DOWNLOADS: (1732)

PLAYS: (941)

Embed

It's hard to tell sometimes whether Bill O'Reilly is a dumbass or a liar.

F'r instance, here's his Talking Points Memo from last night, discussing John Brennan's retort to Republican critics:

Well that statement has caused major controversy. But there is no question Mr. Brennan is comparing criminal recidivism like robbers to Al Qaeda.

That's where "Talking Points" has a problem. We are in a war with the jihadists. The Obama administration does not say that, with the exception of the State of the Union, but it's the truth. And I believe truth is a powerful weapon in defeating the Islamic killers who are trying to destroy us.

Actually, President Obama himself has said it numerous times in the past several months well beyond the State of the Union address -- for instance, in his January 7 press conference on the Underwear Bomber, reproduced in the video above:

We are at war. We are at war against al Qaeda, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them.

He also referenced it in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, and his January 2 radio address, and in a March 2009 address.

And Obama's far from the only one. Here's John Brennan, on August 9, 2009, explaining exactly what the administration's terminology is and why they use it:

As many have noted, the president does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism.' ... Instead, as the president has made clear, we are at war with al-Qaida, which attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 people. We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al-Qaida’s murderous agenda. These are the terrorists we will destroy. These are the extremists we will defeat.

It's tempting to think that O'Reilly just spewed out this line, assumed it was true, and was too arrogant to have someone on his oft-touted research staff fact-check it. Because if they had, of course, they'd have found out the Obama administration quite regularly references the fact that we are at war with the "jihadists".

Of course, the fact that he has such a staff and he said it anyway kinda makes you suspect he's just lying through his teeth, doesn't it?

DOWNLOADS: (678)

PLAYS: (2318)

Embed

John Brennan, who isn't beloved by the left has actually been speaking up for the administration quite forcefully against the Republican bedwetter attacks on the way Obama is handling our national security. For conservatives, that's a little too much for them to handle.

mcjoan writes about the always pathetic Kit Bond, who is now calling for Brennan to be fired because they aren't used to being called terrorist enablers.

Republicans are back to their usual election year trick of fear-mongering, attacking--of all people--John Brennan, the former Bush director of the National Counterterrorism Center and current counter-terror chief. Kit Bond has called for him to step down, primary because Brennan has been taken the lead in fighting against Republicans attempts to protray Obama as weak on national security. The White House is on the offense...read on

Chris Wallace then dutifully did his part as a GOP shill to help embrace conservative criticisms of the president by feigning outrage over what Brennan had to say to his pals yesterday on Fox's Happening Now with Jane Skinner:

Wallace: Well, I don’t know if there’s a precedent or not, but it really is more a matter of the kinds of things Brennan has said. He went on one of the Sunday talk shows – not Fox News Sunday – last week, and really went after the Republicans. And then he had an article in USA Today on Tuesday, in which – and I don’t have it in front of me – he basically said, and this is pretty close to a quote, that the politically motivated criticism of opponents served the purposes of Al Qaeda.

That gets awfully, ah – and the Republicans certainly were offended, and I think there’s a question as to whether or not that really crosses a line, the idea – I mean, you can agree or disagree on the way that Abdulmutallab was handled, or the decision to try the co-conspirators, the alleged co-conspirators in 9/11 in downtown New York, but for the top counterterrorism advisor for the president in the White House to be saying that criticism of those policies serves the purposes of Al Qaeda, ah, it kind of crosses a line.

And you know, we’ve seen this crossed before. We saw the Bush administration do it after 9/11. But to somehow equate political criticism, or policy criticism, with lack of patriotism really doesn’t do much to help the debate.

Wallace does admit that Republicans used this tactic immediately after 9/11, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's totally unacceptable for him.

George Bush and Darth Cheney attacked our patriotism because they wanted to invade a country that didn't attack us and lied in the process of selling the Iraq war to the American people. Then they made sure that anyone who disagreed with them was labeled either a traitor, anti-American or simply soft on terrorism.

