KILLER BARRY O'S RIGHT HAND TERRORIST JOHN BRENNAN DECLARED YESTERDAY TO THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ["
Iraq snapshot," "
Thoughts on today's Senate Intell hearing (C.I.)," "
The disgraceful Dianne Feinstein (Ava)," "
Brennan likes torture (Wally)" AND "
Brennan tries to weasel"] THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THE LARGELY SECRET PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS KILLER BARRY TO KILL PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD -- EVEN AMERICAN CITIZENS.
BRENNAN'S NONSENSE WAS LAPPED UP BY A GROUP OF SENATORS WHO HAVE MOLESTED AND BEATEN THE CONSTITUTION FOR YEARS.
WITH NO RESPECT FOR DEMOCRACY -- THE COMMITTEE CHAIR IS ALWAYS TOO BUSY WONDERING WHAT DEFENSE CONTRACTS SHE CAN STEER HER HUSBAND'S WAY -- AND EVEN LESS FOR HUMAN LIFE, THEIR CONFIRMING BRENNAN SEEMS A GO.
REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS THIS MORNING, DIANNE FEINSTEIN EXPLAINED SHE HAD JUST FINISHED PUTTING HER UGLY WIG ON AND WAS NOW HEADED OUT TO THROW "ACID IN THE FACES OF THE MASSES. WHAT I WOULDN'T GIVE FOR A DRONE, YOU KNOW? IT WOULD SAVE ME SO MUCH TIME AND EFFORT."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Attending the Senate
Intelligence Committee today was an odyssey into the absurd. Senator
Dianne Feinstein, you may remember, condemned the classic film
Zero Dark Thirty.
While some idiots rushed to echo her, we pointed out that of course the
Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee would condemn it --
Zero Dark Thirty
is an indictment against Feinstein who has served on the Intelligence
Committee and looked the other way on torture over and over. Feinstein
was having a hissy fit as a man shouted something to the effect of, "You
are betraying democracy when you assassinate justice!" She also whined
about how, she did not feel, there were enough capitol police. She
actually had it cleared twice. Medea Benjamin (of
CODEPINK) yelled, "Why, Dianne, why?" as the room was being cleared.
The
shouters were CODEPINKers -- not all CODEPINKers were shouting,
however. Not shouting but in that section was Ann Wright. Some of the
people around her had painted their hands pink, some held up signs --
and I would say they wree the size of construction paper, not big signs,
8 1/2 by 11 inches. There was one large sign calling Brennan a
national security risk. DiFi had a fit about those as well insisting
there would be no signs allowed in the hearing either. After wasting
everyone's time
clearing the room twice -- and scowling (sadly, her face has frozen like
that), DiFi wanted to then lecture everyone present.
She
wanted those present to know what good citizens didn't do. "They don't
show signs." What a bully in a bad wig. And as she lost it repeatedly,
it was hard not to think how lucky she is that so many of the
Committee's hearings are closed to the public. Feinstein is the public
servant who loathes the public.
Why were people upset? Because President Barack Obama nominated John Brennan to be the CIA Director.
And
probably because they knew Feinstein was going to rubber stamp him.
What else was she going to do? She served on the "Intelligence
Committee" when torture took place. She was briefed on it and she
looked the other way. She buried it and she mitigated it and she's part
of the refusal to hold people accountable for torture. In a
functioning government, she would have been forced to resign from the
Committee. Instead, she tries to pretend she has the ethics to
criticize a film that exposes the widespread use of torture.
In
her ridiculous opening remarks, she pushed the lie that civilian deaths
from drone strikes were minimal ("typically been in the single digits")
and claimed that she and the Committee had provided strong oversight
("significant oversight") of The Drone War. She was lying again. When
Feinstein lies, her voice goes flat and in the roof of the mouth. It's a
weird sound but that's her tell. And she was lying in her opening
statements. Those that don't know her tell had only to listen to
Senator Ron Wyden's first exchange to grasp that there has been no
oversight and DiFi was lying.
If you're new to The Drone War,
The World (PRI) has created
this folder of audio reports on the topic.
Drones are robot planes. The operator isn't in the plane, they're
elsewhere. The drones capture video. That's generally a live feed.
When we speak of the drones involved in The Drone War, we're speaking of
drones with more than video capability. These drones are weaponized.
John Brennan is usually referred to by the press as the "architect."
DiFI
and others would claim that they wanted to focus on CIA issues. But no
one asked the obvious: Can you keep it in your pants or will you also
sleep around making yourself a security risk? That is why the hearing
was held in the first place. CIA Director David Petraeus had to step
down because he couldn't keep it in his pants. When that happens, maybe
the first question to the next nominee should be about the topic that
forced a resignation?
Brennan noted he joined the CIA in 1980.
