WH to announce Brennan to CIA, Hagel to Defense today

posted at 8:41 am on January 7, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Today may have been the day for which John Brennan had hoped since first joining Barack Obama’s team four years ago, but it’s not likely to be much remembered for him.  First considered to run the CIA but dropped because of protests on Obama’s left, the 25-year CIA veteran will get a formal nomination today to take over the job last held by David Petraeus.  However, his nomination is going to be overshadowed by a concurrent announcement of Chuck Hagel’s appointment to Defense:

President Obama will nominate John Brennan as his next director of the Central Intelligence Agency, senior administration officials tell CBS News.

Brennan, a 25-year CIA veteran, currently serves as Mr. Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser. The president will announce Brennan’s nomination during an event Monday afternoon.

At the same event, an administration official says, the president will also formally announce that he is nominating Chuck Hagel as his next defense secretary.

Well, that’s one way to fly under the radar, too, although Brennan won’t experience nearly the same turbulence as Hagel will.  Brennan has already been part of the national-security team for the entire Obama administration, more so than Hagel, and in a much more visible position.  The pick may surprise some who assumed that current acting DCIA Mike Morell would get the nod, but a Brennan pick is hardly a surprise choice.

Don’t expect it to go entirely easy on Brennan, however, or on Obama.  While Republicans might use the opportunity to take a few shots at the White House and State over Benghazi, the war in Libya, and the Arab Spring response, some Democrats might be taking shots of their own over Obama’s continuation of Bush-era policies on drones:

However, Brennan’s nomination will likely put a spotlight on the administration’s controversial drone program. Brennan was the first Obama administration official to publicly acknowledge the highly secretive targeted killing operations.

Brennan has defended the legality of the overseas drone operations and has said they protect American lives and prevent potential terror attacks.

That might get a few headlines, too, but Brennan won’t lose the job over it.  Relative to the kind of reception Hagel’s nomination will get, Brennan’s confirmation should go smoothly, if not entirely uncontested.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I don’t like either of these. There’s no Latina Wisdom anywhere.

Axe on January 7, 2013 at 8:47 AM

Remember when Republicans were accused of running an imperial presidency? Good times, good times.

rbj on January 7, 2013 at 8:48 AM

From Brennan’s dossier;

In mid-2009, Brennan effectively declared an end to the War on Terror: “The President does not describe this as a ‘War on Terrorism,’” Brennan announced. He said that the US would not seek merely to defeat al-Qaeda and its allies, but also to address ignorance, poverty, and repression, since terrorist attacks are often “the final murderous manifestation of a long process rooted in hopelessness, humiliation, and hatred.” As Matt Gurney wrote in FrontPage Magazine, “The War on Terror had become the War on Poverty.” Brennan said that to say the U.S. is fighting “jihadists” is wrongheaded because it is using “a legitimate term, ‘jihad,’ meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal” which “risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.”

Terp Mole on January 7, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Those idiots in the White House and their left wing congressional lap dogs are just driving the nation from one crisis to another.

rplat on January 7, 2013 at 8:49 AM

We go back to Brennans infamous speechy!

John Brennan says in speech: ‘we have never been and will never be at war with Islam’

Religion & Spirituality
May 26, 2010
****************

In a

speech

http://csis.org/files/attachments/100526_csis-brennan.pdf

today (May 26, 2010) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, stated that the United States is not at war with Islam. As part of his speech, he made the following remarks:

“…The president’s strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself or [sic] one’s community.

And there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children. Indeed, characterizing our adversaries this way would actually be counterproductive. It would play into the false perception that they are religious leaders defending a holy cause when in fact, they are nothing more than murderers, including the murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims.

This is why Muslim leaders around the world have spoken out forcefully and often at great risk to their own lives to reject al-Qaida and violent extremism. And frankly, their condemnations often do not get the recognition they deserve, including from the media.

Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by al-Qaida and its affiliates to justify terrorism, that the United States is somehow at war against Islam. The reality, of course, is that we have never been and will never be at war with Islam. After all, Islam, like so many faiths, is part of America.

Instead, the president’s strategy is clear and precise. Our enemy is al-Qaida and its terrorist affiliates. For it was al-Qaida who attacked us so viciously on 9/11 and whose desire to attack the United States, our allies and our partners remains undiminished. And it is its affiliates who have take up al-Qaida’s call to arms against the United States and other parts of the world…” (emphasis supplied)
=========

http://www.examiner.com/article/john-brennan-says-speech-we-have-never-been-and-will-never-be-at-war-with-islam

canopfor on January 7, 2013 at 6:22 AM

canopfor on January 7, 2013 at 8:50 AM

Why not nominate Jon Huntsman…they were chosen for the same reason.

tomas on January 7, 2013 at 8:54 AM

some Democrats might be taking shots of their own over Obama’s continuation of Bush-era policies on drones:

Yeah, sure they will, right after licking the dirt from Barky’s Manolo Blahniks.

By the end of the week it will be back to business as usual, chasing Rumsfeldt around with a pair of handcuffs and touting Dog Eater’s vacation-toned physique.

Bishop on January 7, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Hagel,another crisis for the LGBT set.There will be a massive uptick for “nerve pill”request.

docflash on January 7, 2013 at 9:00 AM

However, Brennan’s nomination will likely put a spotlight on the administration’s controversial drone program. Brennan was the first Obama administration official to publicly acknowledge the highly secretive targeted killing operations.

Brennan has defended the legality of the overseas drone operations and has said they protect American lives and prevent potential terror attacks.

Of course he has. So have plenty of so-called conservatives. Brennan is an idiot; that should be reason enough for his not being confirmed.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Doubling down on Hagel, when even prominent Dems have reservations over the tool? Why expend political capital on that?

Oh, and I hope Jewish voters remember what a stalwart defender of Israel Obama claimed to be during the campaign. Shame on you for believing a word out of the man’s mouth.

changer1701 on January 7, 2013 at 9:00 AM

+1 rbj

cmsinaz on January 7, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Relative to the kind of reception Hagel’s nomination will get, Brennan’s confirmation should go smoothly, if not entirely uncontested.

Despite the fact he is pretty much considered a political hack by the intelligence community. But, it is’t as if the rat-eared wonder cares about good government anyway.

Happy Nomad on January 7, 2013 at 9:03 AM

…can’t they be…just Czars ?

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2013 at 9:04 AM

GREAT…Hagel is Pro-Iran & HAMAS…has made Anti-Semitic comments…has voted ‘No’ to any & all sanctions against Iran…he is a walking, Talking billboard that reads ‘weakness, concessions, wo whatever you want & get no objections from us!’ Yes, he received 2 purple hearts….John Kerry also got one of those for being hit in the eye with a piece of RICE!

This guys is EXACTLY what you would expect from Obama!

easyt65 on January 7, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Brennan is an idiot; that should be reason enough for his not being confirmed.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 9:00 AM

If intelligence were a requirement there would be few qualified for political appointments. This is the rat-eared wonder putting yet another political hack in position to do what the administration wants without question or ethics.

Speaking of which- turns out your hero’s 19-year-old grandson is an angry drunk! I guess the nut doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Happy Nomad on January 7, 2013 at 9:05 AM

What’s next here: Bill Ayers to head Homeland Security.

petefrt on January 7, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Well Brennan is perfect for the Muslim sympathizer running the Administration is he not?

Complete the Caliphate, foreign policy mission #1

Jordan you’re after Assad.

Saudi Arabia you’re after Jordan.

Come on people get with the program.

PappyD61 on January 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM

What’s next here: Bill Ayers to head Homeland Security.

petefrt on January 7, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Frances Piven to be Treasury Secretary

PappyD61 on January 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Well Brennan is perfect for the Muslim sympathizer running the Administration is he not?

