MORE Really Bad Obama Appointments: Rendition and Torture

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
Ex-CIA Officials Tied to Rendition Program and Faulty Iraq Intel Tapped to Head Obama’s Intelligence Transition Team

No appointees have been named as yet, but questions are already being raised about the people heading Obama’s transition efforts on intelligence policy. John Brennan and Jami Miscik, both former intelligence officials under George Tenet, are leading the review of intelligence agencies and helping make recommendations to the new administration. Brennan has supported warrantless wiretapping and extraordinary rendition, and Miscik was involved with the politicized intelligence alleging weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the war on Iraq.

John Brennan was deputy executive secretary to George Tenet during the worst violations during the CIA period in the run-up to the Iraq war, so he sat there at Tenet’s knee when they passed judgment on torture and abuse, on extraordinary renditions, on black sites, on secret prisons. He was part of all of that decision making.

Jami Miscik was the Deputy Director for Intelligence during the run-up to the Iraq war. So she went along with the phony intelligence estimate of October 2002, the phony white paper that was prepared by Paul Pillar in October 2002. She helped with the drafting of the speech that Colin Powell gave to the United Nations—[inaudible] 2003, which made the phony case for war to the international community.

So, when George Tenet said, "slam dunk, we can provide all the intelligence you need,” [inaudible] to the President in December of 2002, it was people like Jami Miscik and John Brennan who were part of the team who provided that phony intelligence. So what I think people at the CIA are worried about—and I’ve talked to many of them over the weekend—is that there will never be any accountability for these violations and some of the unconscionable acts committed at the CIA, which essentially amount to war crimes, when you’re talking about torture and abuse and secret prisons. So, where are we, in terms of change? This sounds like more continuity.

more at link
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/17/obama_taps_ex_cia_officials_tied

This Is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House

The prospect of Obama's foreign policy being, at least in part, an extension of the Clinton Doctrine is real. Even more disturbing, several of the individuals at the center of Obama's transition and emerging foreign policy teams were top players in creating and implementing foreign policies that would pave the way for projects eventually carried out under the Bush/Cheney administration. With their assistance, Obama has already charted out several hawkish stances. Among them:

-- His plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan;

-- An Iraq plan that could turn into a downsized and rebranded occupation that keeps U.S. forces in Iraq for the foreseeable future;

-- His labeling of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist organization;"

-- His pledge to use unilateral force inside of Pakistan to defend U.S. interests;

-- His position, presented before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), that Jerusalem "must remain undivided" -- a remark that infuriated Palestinian officials and which he later attempted to reframe;

-- His plan to continue the War on Drugs, a backdoor U.S. counterinsurgency campaign in Central and Latin America;

-- His refusal to "rule out" using Blackwater and other armed private forces in U.S. war zones, despite previously introducing legislation to regulate these companies and bring them under U.S. law.

Obama did not arrive at these positions in a vacuum. They were carefully crafted in consultation with his foreign policy team. While the verdict is still out on a few people, many members of his inner foreign policy circle -- including some who have received or are bound to receive Cabinet posts -- supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Some promoted the myth that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. A few have worked with the neoconservative Project for the New American Century, whose radical agenda was adopted by the Bush/Cheney administration. And most have proven track records of supporting or implementing militaristic, offensive U.S. foreign policy. "After a masterful campaign, Barack Obama seems headed toward some fateful mistakes as he assembles his administration by heeding the advice of Washington's Democratic insider community, a collective group that represents little 'change you can believe in,'" notes veteran journalist Robert Parry, the former Associated Press and Newsweek reporter who broke many of the stories in the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s.

Much more at link
http://www.alternet.org/audits/1076..._neocons_to_watch_for_in_obama's_white_house/
 
Honestly, I think he's done a fantastic job so far....

