by Frank James
John Brennan, the long-time intelligence official who advised President-elect Barack Obama during the presidential campaign has asked that his name not be considered for the job as Central Intelligence Agency director.
Evidently, liberal bloggers had launched a campaign against him because of his links to the agency at the time it was conducting severe interrogations otherwise known as torture, and extraordinary renditions, also known as kidnapping, as part of the war on terror.
Brennan reportedly had only a tangential relationship to those practices. He wasn't their author. But guilt by association, in his critics' minds at least, was enough to ask him to beg off.
As Greg Miller of the Tribune Washington bureau reports:
The leading candidate to be CIA director under President-elect Barack Obama withdrew from consideration on Tuesday amid mounting opposition from liberal groups, marking the first time that the incoming administration was forced to bow to outside pressure on a high-level appointment.
The withdrawal of John O. Brennan, a former director of the National Counterterrorism Center and the top intelligence adviser to Obama, complicates the new administration's efforts to have a smooth transition on intelligence matters at a time when U.S. spy agencies are involved in two wars and confront the ongoing threat of Al Qaeda.
His withdrawal came just as Obama had finished naming most of his economic team and was turning his attention to top national security posts.
In a defiant letter to Obama, Brennan removed his name from consideration even while lashing out at critics who he complained had distorted his record on the controversial policies of the Bush administration, including coercive interrogation techniques such as waterboarding, and the transfers of terrorism prisoners to countries that engage in torture.
"It has been immaterial to the critics that I have been a strong opponent of many of the policies of the Bush administration such as the preemptive war in Iraq and coercive interrogation tactics," Brennan said. "The fact that I was not involved in the decision-making process for any of these controversial policies and actions has been ignored."
But Brennan had emerged as a target of mounting criticism from outside groups. In a letter sent to Obama last week and signed by about 200 psychologists, Brennan was described as a "supporter of the 'dark side' policies" of the Bush administration. The group cited news interviews in which Brennan, after leaving government, defended his former CIA colleagues.
Then there was this to consider:
"It does seem like a bit of a pre-emptive surrender," said Steven Aftergood, an intelligence expert at the Federation of American Scientists. "The drumbeat of criticism against him was not overwhelming. But taking him at his word, it appears that he wanted to remove issues such as waterboarding from the confirmation debate, even if he was not directly responsible for them. This raises the bar rather high for any future nominee."
Comments
Three Cheers for the Bloggers-
Posted by: Inky | November 26, 2008 9:48 AM
"But guilt by association, in his critics' minds at least, was enough to ask him to beg off."
.
Sounds like Frank James doesn't believe that guilt by association is valid. If I'm reading that right, then puzzle me this, Frank: are the Alabama State Troopers who loosed the attack dogs on and turned fire hoses on lawful protesters, guilty by their association with "Bull" Connor (the man who gave the orders)? Or would you use the phrase, "guilty in their critics' minds at least"?
Posted by: MJ | November 26, 2008 12:53 PM
That's an interesting reason to decline. If he had to decline under pressure from liberal groups because of the torture and rendering, then who in the CIA wouldn't be forced to decline for the same reason? Does that mean those "liberal bloggers" won't be happy with any CIA veteran regardless of his or her support or connection (or lack thereof) to those programs?
Posted by: John W. | November 26, 2008 5:36 PM