior White House staffers began reaching out to prominent members of the Jewish community to address concerns about Hagel. On Monday, White House chief of staff Jack Lew called AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr to discuss the Hagel nomination, according to administration officials…AIPAC is not the only pro-Israel group holding its fire. Foxman, of the Anti-Defamation League, backed away from the tone of earlier comments, saying Monday that “Senator Hagel would not have been my first choice, but I respect the President’s prerogative.”Jeffrey Goldberg saw that coming this morning. Obama’s heavily invested in getting Hagel through — more so than he was with Susan Rice, which is bizarre — and if AIPAC goes to the mat on this they’ll spend the rest of his term at war with the White House. Which might not be so bad if they thought they could torpedo his nomination, but the odds seem slim. Josh Marshall is unfortunately right that Democrats don’t want to blow up O’s first big post-reelection appointment, and while there’s been critical noise for Hagel from the GOP, there’s no guarantee that the entire caucus would vote against him. Six Democrats would have to cross Obama to kill the nomination even if the Republicans vote unanimously; if just four GOPers vote yes (Paul? Murkowski? Lee?), suddenly you need double-digit Democratic defections to block Hagel. How likely is that when AIPAC and the ADL are backing off, people like Tom Ridge are coming forward to endorse him, and wayward Democrats like Barney Frank are being brought back into the fold? Not very.
And for Treasury , consensus seems to be for Jacob Lew....
http://www.businessinsider.com/jack-lew-treasury-secretary-nomination-obama-tim-geithner-debt-ceiling-2013-1
REPORT: Obama Close To Choosing Jack Lew To Replace Geithner As Treasury Secretary
White House via Flickr
Lew, the current White House Chief of Staff, would replace Timothy Geithner in the role.
Lew's appointment would also mean that Obama would need to find a new chief of staff to replace Lew in his second-term Cabinet. Nichols says that two possibilities for that role are Denis McDonough, a deputy national security adviser, and Ron Klain, who was Vice President Joe Biden’s chief of staff.
It has already been a busy week for Obama's Cabinet reshuffle. On Monday, he nominated former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense and John Brennan, the White House homeland-security and counterterrorism adviser, to be the new director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Lew's first order of business will come on the issue of working with Congress to raise the debt ceiling, which needs to happen by the mid-February for the U.S. to continue to be able to borrow money to pay its bills.
Lew is known as a skilled negotiator who played a major role in both the recent deal to avert the fiscal cliff and in negotiating with Republicans in the 2011 debt-ceiling talks.
Geithner has said he plans to leave his post by the end of January, even if the debt-ceiling lift has not been resolved.
No comments:
Post a Comment