Glenn Greenwald : My guest today is Tom Gjelten of National Public Radio. He covers intelligence and other national security issues for NPR News. Thanks very much for joining me today.

Tom Gjelten : Good to be with you, Glenn.

GG : I wanted to discuss with you a story that you have today that I think you can call a "scoop," regarding the withdrawal -- or what was called the withdrawal -- last week by John Brennan from consideration for the Obama administration to name him to one of the top intelligence spots. You have an article today on NPR's website in which you report:

Former CIA official John Brennan once considered a top choice to serve as CIA director in President-Elect Obama's administration, was pressured by the Obama transition team to pull his name from consideration, according to friends and former intelligence associates.

How reliable do you consider those sources to be in terms of their knowledge of what actually transpired and what reasons were you able to ascertain as far as why he was forced out?

TG : Well, Glenn, I cover intelligence, it could be an intelligence officer who doesn't want to talk about sources and methods - I'm in that situation. But I can tell you I have absolute certainty that this is, in what I report. I can't go into the details on it, but there's no question in my mind that that's what happened.

GG: Okay. Were you able to ascertain any reason? This was, and continues to be, Barack Obama's top intelligence advisor, and he has been with the transition for the last several weeks. Why suddenly did they decide that they wanted him to withdraw his name for consideration? 

TG: I can answer that question. I was told that there were a couple things. And I think you're probably a lot more in touch this, Glenn, than I am. There was opposition to his possible appointment emerging on some of the blogs, and then there was a letter that was sent to the Obama campaign by 200 psychologists. 

Now, I was told that that letter from the psychologists actually was not a precipitating factor. Those psychologists directed that letter to Barack Obama specifically asking to withdraw his name. Brennan's letter to Obama then followed the emergence of that letter, but I told that it was actually in the works before that letter appeared. The only thing that I can assume, is that the opposition that his appointment or possible appointment was generating was part of the reason. 

Now, in this world, when the Obama transition team is considered to be one of the best if not the best ever, and I'm presuming that they do extraordinary vetting, and one can not rule out the possibility that something turned up - who knows? - that may have caused them to change their mind or to send a signal to Brennan that that job was not to be his. But that's pure speculation. 

GG: One of the things, and that will be the last question about this part of the story, one of the things that struck me as odd about the whole spectacle, that is, whether Brennan decided voluntarily to withdraw or he was actually compelled to do so as you suggest today was the case: why not just refrain from appointing him to a position? Why go through this whole sort of melodrama of having him write his very flamboyant, newsworthy letter, very dramatically announcing that he was withdrawing from consideration. Do you have any speculation on that, or...? 

TG : I can speculate. That's all I can do. Here's what I think is possible, and I have no reason to think this is true, but if they may have indicated to him privately that he was not any longer their choice to take the CIA job or any key intelligence job, and that he was then angered by that and decided to write this letter and make it a little more flamboyant and dramatic. I mean, that letter is very important, Glenn, and I'm sure you've seen it. It's a very angry letter. He really strikes out at the people that had opposed his possible appointment. The letter is directed at them as much as it is against the Obama people. So, that part of it may very well have been his own initiative. No one has said to me that the Obama people demanded that he write this letter. So, both things could be true. On the one hand, that the Obama people pulled the plug on his possible appointment, but also, too, that in response and in some anger, that Brennan then writes this letter. 

I can tell you one thing, that that letter was leaked and I don't think it was leaked by the Obama people. Now, I was on another story at the time that came out, and I didn't get it right away, so I have no idea who leaked it. But I don't think it was leaked by the Obama people. 

GG : Right. That makes sense. Now, I want to ask you about another part of your reporting on this issue, and I'm going to quote from the paragraph in your piece today, where you write:

Brennan's withdrawal, offered in a November 25th letter to Obama, came after liberal bloggers mounted an opposition campaign against his possible appointment. They said he was tainted by his service in the CIA at a time when the agency was employing coercive interrogation methods.

And you also did a radio segment on NPR last week, with Steven Inskeep, in which you essentially said the same thing, quote: "His association with Tenet at that critical time was apparently enough to provoke loud complaints from bloggers, and critics of the agency." 

Now, in your piece and on your radio programs, you don't make reference to any of these liberal bloggers who apparently made that argument, and I'm actually not aware of any who made that argument. Were you referring to anyone specifically, when you said liberal bloggers were advancing that argument? 

TG : I'm sort of lumping two things together, which we sometimes do in this business. That quote was actually from the letter that was written to the Obama campaign in opposition to his candidate; that was a direct quote from that letter. You're a blogger yourself, Glenn, right? 

