In 2008, Brennan had pulled out of the confirmation process because of concerns among Democrats about his knowledge of, and role in, the George W. Bush administration's use of enhanced interrogation techniques with terror detainees--a practice that Brennan once supported but later came to oppose. In addition, Brennan's confirmation was beset by questions about his role in politically-motivated leaks of information from the White House. He also faced questions about the administration's response to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya in Sep. 2012. Conservatives also charged that Brennan had shown an obsequious approach to radical Islam--referring, for instance, to Jerusalem as "Al-Quds" and citing the word "jihad" approvingly.How odd that at first, the Dems had a problem with him, and now, they don't, because he's working for their side?
Brennan is not a good choice for the role, and the war on terror could suffer a severe setback with people like him in management.