CIA Director John Brennan is under fire from the Senate Intelligence Committee after the CIA admitted that it searched the computer files and read the e-mails of Senate investigators who were probing the agency’s use of harsh interrogation measures on terrorist in the aftermath of 9/11.
The fire is well-deserved. Earlier this year, Brennan responded to charges of the misconduct described above by denying them. Now, he admits that the CIA surveillance of Senate investigators occurred.
It’s bad enough that Brennan didn’t know what his operatives were up to. But for him to have falsely told Senators that the spying didn’t take place makes his position untenable. Not only can Congress not count on Brennan’s ability to know what’s going on his agency, it cannot rely on his word.
How did President Obama react to the fact that his CIA spied on Congress and falsely denied doing so? By expressing his “full faith” in Brennan.
Obama was less kind to the Bush era CIA. He denounced it for using harsh interrogation tactics (which he labeled “torture”) in the aftermath of 9/11.
It’s sad when a U.S. president is more outraged by CIA efforts to obtain information from hardcore terrorists than by CIA spying on the legislative branch of government. The post-9/11 CIA interrogators were trying to protect this country from deadly attacks. The Obama era CIA snoops were trying to protect the CIA from the Senate.
I don’t mean to deny that the CIA could use protection from Senate Democrats, though. That lot is all too eager to write post 9/11 history in a way that makes Democrats look good and the CIA look bad.
And this is what makes Brennan’s screw-up all the more disgusting. The Senate is about to issue its report alleging CIA abuses. The CIA needs a Director who can credibly push back against the report.
Manifestly, John Brennan isn’t that man. Is this what Obama, who sides with Senate Democrats when it comes to rewriting post 9/11 history, has confidence of?