E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images
CIA director nominee John Brennan during a meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington on Jan. 31, 2013.
Amid new developments and revelations, President Barack Obama’s national security policies, past and future, are set to come under Senate scrutiny Thursday.
Most notably, Obama’s nominee to head the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, will address what role the targeted killings of terrorists, either by using drone strikes or other means, have played and should play in national security policy.
Questions about targeted killings intensified Monday after a report by NBC News revealed a Justice Department memo which argued it was lawful for the president to target U.S. citizens who are leaders of al-Qaida or “an associated force.” Brennan will be appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee for his confirmation hearing.
On Wednesday, an Obama administration official said the president had directed the Justice Department to give the congressional intelligence committees access to classified memos justifying the targeted killings policy. Until now the administration had refused to do this.
Addressing the past on Thursday will be Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as they testify before the Armed Services Committee about the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.
Senators on the panel -- especially Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. -- want to know how the U.S. military reacted to the attack, and what the Defense Department’s internal review revealed after the event.
The two hearings will feature contrasting political color: Republicans -- led by Graham, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire -- have been the ones who have made an issue of the Benghazi attack almost since it took place. They’ve implied that a full accounting of what happened was delayed until after the presidential election. Graham held up Obama’s nomination of Chuck Hagel to be defense secretary until he could get a chance to question Panetta about Benghazi.
But Obama’s drone policy -- directed largely by Brennan in his role as Obama’s counter-terrorism adviser -- has drawn criticism both from progressives on the left and those on the right who are fearful of an excessive concentration of power in the presidency.
On Benghazi, much is already known. In its report on the attack, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said last December that Panetta’s Defense Department and Hillary Clinton’s State Department hadn't jointly studied the availability of U.S. military forces to defend or rescue the U.S. diplomats in Benghazi in the event of a crisis.
The Pentagon’s Africa Command didn’t have planes, helicopters, or other forces close to Benghazi on the day of the attack. “The Djibouti base was several thousand miles away. There was no Marine expeditionary unit, carrier group or a smaller group of U.S. ships closely located in the Mediterranean Sea that could have provided aerial or ground support or helped evacuate personnel from Benghazi,” the report said.
As for Brennan and drones, Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of a new report called “Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies,” said Obama’s choice of him as CIA director “now places him as the lead executive authority over all CIA drone strikes. The real question is whether John Brennan’s move from the White House to Langley to be director of the CIA is in fact an effort for the CIA to get out of the drone strikes business.”
Zenko noted that Panetta recently said that the Pentagon, not the CIA, should be conducting the drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects.
But Zenko cautioned against those who would head into the Brennan hearing with high hopes for new information. Having read transcripts of the past 10 CIA director confirmation hearings, he said, “It would be unprecedented if there were an in-depth discussion about ongoing covert activities.” The Senate Intelligence Committee “simply doesn't work that way, especially under chairman Sen. (Dianne) Feinstein” of California, he said.
A memo from the Justice Department, provided to NBC News, provides new information about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration's controversial policies. NBC's Michael Isikoff reports.
Zenko added that the most useful line of questioning of Brenna would be regarding his conceptions of airpower. Brennan has repeatedly used the cancer analogy for air strikes killing terrorists without damaging the surrounding “tissue.”
“That's a dangerous, antiseptic, and unrealistic conception of military force,” Zenko said.
Interrogation vs. deadly strikes
But Obama spokesman Jay Carney told reporters at a White House briefing Wednesday, “Far fewer civilians lose their lives in an effort to go after senior leadership in al-Qaida” by using drone attacks “as opposed to an effort to invade a country with hundreds and thousands of troops and take cities and towns.” Implication: if you want to avoid another Iraq or Afghanistan, then support Obama’s drone policy.
Carney said Obama believes “that we need to move forward with more transparency as well as create, in his words, a legal framework around how these decisions are made.” But Obama believes he has the full constitutional authority to order targeted killings -- “transparency” or no transparency.
For those skeptical of Obama’s policy, there will be two other possible lines of questioning directed at Brennan:
- Do the foreign policy costs of Obama’s use of drones -- alienating and angering people in Muslim countries -- outweigh its benefits?
- Does the drone policy suggest that Obama would rather kill jihadists than capture them? Adding more detainees to those already held at Guantanamo -- a facility he pledged to close but hasn’t -- could amount to a political public relations headache.