Here's why I don't:

I was watching a CNN show where Fareed Zakaria was interviewing several historians. The only one worth anything was Robert Caro. Anyway, Joseph Ellis tells this story that he just considers fabulously funny. He says, you know, when Obama became the first black president of the harvard law review, "all the blacks thought he was going to hire them" (exact quote). He then says "he hired one black". Now, he is smiling this whole time, but after he says "he hired one black" he giggled like a woman. It was just disturbing. It made me sick. I made note to never buy a book by this man.

Now, let's fast forward. There can be no doubt, regardless of who likes it, who doesn't like it - Barack Obama owes his nomination to the left of his party. And if he isn't nominated, he doesn't become President. Period.

It was liberals who gained him that nomination. Liberals.

And I guess the big joke now is; when barack obama became president, all the liberals thought he was going to hire them. He hired zero liberals. giggle.

I am pragmatic. I did not expect raging leftists, or across the board liberal appointments.

He has appointed not one liberal. Not one. People say, oh his economic team is there to carry out his vision, not their own. Yeah? Well, why does he need ALL center-right economic people to carry out his vision? Where is the liberal counter-balance? Did we not earn even one of them? Not even one? No Galbraith? No Stiglitz? No Krugman? We are talking about brilliant economists here. And they were right. They were right. It's a mistake. It's also really disloyal. You don't owe everything, but you owe something.

Also, and this c annot be repeated enough: These are the people who got us where we are today. Remember Einstein. He knew a thing or three.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to wait for him to make an actual policy mistake before I abandon my support for the man. I'm willing to give him some breathing room until he gets into office.
 
I'm going to wait for him to make an actual policy mistake before I abandon my support for the man. I'm willing to give him some breathing room until he gets into office.
It seems to me that who he is selecting for his cabinet and other positions of power is a significant part of his overall policy. The people he is putting into positions of authority are not drones to be commanded by the Great Messiah. They are all long time political infighters with their own beliefs, agendas, and way of doing things.

He ran on the slogan of change. And not just change from R to D, but "change the way things are done in Washington." as he put it. Appointing powerful Washington and long time financial system insiders does not, to me, indicate much hope for change in the way things are done in Washington. In fact, from the appointments made thus far, it looks like the wrong guy got labeled "McSame".
 
Oh please. If he'd selected a bunch of people who didn't know his way around Washington, he'd be totally lost. Some degree of pragmatism is involved with these pics. He still has to work within the Washington establishment.
 
It seems to me that who he is selecting for his cabinet and other positions of power is a significant part of his overall policy. The people he is putting into positions of authority are not drones to be commanded by the Great Messiah. They are all long time political infighters with their own beliefs, agendas, and way of doing things.

He ran on the slogan of change. And not just change from R to D, but "change the way things are done in Washington." as he put it. Appointing powerful Washington and long time financial system insiders does not, to me, indicate much hope for change in the way things are done in Washington. In fact, from the appointments made thus far, it looks like the wrong guy got labeled "McSame".

Change isn't about appointing people who haven't worked in Washington and don't know how to get anything done there - you have change confused with stupidity.

And you are a chronic malcontent who hates liberals. You're complaining just to complain. the last thing you want is an actual liberal appointed, so please, stick the faux outrage.
 
Oh please. If he'd selected a bunch of people who didn't know his way around Washington, he'd be totally lost. Some degree of pragmatism is involved with these pics. He still has to work within the Washington establishment.

He doesn't have to pick an all center-right economic team. This a fantasy that the left is telling itself, and trying to tell me. I've been pretty stricken by how many liberals are all over blogs, including some very smart ones who should know better, writing pretty fairy tales. Some of them are convinced that Obama is picking a center-right economic team so that he can pursue a center-left economic strategy.

Delusional.
 
I'll wait to see the cards when they're put down.

But really now. The guy ran on a platform of giving tax cuts. Since when did he give anyone the impression (other than the idiots who thought he was/is a socialist) that he was going to sweep into office holding a hammer and scythe? He's never been exceptionally left economically.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to wait for him to make an actual policy mistake before I abandon my support for the man. I'm willing to give him some breathing room until he gets into office.

