"liberal bloggers had mounted a campaign against him judging he'd been tainted by his service in the CIA at a time when the agency was using coercive interrogation methods"No, what the "quaint" liberal bloggers like Glenn Greenwald rejected was Brennan's on the record (News Hour & CBS News) support for
Gjelten then cites "several intelligence professionals and analysts interviewed by NPR, including Democrats" to suggest that liberal bloggers are against "anyone who served at the CIA during the Bush years." That is simply ridiculous. What Gjelten doesn't ask is whether anyone who actively supported (or quietly went along with) Bush's torture, kidnapping, illegal spying, and "fixed" intelligence programs should now lead US intelligence agencies. On the contrary, he turns to just such a disgraced CIA figure , John McLaughlin (can you say destroyed torture tapes?) to bolster the case for handing over US intelligence to just such people. McLaughlin states:
"Whoever steps into these positions has to be well prepared, schooled in the business, savvy about the world and have excellent judgement about how to proceed. In fact thinking back over recent transitions I would say that more than in any transition in my memory and I've served eight presidents there will be less time for on the job training this time around than at any previous moment."And just what "well prepared, schooled in the business, savvy about the world and...excellent judgement" folks was old Number 2 McLaughlin working with from 2000 to 2004? I guess he means all those super-smart, perky folks who missed 9/11 coming, fixed intelligence for the Iraq war, and were setting up enhanced detainee hotels in Guantanamo, Bagram, and Baghdad!
I just keep wondering how stupid NPR thinks its listeners are...
7 comments:
Condescending little fascists, aren't they? And let's not even talk about all that smartypants support of the mujahideen, which led to such brilliant consequences.
Not to mention how stupid THEY are. I think they really believe the stuff they're spewing.
How stupid do they think we are?
Well, probably they take their cue from the fact that people actually send them money, and regard them as a 'reliable' source...
Remember Bob Edwards?
They fired him because he was too smart.
Congratulation MTW for getting a citation from the My T Glennzilla. And WWoddy, thanks for cleaqring that up about Bob Edwards, I always wondered what happened to him.
I thought the firing of Edwards merely had to do with him being put out to pasture for a so-called fresher face - I mean, he could read off & defend the approved memo just like any other poseur at NoPR. But then, perhaps the objective was for to have an even more unquestioning, useful boob in the chair as 'Kreepy and Mundane have now proven quite ably.
Eh, what right have I to quibble as my boycott/disownment/ostracization still - and shall ever - hold firm.
Yours,
th' Bunny
"I just keep wondering how stupid NPR thinks its listeners are..."
The sad part is, i seriously doubt that NPR's announcers even question anything that Gjelton or Brennan (or any of the other myriad "experts" who parade through their studio) say.
They simply air what the experts say and then parrot it for good effect later, to make it sound like they actually know something.
NPR's announcers are not capable of analysis in any real sense of the word. That's why they rely so heavily on outside 'experts", so they won't have to do any analysis -- or think at all.
All they need to do is pick up the phone and dial a think tank expert.
I left this off my comment above:
NPR announcers don't think their listeners are stupid, because they don't think --- period.
Post a Comment