The drone strikes have been unpopular in Pakistan and other countries. Making the case that drone strikes have high costs as well as benefits, the former U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, told Reuters recently, “What scares me about drone strikes is how they are perceived around the world. The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes … is much greater than the average American appreciates.”
Brennan has an opportunity on Thursday to rebut this view. He argued last August that “contrary to conventional wisdom, we see little evidence that these actions (drone strikes) are generating widespread anti-American sentiment or recruits” for al-Qaida. The targeted strikes against terrorists, he said, “are not the problem, they are part of the solution.”
Finally, Thursday’s Brennan hearing is a chance for senators on the panel to ask him whether Obama is using drone strikes as a less politically troublesome option than capturing detainees and putting them in Guantanamo.
This is an argument that former Bush administration officials such as ex-CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden and former CIA legal counsel John Rizzo have made.
Last week in a panel discussion at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank, Hayden said interrogating al-Qaida operatives is a vital source of insight into the terrorists’ plans and capabilities:
But he warned, “We have made it so legally difficult and so politically dangerous to capture that it seems, from the outside looking in, that the default option is to take the terrorists off the battlefield in another sort of way” – in other words, by killing them. This could result in a loss of valuable intelligence.
Rizzo said, “It’s always been in the agency’s institutional DNA to want to collect intelligence by all sorts of means, especially human intelligence. You can’t collect human intelligence from a dead guy.”
Related:
White House: Congress to get classified drone info
4 key questions about controversial Justice Department drone memo
Leave a Comment:
Come on McCain-Graham. Ruin his reputation and self respect with your political agenda. Go for his eyes.
anyone that believes that they are going to find out anything in these hearings is naive. All classified info,especially concerning the CIA is done behind closed doors.And what does it matter? they never get anything right anyway. 911? yeah,remember that one?
Yes, I do, Joe. And the CIA had it right on 9/11 ~ so did the FBI and damned near every other intelligence service in the world. The fault came with them not finding enough intelligence around the White House to understand the threat and take preventative action. There was nothing wrong with the covert intelligence ~ ~ it was the lack of ordinary intelligence in the Oval Office and over at Condi's NSA office that paved the unimpeded way for the 9/11 attacks. All of the post-mortems on the event bear this out.
ok heres another one WMD in Iraq. Go for it.
I don't know about the rest of you but that Brennan guy is a little creepy looking. Almost like he's been lobotomized.
and you arent?
Politicians should be required to trim their eyebrows. If they cant even take care of some basic personal maintenance, how can we expect them to pay attention to their job. Bushy eyebrows indicate someone that gave up long ago and is a bit too comfortable just getting by.
not that i don't agree with you but being a wookie even with a phd, one of God's hairiest of creatures I have 2 questions.
would that be contradictory of you to say?
Or are you a well groomed metro-sexual wookie?
The Cro-Magnon forehead is a dead give away
Metrosexual Wookies have an image to maintain, this may or may not involve at times a wax and a trim performed by a professional of course.
That is the best criticism you have, bushy eyebrows. Really.
...
This is all theatre by both sides. For every example you can give me of when democrats have acted unwisely I can give you one where republicans have. The same thing applies the other way around. Right now if Obama nominated Christ to head the church conservatives would become Muslims. What comes out of that is that our political leaders look petty, self serving and stupid. Maybe it is not just a look.
Attention Republicans, we believe that you are all members of a Terrorist organization that is a danger to the US.
Please report to the nearest military base for execution.
Thank you!
p.s. - please turn in your guns before reporting.
There's the civil tone libs are known for.
ralph why don't you try and take them to the bases. Have a feeling all they would turn into you is the bullets in the hi cap mags
You know I did read one line of the article that bothered me a bit.
But Obama believes he has the full constitutional authority to order targeted killings -- "transparency" or no transparency.
Gee, I thought this guy was all about transparency. Is that like he'a all about "fair and balanced"? It seems like he's just about the latest catch phrase. Maybe that on will be "Presidential Supremecy". I bet he can latch on to that one. We're not going to find out anything during this hearing. It's politicians interviewing a "spook". Sorry I guess that's not P/C. Call him a spy then. What do you think we'll actually find out?
forget brennan now that i think of it.