It's kind of funny watching their heads spin in shock like Linda Blair after being played by Brennan, who played by their own rules to do so.

And as usual, Fox News gets involved in an all-out smear campaign against Brennan.

John Brennan was on MTP Sunday to talk about our national security and really took some shots at the Republicans who haven't found an issue they can turn into a game of politics.

He called out Kit Bond and other GOPers when he said that they were briefed fully and now they are crying like morons (my words) and acting like political hacks who do not have the best interests of protecting America. Politicizing the "Underwear Bomber" like they have only emboldens terrorists.

JOHN BRENNAN: Whether they be U.S. Citizens or non-U.S. Citizens. Richard Reid, Ahmed Razam (PH)-- Amari (PH) and others. They were brought into custody by law enforcement officials and then treated accordingly. So, there was no distinction. And in fact, the F.B.I.'s-- guidelines that they used, the F.B.I. domestic investigations and operations guide, was the implementation of the Attorney General guidelines that were finalized by Attorney General Casey in the last Administration. In December of 2008.

--

JOHN BRENNAN: And quite frankly, I'm tiring of politicians using national security issues such as-- terrorism as a political football. They are going out there. They're-- they're unknowing of the facts. And they're making charges and allegations that are not anchored in reality.

-

JOHN BRENNAN: On Christmas night, I called a number of-- senior members of Congress. I spoke to Senators McConnell and Bond. I spoke to Representative Boehner and Hoekstra . I explained to them that he was in F.B.I. custody. That Mr. Abdulmutallab was in fact talking. That he was cooperating at that point. They knew that in F.B.I. custody means that there's a process then you follow as far as mirandizing and presenting him in front of the magistrate.

None of those individuals raised any concerns with me, at that point. They didn't say, "Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be mirandized?" They were very appreciative of the information. We told them we'd keep them informed. And that's what we did. So, there's been-- quite a bit of an outcry after the fact. Where again, I'm just very concerned on behalf of the counterterrorism professionals throughout our government that politicians continue to make this a political football. And are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes.

Brennan also wrote a piece for USA TODAY called "We Need No Lectures," "bashing the GOP over their counterproductive behavior on our national security issues which is actually helping al-Qaeda in their efforts to create more fear in America..

Politics should never get in the way of national security. But too many in Washington are now misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe.

--

Cries to try terrorists only in military courts lack foundation. There have been three convictions of terrorists in the military tribunal system since 9/11, and hundreds in the criminal justice system — including high-profile terrorists such as Reid and 9/11 plotter Zacarius Moussaoui.

This administration's efforts have disrupted dozens of terrorist plots against the homeland and been responsible for killing and capturing hundreds of hard-core terrorists, including senior leaders in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond — far more than in 2008. We need no lectures about the fact that this nation is at war.

Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda. Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill. They will, however, be dismantled and destroyed, by our military, our intelligence services and our law enforcement community. And the notion that America's counterterrorism professionals and America's system of justice are unable to handle these murderous miscreants is absurd.

Liberals are no fans of Brennan, but when he speaks like a serious person we'll listen. Peter King, Kit Bond and all his pals should stop the fearmongering. Do they love al-Qaeda that much? Instead they continue the assault on the President. They have been in campaign mode ever since he took office -- regardless of the consequences.

Men on Football...not necessarily safe for work

Okay, we got beer chilling, the margarita mix standing by, some of my husband's incredible queso dip and chips and barbecued pulled pork sandwiches ready to go, HDTV fired up...it's SUPER BOWL TIME!!!!! Naturally, it's taking a little more than normal concentration to look at what's happening Sunday morning with the anticipation of getting together with friends and family to enjoy the Super Bowl. Nevertheless, concentrate we must, because it's a wide array of bobbleheads this morning, from new State of the Union host Candy Crowley with Hillary Clinton to temporary This Week host Jake Tapper with Timothy Geithner to sell out Fox News Sunday host Mike Wallace with Sarah Palin. Let the games begin.