Complete the Caliphate, foreign policy mission #1

Jordan you’re after Assad.

Saudi Arabia you’re after Jordan.

Come on people get with the program.

PappyD61 on January 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM

PappyD61:Perfect Sympathizer,,,,exacto!:)

canopfor on January 7, 2013 at 9:12 AM

canopfor on January 7, 2013 at 8:50 AM

you cant declare war on islam! that would be a mistake that could allow their diferent factions to unite instead of happily kill each other as they do now.
Islam is also not a monolithic religion! you have many branches that are mostly harmless and other like the allawite, are mostly opposed sunnis, and prefer to mingle with christians and druze than to do international jihad.
politically, the US should only say that they are fighting “extremists”, even if these extremists might be theologically correct in their interpretation of islam.

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 9:15 AM

Oh, and I hope Jewish voters remember what a stalwart defender of Israel Obama claimed to be during the campaign. Shame on you for believing a word out of the man’s mouth.

changer1701 on January 7, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Who cares? When did Israel join the Union?

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 9:18 AM

PappyD61 on January 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM

who is the kaliph? Morsi? the saudi king? zawhiri? erdogan?
any attempt to form a kaliphate will only mean sunni on sunni infighting! it will never happen!

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 9:19 AM

Oh, and I hope Jewish voters remember what a stalwart defender of Israel Obama claimed to be during the campaign. Shame on you for believing a word out of the man’s mouth.

changer1701 on January 7, 2013 at 9:00 AM

one thing is to defend israel, another is israel picking fights and we paying the price. we cannot write blank checks to israel, or we will have no leverage.

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 9:21 AM

Naturally Curly on January 7, 2013 at 9:20 AM

It’s kind of funny seeing “Michelle Malkin” and “roundup” in the same sentence.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM

GREAT…Hagel is Pro-Iran & HAMAS…has made Anti-Semitic comments…has voted ‘No’ to any & all sanctions against Iran…he is a walking, Talking billboard that reads ‘weakness, concessions, wo whatever you want & get no objections from us!’ Yes, he received 2 purple hearts….John Kerry also got one of those for being hit in the eye with a piece of RICE!

This guys is EXACTLY what you would expect from Obama!

easyt65 on January 7, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Good. You think sanctions hurt the government? No; they hurt the innocent people. Sanctions are economic warfare. Sanctions should be ended, as should the rest of our warfare waged against Iran, and open, public talks, and open diplomatic relations should happen immediately.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Buckle up, the next 4 years is only getting started.

Kissmygrits on January 7, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Mornin’.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 7, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Who cares? When did Israel join the Union?

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 9:18 AM

When did Iran, Egypt, and Syria? We give them money, hand over fist, and you don’t seem to have a problem with it. Israel, for whatever it’s worth, is at least our official ally.

Archivarix on January 7, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Sanctions should be ended, as should the rest of our warfare waged against Iran, and open, public talks, and open diplomatic relations should happen immediately.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 9:28 AM

O_o

ROFL

Bishop on January 7, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Sanctions are economic warfare. Sanctions should be ended, as should the rest of our warfare waged against Iran, and open, public talks, and open diplomatic relations should happen immediately.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Cue the classics: “Nuke them from the orbit. It’s the only way to make sure.” Why bother with sanctions (never works) or negotiations (utterly pointless) if we can turn them into a self-illuminating parking lot while they cannot reciprocate?

Archivarix on January 7, 2013 at 9:38 AM

, public talks, and open diplomatic relations should happen immediately.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Funny stuff.

Mimzey on January 7, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Who cares? When did Israel join the Union?

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 9:18 AM

Obviously I do. Must be nice to live in that fantasy land of yours where it’s just peachy that a Defense secretary is openly hostile to one of our closest allies.

changer1701 on January 7, 2013 at 9:41 AM

It’s kind of funny seeing “Michelle Malkin” and “roundup” in the same sentence.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Do you have a point, aside from the one on top of your head?