I would like to nominate the Bipolar Wookie w/PHD. He has been mostly a ghost of an existence all of our lives and so he would be best for covert ops. He also has a PHD so more than likely he's a few miles of intelligence past other Washington Dept Heads. (unless he got the PHD from a liberal college which may be a contradiction also but now I'm rambling, I think therefore I am. joy behar and piers morgan had a love child that looks like ET. blah blah
For crying out loud! Every little thing this administration tries to do to run this country, has to be a showdown! It's pathetic, and I am sick of it.
Every little thing this administration tries to do to ruIn this country,
You missed just one tiny little letter, so I fixed it for you.
That is supposed to be a capital "eye", but it looks like an "ell"
LMAO
What could be more sacred to a liberal in extremis and a worshiper of Rachel Maddow than the Fourth Amendment? Answer: Nothing – usually. If anyone told me forty years ago that I would be in debate with myself over our most valued civil libertarian guarantee I would have thought them ... well … nuts.
The very foundation of this nation’s oft touted superiority to other nations of less democratic inclinations lies embedded in the Fourth Amendment. It is a near sacred text brilliant in its conception so much so other nations emulate it. There is no more evidence of our Founders genius than their construct of the Fourth Amendment, an insurance policy to a democratic republic that mandates no one is above the law. No dictator, no potentate, no tyrant and, yes, even no democratic leader can think himself superior to its edict.
Recently, though, it has come under a challenge that heretofore would have been thought ridiculous to contemplate. The president is alleged to have bent the long arc of justice not toward justice but away from it. There is incredulity of a commander-in-chief who was a Constitutional Law professor in a prestigious academic institution to possess a so called “kill list.” Yes, Barack Obama, has, in this age of terror, in Star Trek fashion, allegedly gone where no man has gone before. The president has ordered drone killings abroad on his orders even to American citizens without evidence, without warrant and without those things mandated by the crystal clear Fourth Amendment.
He has been given a permission slip by his Office of Legal Counsel that drone strikes are legal even at home if he and others under his tutelage deem someone an existential threat to the republic. Not only can individuals be targeted by the president simply issuing the order but others who are seen merely walking or being in that person’s vicinity perhaps on the wrong side of sidewalk near the offender can be killed. This is unprecedented.
As I am writing this I cannot believe that this is by liberals debated AND YET it is debated by me. Glenn Greenwald, civil libertarian lawyer supreme, has been writing against this policy for months and indicting the Obama administration as being worse than the administration of George Bush.
Glenn Greenwald says: "… due process is guaranteed in the Constitution and judicial review of government accusations has been a staple of western justice since the Magna Carta"
But the people at the time of the Magna Carta, as pure as their motives may have been, did NOT face a world of nuclear dirty bombs or worse the total annihilation of western civilization.
I am a liberal and a staunch Democrat. Why do I not care if the president is going after treasonous vipers who have said, by their own words that they are in a holy war against the west and will stop at nothing, even if it takes generations to do so, to destroy the United States and all of its western allies?
Glenn Greenwald, when you are dying from leukemia because a dirty bomb exploded within the area you happen to be, then tell me how much you care about the Fourth Amendment for those terrorists who would, if they could, commit this dastardly act. The thought of living under a religious fascist state, ANY religious fascist state is to me more repugnant than the suspension of the Fourth Amendment for the cause of defeating our most virulent foes who would if they could eradicate us all. Yes, nothing one could say or nothing one could do would change the mind of an Anwar al-Alawaki or the minions he represents and the Obama administration has targeted them for elimination.
Until I see otherwise, until I see the president and his underlings who enforce his decree are in error, I continue to say IF ANYONE, ANYONE at all says they support the religious fascism that is an Al Qaeda world then I do NOT care what the president must do to stop them.
Moreover, I do NOT feel the least bit frightened, or the least bit constrained and you, Glenn Greenwald, by the very fact that you are writing the strong opposition to the president you do have the freedom to do it. No one that I know of is targeting you for observation or elimination. BUT if you said you would be willing to work for a world according to Al Qaeda -- one in which people are put to death or severely hurt for the MOST trivial reasons – the beautiful child Malala who merely wanted girls to be educated severely shot being an example – then I say the president MUST do everything in his power to STOP that from happening. If YOU, Glenn Greenwald, an admitted homosexual, were living in an Al Qaeda world you would NOT be living long.
Why the left allows these bestial acts done by extremists to go uncriticized, I have no idea. Rather it goes after those states in which people really do, for the most part live free! The left makes me question my own affiliation with it. I do not know where I fit but I do know that the west is infinitely superior to ANY religious fundamentalist state.