ABC's "This Week" - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - John Brennan, President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism adviser; former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson; former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan; Ed Gillespie, former Bush White House counselor; Dee Dee Myers, former press secretary for President Bill Clinton.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Kathleen Parker, Andrew Ross Sorkin, Michael Duffy, Norah O'Donnell. Topics: How President Obama Plans to Recapture His Momentum; Obama's Advice: Ignore the 24/7 Cable and Blogosphere Trash Talk.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Is peace in the Middle East still an option? King Abdullah II of Jordan gives Fareed a rare and exclusive interview. Plus, Fareed sits down with (John Yoo,) the man who wrote the infamous "torture memos" for President Bush. It will be a fascinating discussion on terrorism, Guantanamo, and Presidential power.

CNN's "Amanpour" - Veiled Hatred? As France moves closer to a partial ban on the burqa, a leading European lawmaker declared Wednesday that the full Muslim veil is a symbol of political Islam and has no place in Europe. New Global Threat: former US National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski talks about the US and others turning their focus to defending interests of "public spaces."

"Fox News Sunday" - Former Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska; Mark Skoda, a talk radio host who helped organize the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tenn.

So, what's catching your eye this morning?

It makes sense, doesn't it? John Brennan was a defender of the Bush torture/interrogation regime that used Power Drills, Guns, Threats Against Children and other various goodies to try and get information out of suspects, and I heard on Countdown that he may now get to oversee the new Interrogation Force.

I guess it takes a man versed in torture to know how to keep everybody in line that uses interrogation tactics these days. We can't have a rookie over there, now can we?

UPDATE: As Leon Panetta threatened to quit the CIA...

Glenn Greenwald says:

GOP Congressman Peter King -- the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee -- had this rancid outburst today in Politico regarding Eric Holder's decision to investigate whether laws were broken by the Bush administration's torture:

"It’s bullshit. It’s disgraceful. You wonder which side they’re on. [It's' a] declaration of war against the CIA, and against common sense. . . . When Holder was talking about being 'shocked' [before the report's release], I thought they were going to have cutting guys' fingers off or something -- or that they actually used the power drill. . . "

Pressed on whether interrogators had actually broken the law, King said he didn't think the Geneva Convention "applies to terrorists."

Never mind that the Supreme Court in Hamdan ruled exactly the opposite: that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to all detainees, including accused Terrorists. Never mind that the War Crimes Act makes it a felony to inflict "prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from . . . the threat of imminent death; or the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering. . . ." and that these acts are therefore criminal whether or not King likes them.

Never mind that scores of people have died -- not merely been threatened with death -- in American custody as a result of "interrogation tactics." Never mind that Ronald Reagan signed the Convention Against Torture which compels the U.S. to prosecute anyone authorizing torture; that the Treaty proclaims that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever . . . may be invoked as a justification of torture"; and that Reagan himself said the Treaty "will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today." And most of all, never mind that King has no idea whether these people are actually "terrorists" because the people we tortured were never given trials, never proven to have done anything wrong, and in many cases were -- as federal courts have repeatedly found and as the CIA IG Report itself recognized -- completely innocent...read on

DOWNLOADS: (375)

PLAYS: (954)

Embed

Joe Lieberman was acting like a petulant child on FOX News Sunday when he talked about a letter he sent to John Brennan, which scolded the White House for omitting the phrase "Islamic extremism" from a national security document.

This is playing to his FOX News and right wing hawkish base, but only Michael Savage would care about this. He sounded more like a wannabe Rush Limbaugh talk show host than an elected (unfortunately) member of Congress. And because his argument makes no sense at all.

The Connecticut independent revealed that he wrote a letter Friday to top counterterrorism adviser John Brennan urging the administration to "identify accurately the ideological source" of the threat against the United States. He wrote that failing to identify "violent Islamist extremism" as the enemy is "offensive."