Naturally Curly on January 7, 2013 at 9:42 AM

When did Iran, Egypt, and Syria? We give them money, hand over fist, and you don’t seem to have a problem with it. Israel, for whatever it’s worth, is at least our official ally.

Archivarix on January 7, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Then you aren’t paying attention if you think I don’t have a problem with it.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Flashback Christmas 2009: In the aftermath of al-Qaeda’s failed airliner bombing over Detroit, Brennan made clear that the Obama administration would treat the incident as a law-enforcement matter rather than as an act of war or terrorism.

Brennan announced that the perpetrator would be offered a plea agreement to persuade him to reveal what he knew about al Qaeda operations in Yemen; if such an agreement could not be worked out, he would be tried in federal court.

/wicked smaht

Terp Mole on January 7, 2013 at 9:49 AM

O_o

ROFL

Bishop on January 7, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Yes, because warfare and interventionism is working so well these past 100 years.

Obviously I do. Must be nice to live in that fantasy land of yours where it’s just peachy that a Defense secretary is openly hostile to one of our closest allies.

changer1701 on January 7, 2013 at 9:41 AM

You said “stalwart defender of Israel Obama claimed to be”. Again, who cares? Israel is a sovereign nation. Why should the president or government be a “stalwart defender” of another sovereign nation, especially when that “stalwart defense” includes seizing your fellow citizens’ wealth and handing it over to a foreign government? Theft and wealth redistribution doesn’t sound peachy to me.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 9:49 AM

The Hagel Nomination: Will It Survive?

M2RB: Gloria Gaynor

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Its just more distraction from Maobama. “Look over there!” “Argue about that

Mimzey on January 7, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Sanctions are economic warfare. Sanctions should be ended, as should the rest of our warfare waged against Iran, and open, public talks, and open diplomatic relations should happen immediately.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 9:28 AM

LOL! Why?

Do you think that our opposition to Iran having nukes is only because of Israel and, if we just treated Iran fairly and stopped taking sides, everything would be OK?

Do you understand that when Iran breaks out it will set off a nuclear arms race in the ME?

Do you understand that Iran can drag us into a regional or world war without EVER attacking Israel?

Do you understand that Iran does not even have to hit the United States or any American installation?

Seriously, Dante, if Assad in Syria could drag us into a war because of Turkey – as the Secretary-General of NATO acknowledged several months ago (see Article 5 of the NATO Treaty) – don’t you think that Iran could?

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Yes, because warfare and interventionism is working so well these past 100 years.

Ignoring things has a similarly stunning record of success.

Rwanda is on line 2, pick it up.

Bishop on January 7, 2013 at 10:03 AM

When did Iran, Egypt, and Syria? We give them money, hand over fist, and you don’t seem to have a problem with it. Israel, for whatever it’s worth, is at least our official ally.

Archivarix on January 7, 2013 at 9:35 AM

And we should stop giving them money, one and all.

Israel is a wealthy country, with nuclear weapons, who can properly afford the cost of what is, admittedly, an expensive defense. The US should have absolutely clean hands when the time comes to end foreign aid. And that time is coming.

We can support Israel diplomatically. We can give them access to intelligence and weapons tech. But most importantly is what we can not do. What we can stop doing is preventing Israel from being masters of their own foreign policy, and stop preventing them from doing what I think we all know needs to be done.

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Rwanda is on line 2, pick it up.

Bishop on January 7, 2013 at 10:03 AM

So not the problem of the US. Sooooooooo not our problem…

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 10:09 AM

In an administration that’s banded together the most ungodly horde of crooks, cut-throats and clowns, John Brennan really stands out.

He’s a particular kind of bad. The fact that he was nowhere to be seen during the Benghazi affaire tells me he was way deep into that. A seriously bad actor.

If only there was some form of organized opposition to the current regime, his move to the CIA could be stopped.

Solidarność!

sartana on January 7, 2013 at 10:12 AM

LOL! Why?