One must open one's eyes and deal with political realities not idealistic fantasy. This is NOT a game and this is not the same world that our Founders knew. As much as we want it to be probably, since 9/11, it never will be again!
As stated by David W. Johnson – writing for Salem Newsnet:
“225 years ago, as an aged Benjamin Franklin departed from the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a woman in the street called out: "Well Doctor Franklin, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Franklin replied back: "a republic if you can keep it”
Until it is proven otherwise, I believe that is just what the president is trying to do!
Very impassioned thesis, Natalie ~ but grounded more in emotion than common sense. When anyone, be s/he an American citizen or foreign subversive, calculates to inflict harm on the United States and its people, that person forfeits the right of protection guaranteed by the very Constitution s/he seeks to destroy. What the Hell is the matter with you people? A terrorist is simply that ~ a terrorist ~ and citizenship does not in the least ameliorate the danger that person poses for the United States and its loyal patriotic citizens. I recall the words of the prior administration ~ "we fight them there, or we have to fight them here." The more we can eliminate "there," the lesser the possibility they can eliminate many of us "over here." The Constitutional rights can be easily restored for targeted individuals ~ all they have to do is renounce their affiliation with terrorist groups and pledge anew allegiance to the United States. If you notice, none of them have taken this step, thus their intent is clear and eradicating them in any fashion ~ anywhere ~ is warranted and justified. Damn, you sympathizers make bleeding heart liberals look like Attila the Hun.
After closer study, I see that I have misjudged your post, Natalie. One has to wade through a lot of rhetoric to ascertain that you apparently are in support of the president's actions with respect to the drone issue and targeted terrorists. I apologize for my oversight ~ but after removing your name from the commentary, I stand by every remaining word.
Thank you. I thought when I wrote it that it came off as initially critical to the policy. But yes, if one reads further one sees that you and I, Jim, are in rather agreement. The Founders utterly did not see foreign issues as we see them today. Robert Oppenheimer KNEW that he had helped unleash a great darkness when he said taken from the Bagavad Gita upon the first explosion of the bomb -- "Now I am become death destroyer of worlds!" Sobering but never truer thoughts said! Western civilization and all the good it has done is, in my opinion worthy of being saved!
I believe that every one "working" within the U.S. Government, has taken an oath to defend this nation against ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic, so IF anyone is an enemy of the U.S> then take them out as quickly and as rapidly as possible. We DO NOT need another 9-11 wake up call.
So, I guess you would be in favor of banning Islam in the U.S.? After all, they are our biggest enemy. I'm not the one suggesting "taking them out", however. You are.
So if the President decides that someone, even an American, is an enemy of the United States, then we should "just take them out", right?
Don't really need any evidence that there is an actual threat to the country or it's citizens according to there little legal memo. You just need to decide that they are either Al-Queda or "an associated force". What EXACTLY is an "associated force"?
Doesn't that sound just a little bit vague to you? Doesn't that sound like the administration has taken it upon themselves to decide who is an "enemy" and who lives or dies? Especially since the President himself is sitting in the White House and simply picking out names from a list and saying who lives or dies?
What if the President decides that the NRA is "an associated force"? An extreme I know, but based on their legalese a valid question. After all they don't have to actually show that they're even going to attack anyone. There doesn't even have to be an actual threat. So the President decides to take out every member of the NRA because he's decided that they are ALL an "enemy" of the United States.
And by the way, the legal "finding" does NOT say that this "enemy" has to be overseas, only MSDNC keeps talking about Americans overseas. The legal finding says "an associated force", and that there does NOT have to be ANY evidence of a "imminent threat" to the United States.
And based on you saying, "IF anyone is an enemy of the U.S> take them out as quickly and rapidly as possible."
No presenting of evidence. No facing your accuser. Complete and total suspension of an American's Constitutional rights.
Barack Obama, judge, jury, and executioner, all rolled into one little package, deciding who is an "enemy" and whether someone lives or dies.
Yeah right. Exactly what the Constitution was based on, right?
Yes, banning Islam EVERYWHERE is a great idea. Like banning the National Socialist Party (NAZI) during WWII times. Islam has declared a holy war on everyone else, and they should pay the price.