GG : I am, and that's part of why I'm asking. In fact, I think I wrote the very first piece... 

TG : There you go. 

GG : ...about John Brennan protesting... 

TG : I guess you're one of those liberal bloggers. 

GG : I guess if you want to include me in that, I'll be happy to, but I guess part of what was interesting was in reporting on this issue, on this episode, NPR and The New York Times and a couple of other media outlets said that the reason that critics and bloggers objected to Brennan was because he happened to be at the agency at the time that these programs were implemented -- as though the mere fact that he was there is what provoked the objections. 

And I'm wondering just who it was or where that came from, because I had never seen that particular objection, even by the psychologists, being made. My understanding of the objection, and the objection that I voiced, was that Brennan had come out, both while he was at the agency and especially afterwards, and defended and advocated rendition and enhanced interrogation techniques. It wasn't merely the fact that he was at the agency; that wouldn't be enough to disqualify. It was that he was an advocate of the very programs that are so much in controversy. And I'm just wondering where this reporting came from that suggested that it was merely based on the fact that he was at the agency. 

TG : Well, the quotes, just take your own blog, which I think probably you're most familiar with, it sounds like almost the absence of objection, or absence of criticism of those policies when he was in a position to object to them, if something should be held against him. 

GG : No, this is what has been frustrating for a lot of people who worked on the Brennan nomination, and the way the objections have been grotesquely distorted is, it isn't that he failed to object to these policies. Instead, it is something much different, which is what he just said, that he explicitly advocated them once he left the agency. He was on--

TG : Hold on, Glenn, because saying, for example, that useful information came from enhanced interrogation is the not the same as advocating those policies, because I've spoken to a lot of intelligence professionals who say, look, you can get useful information from these interrogation techniques; however, there's a cost and a benefit associated with this. The benefit is the information you get from it; the cost is the damage it does to America's reputation. So simply saying that these programs produced useful information does not make you a supporter of those programs. 

And I know he's been quoted as saying that useful information came from them. I have never seen a quote where he comes out and says, I believe that we need to do water boarding, or I believe we need to do a coercive interrogation. The quotes that I've seen from him say, useful information came from this, but then there are other quotes where he says, some of the information was not useful. In fact, I even saw that in your own piece. 

GG : Well, how about, he was on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer in December of 2005 and Margaret Warner asked him, so was Secretary Rice--

TG : That was about rendition.

GG : Right. Exactly, that was a major part --

TG : Rendition is not interrogation. 

GG : No, no, no; what I'm asking you is about the case that was made by critics and bloggers against Brennan. And the way that you reported it was that the case was he was at the agency at the time these programs were implemented, when in fact the case was, that he was an advocate of rendition and enhanced interrogation techniques. And so, it just boggles the mind to see a certain argument and a certain cause being characterized in a way that's so vastly different from how it was actually occurred. I'm just wondering if you--

TG : I'll read from the letter from the psychologists.

GG : But I'm asking you about the bloggers; you did the radio report before that [psychologist] letter came out, and in your piece today you wrote liberal bloggers objected because he was at the agency during the time the programs were implemented. So, what I really want to ask you: did you actually read anything from the liberal bloggers about whom you were reporting before you went on the air and before your piece was published on the NPR site? 

TG : I saw your blog, and I got this from people around Brennan, that this was what he was reacting against. I don't cover the full, I covered his decision to withdraw; I didn't cover this debate prior to that about whether he would a good candidate or not. 

GG : Last question about this, which is, the report that you did with Steve Inskeep on NPR actually generated some critical commentary in these blogs, I wrote some about it, other did as well, and I know that numerous readers wrote to the ombudsman about the reporting that the NPR was doing on this issue. 

Were those complaints, essentially saying that the reporting was inaccurate and detailing the reasons why, once you did that radio segment last week, were those forwarded to you, or did the ombudsman speak to you about that in any way about the numerous complaints that were made about that reporting. 

TG : And what were the complaints? 

GG : That you were going on the radio saying that the complaints that were being made against Brennan by bloggers and others was that he was simply associated with the CIA at the time that these programs were implemented, that it was unfair guilt by association, when in fact it was not based on that, it was based on his advocacy of rendition and the comments he made about enhanced interrogation techniques. Were those complaints discussed with you by the ombudsman? 

TG : I have not seen a single comment by him where he unequivocally endorses coercive interrogation. I've seen where he explains that, why it was - I haven't seen a single quote, so I don't know what it is that I'm, missing. 