Do you think that our opposition to Iran having nukes is only because of Israel and, if we just treated Iran fairly and stopped taking sides, everything would be OK?

Do you understand that when Iran breaks out it will set off a nuclear arms race in the ME?

Do you understand that Iran can drag us into a regional or world war without EVER attacking Israel?

Do you understand that Iran does not even have to hit the United States or any American installation?

Seriously, Dante, if Assad in Syria could drag us into a war because of Turkey – as the Secretary-General of NATO acknowledged several months ago (see Article 5 of the NATO Treaty) – don’t you think that Iran could?

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Why what?

No, I don’t think our opposition to Iran has anything to do with Israel. I think it has everything to do with oil reserves and her having a public central bank not run by the international banking cartel.

Do you understand there is already an arms race? Iran is surrounded by nuclear weapons, and they have at least two nations openly discussing attacks on her, and they’ve seen American interventionism/invasion in the region. No surprise that they would seek means to deter the same thing from happening to them. See Iraq, Syria, etc.

Do you understand that Iran can’t drag the U.S. into anything we don’t willingly seek? That’s not up to Iran; that’s up to the psychopaths in government. And please … drop the “we”; when speaking about the sociopathic political class, it’s “them”. Do you understand that the U.S. has been engaged in warfare against Iran for decades, and willingly seeks warfare against Iran?

Please, drop this “us” and “we” crap. You are chained down by establishment agitprop and propaganda, and regurgitate it as a loyal subject would.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Ignoring things has a similarly stunning record of success.

Rwanda is on line 2, pick it up.

Bishop on January 7, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Irony.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:13 AM

So not the problem of the US. Sooooooooo not our problem…

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Eh, we’re better than that.

Bishop on January 7, 2013 at 10:17 AM

NO CONFIRMATIONS OF ANYONE should progress until all questions are answered on Fast and Furious and Benghazi!
How do we know Brennan doesn’t have blood on his hands over Bengahzi and the fast and Furious Gun Banning scheme?
These Repiunks should find some guts or cajones or something and force the Presstitutes to cover stories they otherwise bury!

ConcealedKerry on January 7, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Eh, we’re better than that.

Bishop on January 7, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Then do something about it with your life and your money instead of speaking in the collective and demanding that my wealth or life should be infringed upon for your desire.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:26 AM


Good. You think sanctions hurt the government? No; they hurt the innocent people. Sanctions are economic warfare. Sanctions should be ended, as should the rest of our warfare waged against Iran, and open, public talks, and open diplomatic relations should happen immediately.

No, open, public talks, and open diplomatic relations would only hurt innocent people as it would lend legitimacy to a autocratic theocracy that routinely liquidates internal dissent even as it supports terrorist operations abroad. I think we need to give war a chance. Just give it a chance. C’mon, give it a chance.

casuist on January 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Do you understand that Iran can’t drag the U.S. into anything we don’t willingly seek? That’s not up to Iran; that’s up to the psychopaths in government. And please … drop the “we”; when speaking about the sociopathic political class, it’s “them”. Do you understand that the U.S. has been engaged in warfare against Iran for decades, and willingly seeks warfare against Iran?

Please, drop this “us” and “we” crap. You are chained down by establishment agitprop and propaganda, and regurgitate it as a loyal subject would.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:12 AM

So, you are advocating that we withdraw from NATO?

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Dante: So, you are advocating that we withdraw from NATO?

Just a simple “yes” or “no” will do.

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 11:31 AM


I think it has everything to do with oil reserves and her having a public central bank not run by the international banking cartel.

Lots of countries have oil and non-standard banking regimes. Only one of them is a theocratic rogue state headed by zealots with an apocalyptic-millennialist vision who may soon have access to nuclear weapons.

casuist on January 7, 2013 at 11:32 AM

On behalf of us Infidels, who want to keep our heads attached to our bodies, I say He@@ no to Brennan, and Dante’s Paulian/Father Conklin-esque isolationist Foreign Policy.