Damned skippy, Cheryl. The jihadists chose to start this international war on the "infidels." If an American chooses to join the fight on the side of the jihadists, where the Hell is the logic that they are entitled to the protections that they have chosen to oppose through redirected allegiance? When one divorces his allegiance to the United States, he by extension also divorces himself from the protective rights guaranteed by the very document he chooses to destroy. Its not too hard to make that connection. Only rabid political bias and prejudice hinders it from being a natural rationale.
Seems ironic to see the warhawks questioning the drone policy. I suppose if we weren't using drones the hawks would accuse Obama of weakness, and now that we are they accuse him of being a tyrant.
I get the sense that its not about drone policy, but about Obama. Their opposition to him on any matter has become ludricrous. If he said he was joining the Tea Party they would all become progressives. Its sad. Their hatred of the President is palpable. People can feel that. Thats why they're losing elections.
If Obama was not taking out Al Qaeda with our drones the teabaggers would be screaming " he is weak on national defense". "He is abdicating his responsibility to keep American safe". But since he is killing Al Qaeda and the traitors who associate with them, now your screaming about depriving our enemies of their "due process" rights. I would note a few teabaggers are not making this argument but those that are - piss off. Al Qaeda attacked us, gave those dead on 9/11 no due process, are plotting 24/7 to attack us and our allies so they get no due process. All they get is a drone right in the kisser. As far as American's who are conspiring with Al Qaeda, they are traitors, the lowest form of scum and they have waived their due process rights so they also get a drone in the kisser.
Your same logic applies to a serial killer, so I'm assuming you are in favor of the death penalty?
I think this is a bad policy, but if it goes into effect (and this may have been mentioned already) then the president, and only the president should be the one authorized to give the order. No hiding behind subordinates, no plausible deniability, no blame games. If an American dies in such an attack, then we'll know that the president, and no one else, gave the order, and he should be able to justify his decision to the people.
If we are not supposed to capture these idiots and torture them until they cough up the rest of the crew in their terrorist organizations, then we might as well just kill them. The war is on, timmies, and they fired first. Islam has found it necessary to wage death on Americans, and now it's been back on them.
All they have to do is say "we're done" and guarantee that there will be no more terrorist attacks, and we will wind down and leave them alone. Say it, Achmed: "We surrender". Good thing for them I'm not president. There wouldn't be a mosque still standing by Valentine's day.
I never thought I would live to see Americans stand in defense of anyone pledged to the destruction of our nation and its people. It makes no difference of the perpetrator was born on the 4th of July in the rotunda of the Capitol Building. If that person takes up arms against the US and works toward its destruction, that individual is a simple traitor ~ regardless of birthright ~ and deserves to be eliminated. At some point that individual forfeits the right to be protected by the very country he has chosen to destroy. Moreover, those who sympathize with this traitor are themselves worthy of closer observation ~ for no true American defends one who has pledged himself to the destruction of the United States.
Military spending supports the drones.Here in NV,Crecch airField is where they are,flown.I knowPilots that fly and kill durring the day from here and then go home at night without having to go to the battlefield.
Use them to seek out all the drug pot farms,and illegal gun running.
When the Senate of the United States convenes with questioning on these issues to Mr. Brennan, be sure to address the matter of domestic terror demonstrated against innocent Americans (and I am not speaking of only those of Middle-Eastern descent), in situations where there have been unprecedented acts of terror inflicted to intimidate, steal personal property, obtain and take real property, defame and damage reputations of innocent civilians as an act of power.
Ask why sheriffs and police chiefs have been permitted to engage in combat-like or SWAT team hostility against innocent United States families into their homes.
Further, discover where the attitude that "we run the nation now" among FBI agents is originating from.
Where is it in the Bill of Rights that supports that law enforcement agencies at the local level may destroy United States citizens with no prosecution or cause seriously unlawful acts to terrorize them?
Show this nation how it is that a local police officer may take from an innocent civilian anything he or she pleases for their own benefit and to destroy the good reputation of that civilian before the public, but when his or her case is dismissed – let that innocent civilian linger in a state of defamation caused by fabricated statements made under perjury to a court in serial offenses against the administration of justice?
Because under these conditions – these law enforcement agencies act as Al Qaida operatives in much the same way.
Indistinguishable by their actions as a direct threat against the lives of innocent Americans.