That was about all the facts he could muster in his opening remarks but
that was probably one more factual truth than Chair Dianne Feinstein
managed in her long, long opening remarks. Brennan was yammering away
about his family -- no, that really didn't belong in the opening
remarks, when a man began shouting about a teenager (I believe he was
referring to 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki who was an American and
who was killed by a drone) when DiFi felt the need to pause the
hearing. As the man was led away, he urged the Committe, "Stand up
against torture, stand up against drones to not confirm this man."
Brennan
then wanted to go on about his own three children. A woman stood, held
a baby doll over her head and shouted, "Speaking of children, I speak
for the mothers of children who are killed in the drone strikes in
Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia and anywhere else. And the Obama administration
refuses to tell Congress. They won't even tell Congress what countries
we are killing children in. Senator Feinstein, are your children more
important than the children of Pakistan and Yemen? Are they more
important? Do your job! World peace depends on it. We're making more
enemies -- "
DiFi's not really good with children, never has
been. And she only has one child, for the record. That's probably
confusing because she's on husband number three, but she only has one
child. (And that's obvious by her inability to handle anything that
strays from a schedule.)
"The next time," Feinstein informed Brennan, "we're going to clear the chamber and bring people in one by one."
What
a petty little tyrant. I've been at hearings at the height of the Iraq
War. I've seen real outbursts, prolonged ones. No one had to call a
recess, no one had to pout. (In fairness, DiFi's unhappy life has made
the corners of her mouth sag so she forever appears to be pouting.) A
woman then stood up with a list of the names of children killed in The
Drone War.
It was too much for Dianne Feinstein. She insisted
that the room be cleared and "that the CODEPINK associates not be
permitted to come back in."
After a recess, the hearing
started again and it wasn't good for Brennan. Without CODEPINK
interrupting, it became obvious how like Arvin Sloane he was. He sounds
like him, he looks like him. Arvin Sloane was the maniac and CIA
baddie on Jennifer Garner's
Alias. Ron Rifkin played him.
Despite
yammering away forever, neither Feinstein nor Breenan noted the reality
that Alice K. Ross, Chris Woods and Sarah Leo did in December with "
The Reaper Presidency: Obama's 300th drone strike in Pakistan" (
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism).
None wanted to note that, in Pakistan alone, The Drone War has resulted
in about 3,468 deaths -- with as many as 893 of those being civilians.
176 of those were children. So, no, DiFi's lie about each year's
civilian killed are not in the single digit. Well they may be, the
'report' the Senate Intelligence Community gets may say that. But it's a
lie if it does. DiFi also 'forgot' to mention that the United Nations
Vice Chair Saxby Chambliss: As Deputy Executive Director, you received the daily updates from the time of Abu Zubaydah's
capture throughout his interrogation including the analysis of the
lawfulness of the techniques putting you in the position to express any
concerns you had about the program before any of the most controversial
techniques -- including water boarding -- were ever used. Now we found a
minimum of 50 memos in the documents within the 6,000 pages that -- on
which you were copied. What steps did you take to stop CIA from moving
to these techniques you now say you found objectionable at the time?
John
Brennan: I did not take steps to stop the CIA's use of those
techniques. I was not in the chain of command of that program. I
served as Deputy Executive Director at the time. I had responsibility
for overseeing the management of the Agency and all of its various
functions and, uh, I was aware of the program. Uhm, I was uh-uh cc-ed
on some of those documents but I had no oversight of it. I wasn't
involved in its creation. I had expressed my personal objections and
views to some Agency colleagues about certain of those EITs such as
water boarding, nudity and others where I professed my personal
objections to it. Uh, but I did not try to stop it because it was -- uh
-- you know, something that was being done in a different part of the
agency under the authority of others. Uh, and it was, uh, something
that, uh, was directed by the, uh, the administration at the time.So
Brennan gave his silent approval. And he never took it to "the ones
directly above you," as Chambliss pointed out by listing all those
higher at the time than Brennan in the CIA. Confronted by Chambliss
with AB Krongard's remarks that Brennan was more involved in the torture
than he's letting on, Brennan fell back on "I don't recall." Buzzy
Krongard was Executive Director of the CIA. Asked by Chambliss about
the e-mails describing various torture techniques being sent to him,
Brennan insisted he got ton of e-mails but he wasn't in the loop on
torture.
Senator Ron Wyden started his first round of questioning by noting the meeting he and other senators had with Brennan last week.
Senator
Ron Wyden: As we discussed then, I believe the issues before us have
nothing to do with political party and have everything to do with checks
and balances that make our system of government so special. Taking the
fight to al Qaeda is something every member of this Committee feels
strongly about. It's the idea of giving any president unfettered power
to kill an American without checks and balances that is so troubling.