Oh, Dante…you tin foil hat’s on crooked…again.

kingsjester on January 7, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Great. Brennan can’t find his ass with both hands about Islam, so put I’m in charge of the CIA.
is there any more doubt that the Obamunists team is DELIBERATELY breaking everything in this nation?

rayra on January 7, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Brennan is an idiot; that should be reason enough for his not being confirmed.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Being an idiot is a huge qualifier.

Panetta is an ‘adorable’ dunce and made it to head of CIA and Defense.

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Why Obama Wants an Anti-Gay Defense Secretary

Barack Obama wants to appoint an anti-gay former U.S. Senator, Chuck Hagel, as the next Defense Secretary.

Back in the Clinton Administration, Hagel opposed the appointment of an openly gay man to be ambassador to Luxembourg. At the time, Hagel said: “They [ambassadors] are representing America. They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly, aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel [the nominee] — to do an effective job.”

Under pressure, Hagel is now backing down from his comments. This means about as much as the words of any politician. Hagel knows that everyone else knows the real truth is reflected in his earlier comments on the subject.

The compelling question for today is: Why does Obama want Hagel as defense secretary? Fresh from his reelection triumph, Obama can appoint almost anyone he wants and the Democratic-controlled Senate will approve almost any nomination.

Why Hagel?

Obama, after all, credits himself with reversing the official ban on gays serving in the military. (Gays and lesbians always did serve in the military; they were not allowed to openly acknowledge their sexual orientation, until recently.)

Why in the world would the leftist Obama go out of his way to choose an anti-gay Republican?

The answer lies in why so many conservative Republicans oppose Hagel’s nomination. The answer lies in Hagel’s views on foreign policy and defense—specifically, Iran, Israel and the rest of the Middle East.

Hagel is on record as opposed to unilateral sanctions against Iran, a country whose government denies the existence of the Holocaust and pledges to wipe Israel “off the map” once it acquires nuclear weapons to do so.

In 2009, Hagel appealed to the newly elected President Obama to open direct negotiations with Hamas, the infamous anti-Israeli terrorist group.

Hagel, who served as president and CEO of the World USO from 1987 to 1990, expressed intense opposition to the USO Haifa Center during a tumultuous 1989 meeting with Jewish leaders, according to multiple sources involved in the fight to keep the post open.

“He said to me, ‘Let the Jews pay for it’,” said Marsha Halteman, director for military and law enforcement programs at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which led the battle to keep USO Haifa operational. (Source: Commentary magazine online, 1/4/13)

Imagine if a nominee for Health and Human Services secretary was on record saying, “Let the blacks pay for it.” Or: “Let Hispanics pay for it.” The outrage would be deafening—and not surprising.

Why not even a whimper from Obama’s colleagues in Congress with equally racist remarks by a nominee for one of the nation’s most important and powerful posts?

Hagel’s anti-Israel voting record is too much for even the staunchly pro-Obama, pro-leftist “Washington Post,” who recently wrote that, “Chuck Hagel is not the right choice for defense secretary.”

Obama is a politician, but he’s more consistent and ideological than most. To understand him, all you have to do is what most Americans no longer do: Pay attention.

Obama is openly sympathetic to militant Islam. He has been for his entire term of office. Obama does not waver. He often speaks highly not only of Islam, but organizations connected with militant Islam. A former Muslim Brotherhood leader, Mohammed Morsi, is now president of Egypt, thanks in part to the tacit approval of the Obama Administration. Morsi, as recently as 2010, reportedly stated in a public address that Jews are “the descendants of apes and pigs” and therefore must be expelled from the Middle East.

The official policy of the United States government, under Obama, is to—at best—disregard these comments. In so doing, our government implicitly supports them.

How do anti-gay remarks figure into all this? As everyone knows, Islam is violently opposed to homosexuality, to the point of justifying the execution of gays and lesbians under both moral and secular law. Can those of you still paying attention connect the dots, or must I do it for you?

