Annals of PP Attachment
« previous post | next post »
Tom Gjelten, "Brennan Objects To Use Of Waterboarding In CIA Confirmation Hearing", All Things Considered, 2/7/2013.
Despite the increase in congressional rancor, presumably that's something like
rather than
The obligatory screenshot:
Prentiss Riddle said,
February 8, 2013 @ 7:45 am
Actually I think it's the latter, if you take "waterboarding" as headline shorthand for "the term 'waterboarding'."
F said,
February 8, 2013 @ 7:55 am
I don't think it can be the second. The linked text includes:
"JOHN BRENNAN: I did not take steps to stop the CIA's use of those techniques. I was not in the chain of command of that program. I had expressed my personal objections about certain of those EITs such as waterboarding, nudity and others, but I did not try to stop it because it was in a different part of the agency and it was directed by the administration at the time."
He used the term himself, so is not objecting to its use.
Rod Johnson said,
February 8, 2013 @ 8:35 am
Isn't there a third version? [use [of [waterboarding in CIA confirmation hearing]]]?
BlueLoom said,
February 8, 2013 @ 8:39 am
Such a lovely image! Pick your least favorite senator (LFS), set up a bucket in that area of the hearing room between the person seeking the appointment and the ranks of desks where the senators sit (this is the area generally crowded with photographers), and go ahead & semi-drown your LFS. That'll teach 'em! Best PP attachment of the year!
Dick Margulis said,
February 8, 2013 @ 8:48 am
There is no use for waterboarding in attachment parenting, however.
NW said,
February 8, 2013 @ 9:28 am
So he was also objecting to nudity in Congressional hearings?
Steve said,
February 9, 2013 @ 11:55 am
Curiously, neither of the two parsings of this headline that immediately sprang to mind are correct. The "silly" interpretation (Brennan objected when an attempt was made to water board him during a senate confirmation hearing) is obviously incorrect, but the non-jokey interpretation (During the Senate confirmation hearing, Brennan publicly condemned the use of water boarding as an interrogation technique) is also wrong. Rather, the "correct" sense, per F's quote, seems to be: During the Senate conformation hearing, Brennan noted that he had, historically, expressed personal objections to water boarding [to an unidentified person]." I think this takes it beyond a garden-variety crash blossom.
"During CIA confirmation hearing, Brennan claims he "expressed personal objections" to waterboarding."? Hmm. Probably too wordy for headline-speak…
Also, Brennan's comment is a good example of how one can be dodgy about agency without using the passive voice. Oh, you had "expressed personal objections" to waterboarding? When? To who? In what context?