MORE Really Bad Obama Appointments: Rendition, Torture, Fraud

BlackAsCoal

Gold Member
Oct 13, 2008
5,199
530
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
Democracy Now! | Ex-CIA Officials Tied to Rendition Program and Faulty Iraq Intel Tapped to Head Obama's Intelligence Transition Team

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
This Is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House | ForeignPolicy | AlterNet
 
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
Democracy Now! | Ex-CIA Officials Tied to Rendition Program and Faulty Iraq Intel Tapped to Head Obama's Intelligence Transition Team

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

and to think that everyone was trying to figure out which candidate would give them more of a tax break. Small potatoes now , huh ?
 
and to think that everyone was trying to figure out which candidate would give them more of a tax break. Small potatoes now , huh ?

Small potatoes indeed.

I don't expect there will be many Obama supporters chiming in on this thread.
 
ok, this is bad, but I'm going to say it. I don't think a lot of Obama supporters (notice I did not say ALL)....will even know who half the appointees are. They will not be disappointed because they have not been aware of or have they participated in politics before. A lot are young, new, and part of the sect who came out in droves to vote for the first time. So the disappointment level might be low.

But for those of us who have been involved and paid attention to our government --the choices are....well, lets just say my cynical side keeps on getting stronger every day.

I thought McCain would be bad....but Obama has made appointments that not only do not speak of change, but, rather, speak volumes about the fact that he is just another puppet.

So the question is....who is really running the show?
 
How about you let the appointments be announced and THEN tell us what is wrong with them. All this speculation is a waste of time IMO.
 
I voted for him. I gave him money. I'll chime in.

I feel a bit betrayed. I understand that when president one must have staff who know shit (American Politics) from shinola (current world reality) but the line that the Obama transition team is looking like a Clinton staff reunion is sad.

I remain cautiously optimistic that the same team can look very different under two different coaches... I still want to wait until he has spent 100 days in office, doing the job before I send more money or join the opposition.

-Joe
 
ok, this is bad, but I'm going to say it. I don't think a lot of Obama supporters (notice I did not say ALL)....will even know who half the appointees are. They will not be disappointed because they have not been aware of or have they participated in politics before. A lot are young, new, and part of the sect who came out in droves to vote for the first time. So the disappointment level might be low.

But for those of us who have been involved and paid attention to our government --the choices are....well, lets just say my cynical side keeps on getting stronger every day.

I thought McCain would be bad....but Obama has made appointments that not only do not speak of change, but, rather, speak volumes about the fact that he is just another puppet.

So the question is....who is really running the show?


Good question.

I call them the Puppetmasters .. the men behind the curtain who pull the strings.

America IS a plutocracy by every definition.
 
How about you let the appointments be announced and THEN tell us what is wrong with them. All this speculation is a waste of time IMO.

Your post is a waste of time.

I'm talking about appointments already made .. or haven't you been keeping up?

Please explain Larry Summers .. who by the way believes you are inately stupid.
 
I voted for him. I gave him money. I'll chime in.

I feel a bit betrayed. I understand that when president one must have staff who know shit (American Politics) from shinola (current world reality) but the line that the Obama transition team is looking like a Clinton staff reunion is sad.

I remain cautiously optimistic that the same team can look very different under two different coaches... I still want to wait until he has spent 100 days in office, doing the job before I send more money or join the opposition.

-Joe



I totally agree with this. The same team under 2 coaches is completely different, hell just ask the Lakers prior to Phil Jackson! But, I'm abit disappointed so far
 
I voted for him. I gave him money. I'll chime in.

I feel a bit betrayed. I understand that when president one must have staff who know shit (American Politics) from shinola (current world reality) but the line that the Obama transition team is looking like a Clinton staff reunion is sad.

I remain cautiously optimistic that the same team can look very different under two different coaches... I still want to wait until he has spent 100 days in office, doing the job before I send more money or join the opposition.

-Joe

Thanks .. I respect that.

But it isn't just Clinton people he's picking. He's choosing pro-war Clinton people and supporters of George Bush and his maniacal policies .. such as the two mentioned in this thread.