GG : Again, the quote that he made that was cited most frequently was on CBS News with Perry Smith, where he said that, with regards to enhanced interrogation techniques:

There's been a lot of information that has come out in these procedures, that the agency has in fact used against the real hard-core terrorist. It has saved lives. And let's not forget there are hardened terrorists who have been responsible for 9/11 who have shown no remorse at all for the death of 3000 innocents.

That that--

TG : As I say, Glenn, I cover this community, and I know there are many intelligence professionals who would say that, and in the next breath, say, nevertheless, I don't think we should do it.

GG : But there was no next breath. Let's set aside whether you think the criticism against Brennan is fair or not. The complaint that were voiced with the ombudsman was that you were mis-describing, you were inaccurately describing, what the criticism were. Even if you don't agree with the criticisms, you should still go on the air and describe what they are accurately.

TG : How can I describe a criticism that I am not aware has been made? As I say, I have not seen any direct quote cited by any of his critics where they show that he was an ardent support of coercive interrogation. I have seen...

GG : Part of the piece was that he defended rendition. 

TG : That's a separate, an entirely separate issue. There are many... 

GG : But that's part... The point here is nobody has ever said, as you reported, that the problem with Brennan was that he was at the CIA at this time. You even went on to say, there's a great problem now, because where's Obama going to find a CIA director, a DNI, who wasn't in some way at the CIA during this time? 

That was never the case that was being made. The case that was being made was that he was a supporter of rendition, which I think you agree with, and he was a supporter of enhanced interrogation techniques, which you're saying you don't find persuasive, but that wasn't what you reported about what the case was against Brennan. 

TG : Glenn, maybe I mischaracterized the criticism that was made of him, but I don't know that to be the case unless you can point to me a criticism that has been made of him that cite direct statements he has made supporting coercive interrogation. Unless somebody can point to me those statements, then how can I say, how can I acknowledge I've mischaracterized the criticism. I don't understand. 

GG : The criticism is what the criticism is. Whether the criticism is persuasive to you is a separate question. You have the right to go on the air and say criticisms of Brennan are inaccurate--

TG : No, but that's unfair - is there any--

GG : I wrote, Andrew Sullivan wrote, many other bloggers wrote that the reason we objected to Brennan was because he was an advocate of rendition and enhanced interrogation. That was the case that we made, that was the reasons we cited for objecting to Brennan.

TG : But my interpretation of what you wrote was that your basis for saying he was a supporter of interrogation was the fact that he had been at the agency when those decisions were made and had explained them.

GG : My whole post has nothing but his quotes -- 

TG : You can say that that amounts to him being a support of them, but that's not, to me, that does mean he's a supporter of those policies. 

GG : That's fine, but since you're characterizing the case that I and others are making, you should describe what case we were making. The fact that you find it unpersuasive is independent. But, did the ombudsman pass on those complaints to you or speak to you about them in any way? The NPR ombudsman? 

TG : No. 

GG : Okay. 

TG : But you know how many complaints the ombudsman receives. 

GG : Well, I know at least between 12 and 15 left in my comment section and sent to my e-mail, and I guarantee you a larger number than that complained to the ombudsman, because that was part of what was being posted for people who objected to the reporting. So I know that the ombudsman received at least some well-documented complaints. 

TG : There are many ways that you can send complaints to. The NPR commons set up, when our store, we now have a revamped website where listeners are able to comment on our stories, and I know there were objections to my story raised on the website. And I see those. That does not necessarily mean the ombudsman... 

GG : No, the e-mail to the ombudsman was posted, and people emailed the ombudsman directly at the address NPR provides for complaints about inaccurate reporting. That's where those complaints were sent. I mean, I was surprised - that's why I'm asking because the initial report was last week, the complaints were voluminous between now and then... 

TG : Twelve complaints is not voluminous. 

GG : Well, like I said, there were I guarantee you many more people who sent complaints to the ombudsman didn't cc: me on the complaint, I know that from history, but even 12 or 15 well-documented complaints from the ombudsman about why this reporting is inaccurate should have I think got the attention of the ombudsman to at least speak with you, so that your reporting wasn't repeated. 

TG : Look, Glenn, I don't accept what you're saying, because I don't, I am not going to say that people opposed John Brennan because he was an advocate of interrogation. 

GG : What about rendition? Why do you keep leaving that out? How about going on the radio and saying: "the critics objected because rendition is one of the most controversial Bush policies, it has been used to send people to countries, including innocent people, who have been tortured for months. Brennan went on the network news and defended it as a vital tool, agreeing with Condoleezza Rice, and the critics of Brennan pointed to those statements, and objected to him getting a high position in the intelligence community, because of those statements." How about that? 