Did you give Bush the same "breathing room" before you started to criticize him?

All through the general election I kept hearing people saying "He 's only saying what he has to say to get elected" .. now that's he has been elected .. now we should wait .. for what .. more body bags, more Bush policies carried out in your name?

I recognize how difficult it must be to realize that you've been played by soaring speeches and a mindfuck called "Change we can believe in."

The election is over brother, time to think about America, not one man's personal journey to glory.
 
I'll wait to see the cards when they're put down.

But really now. The guy ran on a platform of giving tax cuts. Since when did he give anyone the impression (other than the idiots who thought he was/is a socialist) that he was going to sweep into office holding a hammer and scythe? He's never been exceptionally left economically.

And of rescinding the bush tax cuts for the rich, which he is apparently now changing his mind about.

I know he's never been very left, but it bothers me that is what liberals are being told now. By other liberals. He is what he said he is. Really?

Because he beat McCain over the head, daily, on McCain's history of supporting deregulation. He said it was McCain's ideas got us into this situation.

And then he went and hired the very architects of that deregulation, the very godfathers.

I consider that being bamboozled.
 
He doesn't have to pick an all center-right economic team. This a fantasy that the left is telling itself, and trying to tell me. I've been pretty stricken by how many liberals are all over blogs, including some very smart ones who should know better, writing pretty fairy tales. Some of them are convinced that Obama is picking a center-right economic team so that he can pursue a center-left economic strategy.

Delusional.

Totally delusional.

Obama has great disdain for the left .. steming from his loss to Congressman Bobby Rush.

If standing against the Iraq War was "good judgement" .. why hasn't he picked any who did?

Why has he surrounded with those who supported the invasion of Iraq?

Answer: more war is coming.
 
I'll wait to see the cards when they're put down.

But really now. The guy ran on a platform of giving tax cuts. Since when did he give anyone the impression (other than the idiots who thought he was/is a socialist) that he was going to sweep into office holding a hammer and scythe? He's never been exceptionally left economically.

I expect honest conversation from you brother.

You know full well what we're talking about .. and it isn't Obama sweeping into Washington with a hammer and scythe.

Where is the change?

Why has he surrounded himself with Bush policy supporters, Israeli hardliners, and chickenhawks?

The one issue that got him the nomination was his "stand: against the invasion of Iraq .. Name the antiwar people he has selected for his administration.
 
Honestly, I think he's done a fantastic job so far....

I can see how that would be true if you supported George Bush, favored torture and rendition, don't care that we were lied into Iraq, don't care about the countless dead, favor harsher drug laws for victimless crimes, believe that non-white life is less valuable, believe that women are inately stupid, and believe that Israeli hardliners should be making foreign policy.

IF you believe all of that .. I can see your point .. otherwise, I cannot.
 
Obama's about to embark on a massive 2-year recovery program worthy of FDR - money for infrastructure, new environmental technologies and tax cuts for low/middle income workers; he is looking to create 2.5 million jobs in a new "green" economy.

And he isn't being "left" enough for the left, or embodying enough "change." Have people lost their minds?

I don't even care. I'm excited about the upcoming admin, and about many of the picks he's made so far. I can tell already that there is a set group on the left & a set group on the right who will not like anyone, or anything that is associated with him. It doesn't matter.
 
Obama's about to embark on a massive 2-year recovery program worthy of FDR - money for infrastructure, new environmental technologies and tax cuts for low/middle income workers; he is looking to create 2.5 million jobs in a new "green" economy.

And he isn't being "left" enough for the left, or embodying enough "change." Have people lost their minds?

I don't even care. I'm excited about the upcoming admin, and about many of the picks he's made so far. I can tell already that there is a set group on the left & a set group on the right who will not like anyone, or anything that is associated with him. It doesn't matter.

I'm not one of those people.