Why is that? If he's truly against torture and the fraud of Iraq, why would he choose people who have been for both?

This has absolutely nothing ZERO with picking people who know their way around Washington and everything to do with his agenda.
 
I totally agree with this. The same team under 2 coaches is completely different, hell just ask the Lakers prior to Phil Jackson! But, I'm abit disappointed so far

Coaches and sports organizations chose players who are conducive to their style of play .. which is why the Lakers got rid of Shaq.

You don't announce you're going to run up and down the court then go recruit slow, plodding players.

This is a betrayal, plain and simple.
 
Your post is a waste of time.

I'm talking about appointments already made .. or haven't you been keeping up?

Please explain Larry Summers .. who by the way believes you are inately stupid.

yeah okay...which is why your post openeding with this

No appointees have been named as yet, but questions are already being raised about the people heading Obama’s transition efforts on intelligence policy.

I'm only going by your own words Black...

Personally, I have no problem with people being in the administration who were initially for the war in Iraq. The Bush administration presented intelligence showing Iraq was a threat...people believed it. I'd have a problem with him appointing someone who STILL believed the war in Iraq was a good idea and that we should stay.

I'm curious... who exactly do you think he should appoint to these positions BAC? There is an 8 year window when the white house was democratic in the last 30 years. There aren't, in fact, that many people who have the knowledge and/or experience to handle these jobs who adhere to the Democratic ideals. He can't go into the private sector and pluck out obsecure people to appoint to these positions. He's picking a team, that in the past, ran a very effective and successful government and I guess I don't see what the problem with that is.

Would it be so terrible to go back to the country being the way it was under Clinton, globally and financially?

I know you're an anti-war person. I know you're main bitch is the War and you think on 1/21/09 he should pull all our troops out of Iraq and probably even afghanistan but that's just not realistic so you should get over it already.
 
When I see what he does once in office working with these people, then I will make a decision.

The right and some others are already trying to sabotage his future efforts by attacking his current appointees as not "change" enough.


As to his supporters not knowing who they are, it's the same for supporters ont he right. Only a small number of people with strong poltical interests follow this stuff.
 
and lest we forget...as President he has final say.... Bush allowed and encouraged the hawkish behavior.
 
Coaches and sports organizations chose players who are conducive to their style of play .. which is why the Lakers got rid of Shaq.

You don't announce you're going to run up and down the court then go recruit slow, plodding players.

This is a betrayal, plain and simple.

I was referring to the Lakers having Shaq/Kobe before Phil and couldn't win, get Phil, and win 3 titles
 
I've always said Obama was a centrist, in the Bill Clinton mold. And Cons laughed at me for that assertion.

The funny thing is, to many cons, for the last 6 months Obama was a radical, muslim marxist who palls around with terrorists.

Now, some of those same Cons are claiming Obama is a warhawk Neocon who is a Clinton retread, someone who wants to continue the Bush policy of torturing and rendering suspected muslim terrorists.
 
yeah okay...which is why your post openeding with this



I'm only going by your own words Black...

I was speaking of far more than just his intelligence appointees .. but if it causes you no concern that he chose people who have been behind torture, rendition, and the fraud of Iraq to pick his intelliegence appointments, then I'm sure that his picking Summers, who holds the beliefs of an insane racist .. so much so that he was chased from the world bank and Harvard because of his insane beliefs .. one of which is that you're stupid .. doesn't bother you at all.

Personally, I have no problem with people being in the administration who were initially for the war in Iraq. The Bush administration presented intelligence showing Iraq was a threat...people believed it. I'd have a problem with him appointing someone who STILL believed the war in Iraq was a good idea and that we should stay.

Personally. I do .. and during the primaries, so did he.

If "good judgment" was the recognition that the inavsion of Iraq was a bad idea .. why hasn't he picked anyone who had that "good judgment?"