The letter was written following reports that the administration was removing religious references from the U.S. National Security Strategy -- the document that had described the "ideological conflict" of the early 21st century as "the struggle against militant Islamic radicalism."

Lieberman told "Fox News Sunday" this isn't the first time the Obama administration has tried to tiptoe around referring to Islam in its security documents and that it's time to "blow the whistle" on the trend.

"This is not honest and, frankly, I think it's hurtful in our relations with the Muslim world," Lieberman said. "We're not in a war against Islam. It's a group of Islamist extremists who have taken the Muslim religion and made it into a political ideology, and I think if we're not clear about that, we disrespect the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are not extremists."

Would any person in law enforcement or national security do anything differently in protecting the country against an attack if the label that was being used is changed? Nope.

And did you catch the creepy grin that came over his face when he was talking about blocking the new Nukes treaty if he didn't get his way there either?

Why did FOX even put him on opposite a Republican anyway? Who does he represent when he's on TV? He campaigned with John McCain and wanted to be the republican VP candidate in 2008 so I guess this is their idea of being 'fair and balanced.'

DOWNLOADS: (656)

PLAYS: (761)

Embed

(h/t David)

From This Week With(out) George Stephanopoulos, national security advisor John Brennan talks about the loss of seven CIA officers in the recent Afghanistan suicide bombing:

MORAN: This has been a hard week for the CIA. There were seven CIA officers killed in a suicide bombing on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. What can you tell us about how that attack occurred, and how badly will it impact U.S. intelligence gathering in Afghanistan?

BRENNAN: Well, first of all, I think the tragic deaths of those seven CIA officers just underscores the tremendous bravery and the risk that these men and women of the CIA put themselves at every day. I think this nation owes them a tremendous debt of gratitude.

CIA is looking very carefully at the circumstances surrounding that attack and trying to make sure it doesn't happen again.

The CIA is on the front line, right along that border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. As you point out, it is going to take a toll as far as the people that are there, the expertise that we have. But the CIA is a tremendously resilient organization. I had the privilege to serve there for 25 years. It has some of the most dedicated men and women in this United States, and so therefore we're confident that the CIA is going to be able to rebound from this and be able to continue to prosecute this war against Al Qaida.

MORAN: Should they be out on the front line like that?

BRENNAN: Yes. This is a very, very dangerous threat that Al Qaida poses to us. We have to take those risks. We have to do it prudently, and that's why we have to learn from the attack, just like the attack on the 25th of December, the attack against the base in Khost. But we need to take those risks, because we're -- we need to be able to find out sort of who these individuals are, what they're planning and what their next steps are.

In the meantime, details are still murky:

A CIA investigation is under way into how the bomber was able to circumvent security at the base, apparently passing unchecked through an outer perimeter manned by Afghan contractors to enter the gym and detonate his explosive vest. He was said to be wearing Afghan army uniform, but the Afghan Ministry of Defence has denied he was a member of the security forces.

What is clear, given the number of CIA agents at the meeting, is that he was considered an important informant. One agent had flown in specially from Kabul.

When the CIA is used specificially to circumvent legal restrictions on the military, history shows their operations usually create more problems than they solve (i.e. Vietnam, Thailand, El Salvador). Maybe it's time we had a frank discussion about that:

The C.I.A. has always had a paramilitary branch known as the Special Activities Division, which secretly engaged in the kinds of operations more routinely carried out by Special Operations troops. But the branch was a small — and seldom used — part of its operations.

That changed after Sept. 11, 2001, when President George W. Bush gave the agency expanded authority to capture or kill Qaeda operatives around the world. Since then, Washington has relied much more on the Special Activities Division because battling suspected terrorists does not involve fighting other armies. Rather, it involves secretly moving in and out of countries like Pakistan and Somalia where the American military is not legally allowed to operate.