And as for this giant stimilus package, there's no choice. We're teetering on the edge of an actual depression. There are even people as crazy as Ben Stein starting brawls with Neil Cavuto, coming down for huge government intervention to prevent disaster. Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough are insisting on bailing out the big three.

There is nothing other than massive govt intervention that has any chance of pulling us back.

this doesn't change the fact that he just hired the very architects of the deregulation policies which mcCain supported - and Obama beat him on - to make up his entire economic team.

Nor does it change the fact that he has not hired one liberal thinker.

Maybe that's what you were lead to believe he would do, but it's not what I heard. I didn't hear "I'm going to shut liberals out of DC, and I'm going to hire the very godfathers of deregulation".

Never heard that. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in objecting to that. Nor do I think that I've lost my mind.
 
I'm not one of those people.

And as for this giant stimilus package, there's no choice. We're teetering on the edge of an actual depression. There are even people as crazy as Ben Stein starting brawls with Neil Cavuto, coming down for huge government intervention to prevent disaster. Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough are insisting on bailing out the big three.

There is nothing other than massive govt intervention that has any chance of pulling us back.

this doesn't change the fact that he just hired the very architects of the deregulation policies which mcCain supported - and Obama beat him on - to make up his entire economic team.

Nor does it change the fact that he has not hired one liberal thinker.

Maybe that's what you were lead to believe he would do, but it's not what I heard. I didn't hear "I'm going to shut liberals out of DC, and I'm going to hire the very godfathers of deregulation".

Never heard that. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in objecting to that. Nor do I think that I've lost my mind.

I wasn't really gearing that toward you, Darla, nor do I think you've lost your mind.

Here's the scoop on the economic team; it doesn't matter how "deregulate happy" they are, because no one who lived through the past 3 months would ever possibly suggest deregulation at this point; we're going to see more regulation, regardless. It also doesn't matter how liberal they aren't, because the policies that we're about to see implemented are going to be as liberal as anything we've seen since FDR.

You can say the circumstances warrant that, but Bush never would have gone that route if he had another 4 years, and McCain certainly wouldn't have.

I'm just not sure what else Obama could do to stop the incessant whining about "oh, some CHANGE." What we're about to see is a radical change of course. I also happen to like people like Daschle, Richardson & Napolitano, among others; I'm even cool with seeing Clinton at SOS.

I mean - does anyone really think he could have appointed Krugman as Treasury Secretary?
 
I wasn't really gearing that toward you, Darla, nor do I think you've lost your mind.

Here's the scoop on the economic team; it doesn't matter how "deregulate happy" they are, because no one who lived through the past 3 months would ever possibly suggest deregulation at this point; we're going to see more regulation, regardless. It also doesn't matter how liberal they aren't, because the policies that we're about to see implemented are going to be as liberal as anything we've seen since FDR.

You can say the circumstances warrant that, but Bush never would have gone that route if he had another 4 years, and McCain certainly wouldn't have.

I'm just not sure what else Obama could do to stop the incessant whining about "oh, some CHANGE." What we're about to see is a radical change of course. I also happen to like people like Daschle, Richardson & Napolitano, among others; I'm even cool with seeing Clinton at SOS.

I mean - does anyone really think he could have appointed Krugman as Treasury Secretary?

It's funny I assumed he couldn't appoint Krugman, which is why i was pulling for Corzine, who I really like. Now that he's appointed all of the guys who were wrong all along, I do kinda have to stop and ask; gosh, why couldn't he have appointed Krugman, the guy was right all along? I mean, it is kind of ironic.

I just feel that he has put up a sign, Liberals Need Not Apply. And I think that if you want me to accept bipartisanship, fine, but where is the bi part? I can't be bisexual if I only sleep with men.

I think that the liberal ideology, having been right about so much, deserves one of their top thinkers, at least one, more really, getting a top appointment. I'm so tired of liberals being frozen out, not taken seriously. You are talking about people who are brilliant and who have the credentials to prove it. Why do they have the cooties?
 
Back
Top