I'm not talking about police taking action against known criminals that have lived a life of crime for most of their lives. I'm talking about terror – bursting through the doors of peaceful American families just to see what property they have and causing a series of offenses subsequently to that, taking and removing their property or threatening their lives.
And these acts are increasing across the nation.
Ask Mr. Brennan about this even more serious threat against civilians in this nation that are coinciding with claims of foreign terrorists that no one sees – but we spend trillions of dollars on the belief that they exist – and my grandchildren will still be paying these debts off – while Mr. Brennan and his cohorts live a life of luxury until retirement.
This situation hasn't yet been addressed by the press or Capitol Hill. Because generally – both are cowards and fear these law enforcement agencies.
We will lose our sovereignty not only to any actual foreign threat against this land, but also to this developing threat on domestic soil.
And the new drone that has the potential to be handled by the wrong person could end up in the hands of an overly ambitious law enforcement officer that believes as an FBI agent stated to me unequivocally – "we run this nation now".
That same agent stated sarcastically to me, "We have to have police. My hands are tied. What do you want me to do?"
Nothing.
I'll hand the matter over to General Dempsey where it squarely belongs.
I'm sure he can handle it.
I'm sure the United States military will also be a better venue to determine the actions of the CIA director as well.
All of these agencies are subordinate at all times by the Constitution of the United States of America to our military armed forces, including the Department of Homeland Security – which ought to be extinguished because it now poses a very serious threat of violence against innocent United States civilians by the abuses caused by principally law enforcement personnel - that do not and were not meant to fall under the very same scope of powers of the military forces.
Separation of powers.
Even within the Executive Branch of the United States.
Dismantle the Department of Homeland Security. It is not constitutional. It takes duty or purpose away from our military forces.
Blending of duties leads to national extremes of corruption and control by fewer and fewer personnel in government until all you have left is an oligarchy that manages everything while reporting false claims of budget crises to induce Americans to surrender all.
I believe it is time for every one of us to remember that.
©2013. All Rights Reserved.
I would rather take out one bad guy with a drone than have thousands of casualties trying to get him (and often failing) using a battalion. The collateral damage alone would be defistating. I know that if I were in one of those areas where the bad guys are I would rather see a drone take him out than an army destroy my house and my family because we happen to live where we do and have nothing to do with the bad guy. My opinion would be higher of the attackers of the bad guy if they leave me alone and only go after him. We have enough enemies in that area already, we don't need more.
COMMIE's New Clown..For The Circus...
Both Traitors have Found a way to Save Americans ...MONEY..
DRONES..are the Answer..No Trial..No Fuss..No Problem...No...CONSTITUTION..
Just pick..who you want...an' DRONE 'EM...
Hang 'Em High ORAMBO...
I would TRUST..ANY..Nobel Peace Prize Lauriate...To Choose Who they want..To Kill..
Don't waste Congress' Time...Be a "Do-It-Yourself" Man..
Wasn't Brennan ...so...? articulate..?
2000+ Men.Women , Children..KILLED by OBAMA DRONE..
Oh well...Collateral Damage...weren't..AMERICANS..Anyway...yet...?
WALTER BRENNAN..?
Oh yeah...the Real McCoys...
Go Granpa..
DRONE ATTACKS?
Oh.....? Thought .. ? .OBAMA's "GROAN" Attacks...
When is an American not an American? When they have left America went to a foreign county,joined in a foreign cause against and /or to kill any citizen or military persons of the United States of America. These persons are the enemy of the U.S.A. and should be viewed as a armed and dangerous enemy. The Bottom line is Kill them or be killed by them. Senators and representatives want classified information from the CIA. These are some of the same people who sell their vote to, as a judge describer's them, dark money donors. "Untraceable funds given by anonymous donors have been given the name "dark money". Look at the hateful and untrue attacks that so called honorable members of Congress have stood before TV cameras and tried to sell lies as truth. Based on their past records you must ask yourself can you trust them? . If their vote is for sale , is the classified information for sale? How safe will our military and agencies be if confidential information was demanded by "dark money"? Why are members of congress calling persons who have left America joined the people who have sworn to and are killing Americans question the right to capture or kill the very people that would kill any member of congress within their sight? Time to take a very close look at these people. How safe do these members of congress make you feel ?
I saw a few TV excerpts from the interrogation in the Senate. It certainly appeared that Mr. Brennan was a lot more intelligent than the Senators asking the questions.
We've really got to stop sending these bozo's back term after term.