I'm curious... who exactly do you think he should appoint to these positions BAC? There is an 8 year window when the white house was democratic in the last 30 years. There aren't, in fact, that many people who have the knowledge and/or experience to handle these jobs who adhere to the Democratic ideals. He can't go into the private sector and pluck out obsecure people to appoint to these positions. He's picking a team, that in the past, ran a very effective and successful government and I guess I don't see what the problem with that is.

Would it be so terrible to go back to the country being the way it was under Clinton, globally and financially?

I know you're an anti-war person. I know you're main bitch is the War and you think on 1/21/09 he should pull all our troops out of Iraq and probably even afghanistan but that's just not realistic so you should get over it already.

You're right .. war and the mass-murder of innocents for profit is an issue I will not compromise on.

To suggest that there aren't brilliant qualified people who haven't supported oir been a part of the financial crisis we find ourselves in is quite ridiculous.

The Summers Conundrum

We all know in the backs of our minds that Barack Obama's incredible victory will eventually be followed by disappointment. But does it have to come so soon, and hit so hard? The answer will be yes, if Lawrence Summers is named treasury secretary in the president-elect's cabinet, as many observers believe will be the case. Summers was one of the key architects of our financial crisis--hiring him to fix the economy makes as much sense as appointing Paul Wolfowitz to oversee the Iraq withdrawal. And when you look at the trail of economic destruction Summers left behind in other crisis-stricken countries who sought his advice in the past, then "terror" might be a more appropriate word than "disappointment."

The conventional wisdom is that Summers is the "centrist" choice--Fareed Zakaria ("I think Summers is an extraordinarily brilliant guy") and David Gergen ("Larry Summers would be superb at this job"), two titans of centrism, both weighed in Sunday on the Stephanopoulos show in favor of Summers. And yet so far the debate over Summers has been largely confined to two outrageous moments in his career: his 1991 World Bank memo calling Africa "UNDER-polluted," and his more recent declarations, while serving as president of Harvard, about women's genetic inferiority in math and science. By themselves, these two incidents might be dismissed as merely provocative in a maverick-moron sort of way, as many of Summers' supporters argue; but in the context of Summers's track record, in which he oversaw the destruction of entire economies and covered up cronyism and corruption, his Africa memo and sexist declarations aren't exceptions but rather part of a disturbing pattern.

From the start, Summers has been on the wrong side of Obama's supporters. In 1982, while still a graduate student at Harvard, Summers was brought to Washington by his dissertation advisor Martin Feldstein, the supply-side economist, to serve on Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors. Those first years in the Reagan administration were crucial in the right-wing war against New Deal regulation of the banking system and financial markets--a war that Reagan's team won, and that we're all paying for today.

---

In light of all of the corruption, cronyism and devastation that have marked his career, Summers' statements about an under-polluted Africa or intellectually-inferior women no longer seem like provocative eccentricities but part and parcel of the Summers shtick. And now there's talk that President-elect Obama may hand the keys to national treasury to Summers--meaning that he'll be in charge of overseeing a trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of the entire financial industry, a process already rife with conflicts of interest, cronyism and corruption--as detailed by Naomi Klein.

The bailout, as currently implemented, threatens to devastate America's economy much as Russia's and Lithuania's were devastated before. The idea that this is exactly the right time and place to put Larry Summers in charge of our economy's future is so frightening that it makes the Sarah Palin vice presidential choice seem almost quaint by comparison. Let's hope the rumors are wrong.

more at link
The Summers Conundrum
 
Last edited:
I voted for him. I gave him money. I'll chime in.

I feel a bit betrayed. I understand that when president one must have staff who know shit (American Politics) from shinola (current world reality) but the line that the Obama transition team is looking like a Clinton staff reunion is sad.

I remain cautiously optimistic that the same team can look very different under two different coaches... I still want to wait until he has spent 100 days in office, doing the job before I send more money or join the opposition.

-Joe



Cautiously optimistic.. does anyone remember when they whisked hillary away in the dark of night to Feinsteins house????? The deal was done on that night... like jeramiahbullfrog said,, bill is riding dirty... lol..
 

Forum List

Back
Top