Sympathy with militant Islam is consistent with gay-hating and Jew-hating. Obama’s policies of supporting the rise of militant Islam in Egypt and offering to appease Iran are consistent with looking for a defense secretary who is openly sympathetic to these attitudes.

Obama never was a friend of individual rights or individualism. Whether it’s socialized medicine or thrashing the productive and successful, he places the collective above the individual at every turn.

Like every collectivist in human history, Obama inevitably favors some groups above others. Jews clearly do not make the cut; and gays do, but only when politically convenient for him.

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Form The Obama Timeline:

The choice of Brennan—which clearly represents political payback—is astounding and should be met with considerable criticism. During the Clinton presidency, Brennan was instrumental in preventing an operation that would have killed or captured Osama bin Laden. Brennan, Obama’s terrorism and intelligence advisor, once headed a firm that was involved in the March 2008 breach of Obama’s passport file at the State Department. A Brennan employee reportedly accessed Obama’s file to cleanse it of incriminating or damaging information. As Obama’s “terrorism czar,” Brennan outlined a “new way of seeing” the fight against terrorism. The “new way” included discontinuance of the terms “war on terrorism,” “global war,” and fighting “jihadists.” Instead, the United States should only be “at war with al-Qaeda,” and “We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda’s murderous agenda.” Brennan ludicrously argued that although al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups represent “a dynamic and evolving threat,” using the term “global war” somehow enhances their image. Brennan, eager not to hurt the feelings of murdering thugs intent on either converting or killing all non-Muslims, prefers Obama’s views—which are “nuanced, not simplistic; practical, not ideological.”

After the Christmas Day attempt to blow up flight 253 by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Brennan said on CNN’s State of the Union, “There is no smoking gun. There was no single piece of intelligence that said, ‘this guy is going to get on a plane.’” Some might argue, however, that buying a three-continent airline ticket with cash, carrying no luggage, and arriving for an international flight without a passport were three “pieces of evidence” that should have been enough to prompt authorities to question. Michael Scheuer, former chief of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, once told the Fox News Channel’s Judge Andrew Napolitano that Brennan “mostly made his career by kissing other people’s behinds” and will not tell Obama “something [he] doesn’t want to hear.” Brennan supports trying 9/11 terrorist planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian criminal court in the United States rather than a military tribunal at Guantanamo. Brennan has called the terrorist group Hezbollah “…a very interesting organization. …There is [sic] certainly …elements of Hezbollah that are truly a concern to us [as far as] what they’re doing. And what we need to do is to find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and to try to build up the more moderate elements”—as if terrorist groups have moderate elements. Brennan also often refers to the Israeli capital of Jerusalem by the Muslim reference “al Quds,” saying, “…in all my travels, the city I have come to love most is al Quds…” Brennan also argues that using the term jihad is “counterproductive” because it plays into a “false perception” that the West’s enemies are engaged in a “holy cause.” He says, “…describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism—that the United States is somehow at war against Islam.” (Brennan and Obama may not want the United States to be at war with Islam, but Islam is at war with Israel, the United States, and western civilization.)

After the operation to kill Osama bin Laden, Brennan was instrumental in providing false information to the media and portraying Obama as heroic. Brennan told reporters that May 1 was “probably one of the most anxiety-filled periods of times in the lives of the people assembled here. There was nothing that confirmed that bin Laden was at that compound. And, therefore, when …Obama was faced with the opportunity to act upon this, [he] had to evaluate the strength of that information and then made what I believe was one of the most gutsiest calls of any president in recent memory.” (Obama had spent nine months dithering over the decision, unsure whether to bomb bin Laden’s compound or send special forces in to capture or kill the terrorist leader—and Brennan described Obama as “gutsy.” Most Americans would instead call the Navy SEALs involved in the operation gutsy.) Brennan stated that bin Laden “was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was in.” That was untrue.

Colony14 on January 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM