Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Few presidents have had as close a bond with their intelligence chiefs as Mr. Obama
Director Brennan showing his love for choking prisoners at the CIA black sites.
President Obama and CIA goon Brennan are BFF.
Just hours before he publicly responded last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee report accusing the Central Intelligence Agency of torture and deceit, John O. Brennan, the C.I.A.’s director, stopped by the White House to meet with President Obama.
Ostensibly, he was there for an intelligence briefing. But the messages delivered later that day by the White House and Mr. Brennan were synchronized, even down to similar wording, and the larger import of the well-timed visit was hardly a classified secret: After six years of partnership, the president was standing by the embattled spy chief even as fellow Democrats called for his resignation.
That’s not to say there was no friction between the West Wing and the C.I.A.’s Langley, Va., headquarters after the release of the scorching report. Irritated advisers to Mr. Obama believe Mr. Brennan made a bad situation worse by battling Democrats on the committee over the report during the past year. Some who considered Mr. Brennan the president’s heat shield against the agency when he worked in the White House now worry that since being appointed director, he has “gone native,” as they put it.
But in the 67 years since the C.I.A. was founded, few presidents have had as close a bond with their intelligence chiefs as Mr. Obama has forged with Mr. Brennan. It is a relationship that has shaped the policy and politics of the debate over the nation’s war with terrorist organizations, as well as the agency’s own struggle to balance security and liberty. And the result is a president who denounces torture but not the people accused of inflicting it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/us/politics/cia-chief-and-president-walk-fine-line-.html
This should put to rest the canards that President Obama is not in charge of the CIA or that he disapproves of what they do. They kill at his pleasure and discretion.
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Article seems to explain what a tough position Obama was put into after appointing Brennan Head of CIA. Brennan's stonewalling of the Torture Report (and other actions) caused reaction that Obama himself didn't approve of. But, because of the former closeness of his relationship with Brennan in the WH before the appointment--he was in a bind with loyalty to his former adviser who then contradicted Obama's own wishes to have the Torture Report released. IOWDS Brennan went rogue. 
From the NYT Article:
Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat on the committee, said on Saturday that he had yet to receive answers about Mr. Brennan’s exact role in the episode.
“To stonewall about getting information about what he knew and when he knew it is really unacceptable,” he said. “Brennan has gotten away with frustrating congressional oversight. He shouldn’t have gotten away with it, but so far he has.”
Several Obama advisers said privately that Mr. Brennan made a mistake by letting the situation grow so toxic. In October, Mr. McDonough flew to California to smooth things over with Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the committee chairwoman, and negotiate redactions to the torture report.
Last week Mr. Brennan became the agency’s prime defender, much to the chagrin of some of the president’s allies.
“There’s a difference between loyalty and leadership,” said Elisa Massimino, president of Human Rights First, an advocacy group. “Brennan may be showing loyalty to the agency by trying to make sure none of his people are in legal peril. Leadership would be if he used this crisis as an opportunity to make clear what the standards are going forward.”
As for Mr. Obama, advisers said they doubted he believed the interrogation program yielded useful intelligence but that he was unwilling to publicly contradict Mr. Brennan. Instead, the president made sure the C.I.A. got what it needed: cover against its critics.
Michael V. Hayden, the former C.I.A. director who has led the public defense against the Senate report, said he “deeply appreciated” Mr. Obama’s measured words about the tough choices his predecessor faced after Sept. 11 and his praise for the “patriots” of the C.I.A.
“Given what he’s said in the past,” Mr. Hayden said, “this is about the best we could have hoped for.”
“To stonewall about getting information about what he knew and when he knew it is really unacceptable,” he said. “Brennan has gotten away with frustrating congressional oversight. He shouldn’t have gotten away with it, but so far he has.”
Several Obama advisers said privately that Mr. Brennan made a mistake by letting the situation grow so toxic. In October, Mr. McDonough flew to California to smooth things over with Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the committee chairwoman, and negotiate redactions to the torture report.
Last week Mr. Brennan became the agency’s prime defender, much to the chagrin of some of the president’s allies.
“There’s a difference between loyalty and leadership,” said Elisa Massimino, president of Human Rights First, an advocacy group. “Brennan may be showing loyalty to the agency by trying to make sure none of his people are in legal peril. Leadership would be if he used this crisis as an opportunity to make clear what the standards are going forward.”
As for Mr. Obama, advisers said they doubted he believed the interrogation program yielded useful intelligence but that he was unwilling to publicly contradict Mr. Brennan. Instead, the president made sure the C.I.A. got what it needed: cover against its critics.
Michael V. Hayden, the former C.I.A. director who has led the public defense against the Senate report, said he “deeply appreciated” Mr. Obama’s measured words about the tough choices his predecessor faced after Sept. 11 and his praise for the “patriots” of the C.I.A.
“Given what he’s said in the past,” Mr. Hayden said, “this is about the best we could have hoped for.”