TG : Well, I guess that would be a fair thing. But I do, I would insist that rendition and interrogation are two separate issues. 

GG : Of course they are. And I would just request - it's not unique to you, so I don't mean to single you out and I appreciate your coming on this interview to talk to me about it. It was in The New York Times even again today about what the case was against Brennan that was inaccurate, but I think a lot of times people feel comfortable characterizing what is said on quote-unquote "blogs" without actually going and reading what it is that's being said. 

TG : I understand. And that's a fair point, Glenn. But just so, to seal this off, tell me how I should have phrased that. 

GG : "Bloggers and critics have objected to Brennan because of statements that he made, that they point to, defending enhanced" -- 

TG : I can't say that. 

GG : "...statements defending rendition, and statements that they pointed to that they say constituted a defense of enhanced interrogation." 

TG : Okay. That would be fair. That's how I should have said it. You're absolutely right. I should have said it that way. That's a little bit - and I'm sure you recognize this - I short-handed it and sometimes it's necessary to short-hand things and sometimes when you do that, you over-simplify what is a more complicated issue. I acknowledge that. 

 

GG : Okay. Fair enough. Okay, last question. With regard to the reporting that you're doing on this issue, do you have any news about potential candidates who are likely now to be the CIA director, or Obama's DNI? Have you heard scuttlebutt you can pass on, or other pertinent information about who might be named to these positions? 

TG : No. I mean I can say this, which is not something I reported, that I think that they would have a much easier time finding somebody to be DNI than to be DCIA, because the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, has a more strategic overall perspective, more of a policy perspective. That they could bring in somebody like a Jane Harmon or a Tim Roemer, you know, the name that's floated around, more than floated around, that's really way out front, that Admiral Dennis Blair.

Now, the problem with CIA is, and I am just giving you here a sort of inside the Beltway perspective, which is, that running the CIA is not the same as being Director of National Intelligence because it an agency, because it's really useful to have some idea of how the CIA works, to more of an operator's perspective than a policy or philosophical or political perspective. I think they're not going to have any trouble at DNI and it probably will be Denny Blair, but the people who in the running for the DNI position will not necessarily be in the running for a position at the CIA. 

Now, there are a number of people who are strong candidates for the CIA position; however, and this sort of goes back to what we've been talking about, their views and positions on such issues as rendition, as coercive interrogation, as warranties surveillance, are not all that distinguishable from John Brennan's view. So, if you, hypothetically, believe or conclude that someone with John Brennan's views is not qualified to come to CIA, then that does exclude a lot of the most likely candidates. 

GG : Okay. Fair enough. I just think that what's going to happen if there is another candidate who emerges as the leading candidate is, it won't merely be enough for most people to object, and I'm certainly speaking for myself, and I think a lot of other people, the mere fact that they were in the intelligence community or at the CIA, because many people at the CIA did object, push back, many of these things. I think their statements would be examined very carefully to see whether they've expressed support for or advocacy for, or sympathy with, programs that a lot of people believe were not just clearly illegal, but quite destructive to the moral standing of our country and if there aren't those statements, I don't think they'll have the same problems they had with Brennan. 

TG: No, I wouldn't disagree with anything you just said. I would say that, knowing the intelligence community as I do, I would put Brennan in the mainstream of those people, or even slightly to the left, rather than some guy who's sort of out on the right extreme fringe, you know what I mean? 

GG : Yeah, except that there's many, many very well accomplished intelligence and military professionals, including people who have long been at the CIA, who have vehemently objected to things like rendition and enhanced interrogation and in fact many of them--

TG : People have served at the CIA in the last eight years?

GG : Not the last eight years.

 TG : Yeah, that's, the thing is, the CIA and the world has changed so much in the last eight years that that's an important point to be underscored, that you - and I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing - I'm saying if you reach back before 2001, you're taking somebody who does not have recent experience in the intelligence business, and maybe that's alright. But it is something that you have to consider. 

GG : Right. My guess is you that could find people at the CIA in the last eight years who don't have a record, a history, of making positive statements about some of the programs. They might have been inside the CIA while these programs were implemented, but not serving as an advocate for them once they left. That's for... 

TG : Let's not go there, Glenn, because I would still question whether he was actually serving as an advocate for those programs. But let's not start--

GG : Yeah, I think we've covered that pretty thoroughly. 

TG: I'd say.

GG: Alright, Tom, well, I really appreciate your taking the time to answer questions and talk to me today. Thanks very much.

TG : Well, keep it up Glenn.

 

 [Transcript courtesy of Thames Valley Transcribe]