Every American has the right to know when their government believes it's
allowed to kill them. And ensuring that the Congress has the documents
and information it needs to conduct robust oversight is central to our
democracy. In fact, the Committee was actually created in response to
lax oversight of programs that involved targeted killings. So it was
encouraging last night when the President called and indicated that
effective immediately, he would release the documents necessary for
senators to understand the full legal analysis of the president's
authority to conduct the targeted killing of an American. What the
president said is a good first step towards ensuring the openess and
accountability that's important and you heard that reaffirmed in the
Chair's strong words right now. Since last night, however, I have
become concerned that the Department of Justice is not following through
with the president's commitment just yet. 11 United States Senators
asked to see any and all legal opinions, but when I went to read the
opinions this morning, it is not clear that that was what was provided.
And moreover on this point, with respect to lawyers, I think what the
concern is, is there's a double standard. As the National Security
Advisor and you volunteered to your credit, you are not a lawyer, you
asked your lawyers and your experts to help you and we're trying to wade
through all of these documents and the reason I'm concerned is that
it's not yet clear that what the president committed to has actually
been provided. And finally on this point, the Committee has been just
stonewalled on several other requests -- particularly with regards to
secret law. And I'm going to leave this point simply by saying, I hope
you'll go back to the White House and convey to them the message is not
yet following through on the president's commitment. Will you convey
that message?
John Brennan: Yes, I will, Senator.
Senator
Ron Wyden: Very good. Let me now move to the public side of
oversight, making sure that the public's right to know is respected.
One part oversight is Congressional oversight and our doing our work
here. The other is making sure that the American people are brought
into these debate. Just like James Madison said, this is what you need
to preserve a republic. And I want to start with the drone issue. In a
speech last year, the President instructed you to be more open with the
public about the use of drones to conduct targeted killings of al Qaeda
members. So my question is: What should be done next to ensure that
public conversation about drones so that the American people are brought
in to this debate and have a full understanding of what rules the
government's going to observe when it conducts targeted killings?
John
Brennan: Well I think this hearing is one way because I think this
kind of discourse between the legislative and the executive branch is
critically important. I believe that there needs to be continued
speeches that are going to be given by, uh, given by the executive
branch to explain our counter-terrorism programs. I think there's a
misimpression on the part of some American people who believe that we
take strikes to punish terrorist for past transgressions. Nothing could
be further from the truth. We only take such actions as a last resort
to save lives when there's no other alternative to taking an action
that's going to mitigate that threat. So we need to make sure that
there's an understanding. And the people that were standing up here
today, I think they really have a misunderstanding of what we do as a
government and the care that we take and the agony that we go through to
make sure that we do not have any collateral injuries or deaths. And
as the Chairman said earlier, the need to be able to go out and say that
publicly and openly, I think, is critically important because people
are reacting to a lot of falsehoods that are out there and I do see it
as part of my obligation and I think it's the obligation of this
Committee to make sure the truth is known to the American people and to
the world.It's a damn shame idiots like Glenn-Glenn
Greenwald were allowed and encouraged to hijack Zero Dark Thirty because
Kathryn Bigelow's film demonstrates what a liar Brennan is. There is
no mistaken impression (the real term, not "misimpression") on the part
of the American people. What's really going on, and this is in
Kathryn's film, is that "last resort" is not a last resort. These
people making these decisions are declaring everything a "last resort."
That's what the interrogation in the first act of the film is about.
The prisoner has no knowledge of a bombing that will take place in 24
hours. He is tortured. Over and over. "Last resort" and "threat"?
No, not in the 'ticking time bomb' sense that has taken up the bulk of
the discussion of terrorism.
Should people torture?
No.
It cheapens and deadens you, it destroys any real sense of a legal
system. But proponents use the ticking time bomb argument. This argues
that if you could stop Miami from being bombed in 24 hours if you were
allowed to torture a suspect, you should do it. This ticking time bomb
argument allowed for a lot of hiding. The torture was never about
something in 24 hours. It was about getting information -- something
interrogation has long done. Sometimes well, sometimes poorly. And as
the film makes clear, torture was allowed because an attack today or an
attack two years from now were all treated as an "immediate threat" and
torture was the first choice while being presented as a "last resort."
Brennan
grasps what idiots like Glenn-Glenn didn't. And Brennan is playing
word games with a Committee that's either too stupid to grasp that or
honestly doesn't care. And that's very important because if you're
going to infer that Americans can't be targeted on US soil and Brennan's
playing word games then we're being denied the reality that, as with
torture, the never-ending supposed threat (labled "immediate threat"
always by the government) will mean US citizens can be targeted with
government killings while on US soil. Anything else is lie and Brennan
told a lot of lies in the hearing.
RECOMMENDED: "
Iraq snapshot"
"
Violence, protests and rumors about Nouri's son co..."
"
The poodle as War Hawk"
"
Where is Happy Endings?"
"
More obstacles to employment"
"
Big news of the day"
"
propaganda"
"
The Post Office"
"
Do they ever shut up?"
"
Bad news for Star Wars"
"
I don't trust them"
"
Smash goes crash"
"
The Drone War and more"
"
Some people can justify anything"
"
THIS JUST IN! WAR CRIMINALS ENLIST!"
IraqiSpring
Jon Schwarz
