January 26, 2013
The Nation magazine is home to a particularly odious group of journalists. The "left" publication speaks on behalf of a privileged layer of the upper middle class, deeply complacent, lacking political principles and more and more integrated into the military and political establishment.
Even by these standards, a column penned by the Nation ís Robert Dreyfuss January 22, "Brennan at the CIA might surprise us," stands out. Dreyfuss is no casual commentator. He is the Nationís chief foreign policy correspondent. The article thus presents the magazineís more or less official position in defense of John Brennan, nominated by President Barack Obama to head the CIA.
As Obamaís homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, Brennan played the principal role in vastly expanding the administrationís drone assassination program. He oversaw the development of the "disposition matrix" to permanently institutionalize the practice of extrajudicial murderódisposing of human beingsóin the name of the "war on terror."
Before serving under Obama, Brennan was the director of the National Counterterrorism Center in the Bush administration, where he was implicated in torture and illegal domestic spying. In sum, this is a man with a great deal of blood on his hands.
This is Obamaís second attempt to nominate Brennan for the top post in Americaís spy network. When the president first tried to do so in 2009, the nomination came under criticism from his liberal supporters. Brennan eventually withdrew his nomination.
This time around, there has been much less criticism. The Democratic Party and its milieu have moved even farther to the right over the past four years. Some voices have been raised, however, including from a few liberal commentators cited by Dreyfuss. The Nation takes on the task of providing legal counsel for Brennan and the Obama administration.
"Were you a terrorist or member of Al Qaeda, you wouldnít want to meet John Brennan in a dark alley," Dreyfuss begins. "Heís an Irish tough guy, and he doesnít apologize for wanting to obliterate Al Qaeda. For four years, as Obamaís top adviser on counterterrorism, thatís been his jobÖ Often innocents have died."
"But Brennan may surprise us."
In the end, the massacre of hundreds of civilians by US drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and other countries is of little concern to Dreyfuss. "Maybe, just maybe, John Brennan wonít be a bad CIA director." What, one might ask, is a good CIA director ? The notion that the Nation might take a principled stand in opposition to the American governmentís chief spying and dirty tricks agency does not cross Dreyfussís mind.
The article resorts to lawyerly sophistry. There are "widespread accusations, not necessarily accurate, that he [Brennan] supported torture during the George W. Bush administration." He "may or may not have objected to the use of waterboarding and other violent techniques." To claim that he is "a supporter of torture," is "an accusation without proof."
Really? Brennan is on record as declaring in 2007, "There has been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the [CIA] has, in fact, used against the real hard-core terrorists. It has saved lives." We must "take every possible measure" against those "determined to destroy our nation," he declared in another interview given at that time.
As for drones, Dreyfuss goes on, "itís a mixed bag." He boasts that "on several occasions, I met and interviewed Brennan." In these discussions, the Nation assures its readers, Brennan came off as a principled man, even "left," animated by a belief that "the military is the wrong instrument in fighting terrorism." He quotes an article in the Washington Post portraying Brennan as guided by a "moral compass" in his selection of drone targets.
Parroting the line of the Obama administration, Dreyfuss insists that Brennan has sought "to limit, not expand, drone warfare." This can only be taken as an endorsement of the "disposition matrix."
Dreyfuss refers to claims that Brennan has lied about the impact of the administrationís drone killing, asserting that it has not killed any civilians. However, Dreyfuss observes, "Brennan made clear that he was talking about a specific stretch of time" of about a yearósuggesting by implication that the hundreds of people killed during this period all deserved to die. The administration automatically categorizes any adult-aged male it happens to kill as a "terrorist."
If this defense does not suffice, Dreyfuss has another one prepared. "To be sure," he writes, "as the White Houseís counterterrorism chief and as a spokesman for the administration, Brennan has no choice but to defend the administrationís policy of carrying out a global drone warfare program." Brennan, after all, was just following orders.
The attitude of Dreyfuss and the Nation magazine toward basic democratic rights is summed up in the commentís treatment of the administrationís policy of assassinating US citizens. Mention of this violation of fundamental constitutional principles is confined to the final paragraphs, in which Dreyfuss notes that "Senator Ron Wyden says he wants answers about the administrationís legal justification for killing American citizens via drone attacks."
The confirmation hearings next month, Dreyfuss assures us, "should be seen as an opportunity to get answers to all these questions, on the record."
This is an obvious fraud. Dreyfuss is well aware that the administration has adamantly refused to make available its pseudo-legal justifications for assassinating American citizens, successfully blocking in court efforts to force it to do so.
Dreyfuss personifies a social layer that, through the mechanism of the Obama administration, has reconciled itself to imperialism, becoming in fact one of the most adamant supporters of American aggression at home and abroad. There is nothing remotely left-wing about these forces. They are capable of supporting and defending any crime.