home

Report: Brennan Out of Consideration For Intelligence Post

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 01:43:50 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

See also Greenwald, a true champion here, who took up the struggle in the face of STFUism. Brennan out:

John Brennan, President-elect Barack Obama's top adviser on intelligence, has taken his name out of the running for any intelligence position in the new administration. In a letter Tuesday, Brennan wrote letter to Obama that he did not want to be a distraction. His potential appointment has raised a firestorm in liberal blogs who associate him with the Bush administration's interrogation, detention and rendition policies.

In case people were wondering, THIS is why you do not wait to express your "concern" about issues and personnel.

Speaking for me only

Score one for the "morons." (This stuff is too important for me to engage in a petty pi**ing contest. I apologized to Cole at his blog.)
< Tuesday Open Thread | Report: Gates To Stay At Defense >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Report: Brennan Out of Consideration For Intelligence Post | 90 comments (90 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Excellent (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by txpublicdefender on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 01:45:29 PM EST
    Very good news.

    Hallelujah! (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 01:46:35 PM EST
    It's cool John.  You can just go back to the INSA and latch onto whomever gets the post to try to influence policy.

    Super big thanks to BTD for stirring the pot on this one!!

    Getting called names (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 01:49:09 PM EST
    is a small price to pay.

    Real thanks to Glenn Greenwald for picking up the cudgel in the face of STFUism.

    Parent

    And eff John Cole (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 01:52:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Kudos to the few and the fearless who (none / 0) (#76)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:42:44 PM EST
    who wouldn't STFU on the travesty that is Brennan

    I think it's interesting that Brennan and Obama are publicly suggesting that a few left blogs were a major factor in their decision to have Brennan withdraw. I enjoy the flattery as much as the next person.

    But, obviously, Obama wasn't previously dissuaded when a whole lot of blogs raised hell over at least one of his other appointments. So, why cut Brennan loose?

    It may have something to do with the fact that Obama has promised a 9/11 style commission to investigate interrogation/rendition practices of the Bush cohort. I imagine Obama is worried about the prospective debacle of Brennan appearing before that committee to defend things like this:

    Brennan told the National Journal in March...
    "I would argue for continuity in those early stages [of the Obama administration]. You don't want to whipsaw the (intelligence) community,...there is a method to how things have changed and adapted".

    In a 2005 interview on "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," Brennan defended rendition as "an absolutely vital tool."

    In 2007 on CBS News, he said the CIA's harsh interrogation program, which included waterboarding on at least three prisoners, produced "life saving" intelligence.



    Parent
    My bad... (none / 0) (#77)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 12:46:24 AM EST
    I was under the mistaken impression (comment (#76) that the Brennan/Obama team were publicly suggesting that Brennan's withdrawal was influenced by criticism from left blogs.

    I did some additional reading and found the MSM is making that connection. It may be too soon to tell whether they are assigning blame or credit to the netroots for their apparent influence in the matter.

    The NYTimes said this:

    The opposition to Mr. Brennan had been largely confined to liberal blogs, and there was not an expectation he would face a particularly difficult confirmation process. Still, the episode shows that the C.I.A.'s secret detention program remains a particularly incendiary issue for the Democratic base, making it difficult for Mr. Obama to select someone for a top intelligence post who has played any role in the agency's campaign against Al Qaeda since the Sept. 11 attacks.

    And the Associated Press, as cited by BTD, said this:

    On Tuesday, Brennan wrote a letter to Obama that he did not want to be a distraction. His potential appointment has raised a firestorm in liberal blogs who associate him with the Bush administration's interrogation, detention and rendition policies.

    MSNBC also weighed in the subject, although I haven't seen it yet.

    Parent

    You did your part too. Thanks. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:21:38 PM EST


    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 01:48:58 PM EST
    THIS is why you do not wait to express your "concern" about issues and personnel.

    and I suspect it's also why they float trial balloons . . . .

    Thanks for being "concerned" :)

    That's The Bigger Problem (none / 0) (#36)
    by Pepe on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:41:26 PM EST
    isn't it - Trial Balloons?

    It's good that Brennan is out as an 'official adviser', and I emphasize 'official', as opposed to shadow adviser. But the fact still remains that #1 Obama had him on his team in the first place and #2 that Obama floated a trail balloon to see if he could keep him on the team.

    So the root problem remains.

    Parent

    Depends what you mean by ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:44:35 PM EST
    'the root problem'. The political establishment is not likely to change much over any short period of time. What is significant here is that the left blogs were actually able to have an impact on the policy direction of the new Administration.

    Parent
    The root problem is obvious (none / 0) (#69)
    by Pepe on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 06:45:22 PM EST
    as I pointed out in my post. It was OBAMA'S choice to have Brennan as part of his team in the first place, knowing of course Brennan's negatives. It was also OBAMA who floated the balloon to see if he could 'sell' Brennan to the public.

    So to spell it out in this case it is OBAMA who is the root of the problem.

    Had he distanced himself from Brennan , which he had good reason to, then we would not eve be talking about Brennan. How could Obama who says he is against torture bring into his circle someone who condoned torture? Brennan didn't cause the uproar - Obama did by his own choices.

    Parent

    That's what I thought you meant (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:54:55 PM EST
    But let's face it, Obama is as good as it gets in our political system. Such differences as you might get from some preferred candidate in Obama's place would be trivial in comparison to the kinds of issues we're talking about. The fact that Obama is aligning himself with the existing political establishment is so ... "Dog bites man."

    The national Democratic establishment has very little respect for its base. So the fact that we were able to influence the direction here is the significant thing.

    Parent

    I'm looking forward (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 01:56:37 PM EST
    to seeing the whole letter.

    Brennan's letter (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 01:57:45 PM EST
    which AP says it has but only quotes a couple sentences from, says, "The fact that I was not involved in the decisionmaking process for any of these controversial policies and actions has been ignored."

    Depending on the context, of course, I would say that sentence should disqualify him for any sensitive post.

    "Not my responsibility!" "I was just following orders!" "It's above my pay grade!"

    That line produced a (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 01:59:19 PM EST
    "what a schmuck" reaction from me.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#81)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 09:21:53 AM EST
    Why?  Because he was involved in the INTELLIGENCE side of the CIA, he should be held accountable for  the actions of the OPERATIONS side?  

    Because he doesn't display the appropriate political purity?

    Needless to say I find the lefty blogosphere completely wrong on this.  I do not want our intelligence agencies to be run by political operatives.  I want them run by technically competent managers that are directed by our political leaders.

    Parent

    then you should be glad (none / 0) (#82)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 09:29:09 AM EST
    Brennan is out of contention for this job.  

    Have you read The Dark Side?  Have you read Brennan's interviews where he is constantly covering Tenet's @ss?  

    Do you think Tenet is completely innocent of the decisions made by the CIA?  That Tenet wasn't operating politically?  That Brennan, choosing Obama, isn't making a political decision?

    And what in the world makes you think the agency was competent circa 9/11?

    Parent

    Quite a few (none / 0) (#84)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 10:25:00 AM EST
    non sequiturs involved here.

    Tenet was Brennan's boss.  Of course he is going to defend him just like every other employee would publicly defend their boss.  

    I don't think Tenet is innocent.  I think being in charge of the CIA makes him explicitly culpable for their actions.  I do suspect that he allowed himself to be pushed around by a White House that required allegiance above honesty.  

    The CIA is never considered competent and I suspect it never will be.  That's because their failures are front page news and their successes are classified.  And I firmly believe that the Bush White House used the CIA as a scapegoat to cover their failed agenda.  

    Parent

    This is definitely (none / 0) (#85)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 10:40:41 AM EST
    one perspective:  "And I firmly believe that the Bush White House used the CIA as a scapegoat to cover their failed agenda."

    I think we deserve a torture commission to find out what happened and who really was to blame, how these decisions were made, etc. etc...

    A Brennan appointment would've been a distraction and an impediment to a public push for accountability in the CIA and in the upper levels of government.  Do you think Obama is going to want his guy disgraced by what we discover or laid on the surgical table for an honest investigation?  The commission would have had a real credibility problem IMO if it had to watch out for the current CIA Director.


    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#86)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 10:52:57 AM EST
    So that means that you want someone outside of the intelligence community running the CIA?

    I have seen little evidence to support the notion that the CIA did anything other than follow the wishes of the Bush Administration.  

    I don't really think we are going to achieve much by creating a new Church Commission that will gut the I.C. for political purposes.  I also don't believe that the Obama Administration has any interest in doing that.

    Create better oversight.  Create stronger political control.  And don't elect people who feel that torture is justifiable.  That's how we fix the problem.

    Parent

    It was Cofer Black (none / 0) (#87)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 12:39:07 PM EST
    who ran to Bush with all his great ideas about expanding the CIA's powers.

    Parent
    Cofer Black (none / 0) (#88)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 12:55:47 PM EST
    is a truest of true believers.  

    He's been chasing terrorists in Afghanistan for 15 years and a good example of the sort of person I am referring to.  To him, defeating the terrorists takes precedence to respecting civil rights.  

    Regardless it was Bush's responsibility to NOT allow the I.C. to define appropriate civil rights recognition.  Instead he abrogated his authority to others on the matter.

    Parent

    Well I think you (none / 0) (#89)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 01:15:01 PM EST
    can argue that Obama did the same thing Bush did (in principle) when he took Brennan's advice on whether to vote yes or no on this summer's FISA bill.  The President shouldn't ask the CIA to give us our civil rights; but apparently they are not above doing that.

    Richard Clarke, Rand Beers, there are other guys for this job.


    Parent

    You are making an assumption (none / 0) (#90)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 02:15:28 PM EST
    You don't know what impact Brennan had on Obama's decision.

    Parent
    from NPR (none / 0) (#91)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 02:24:51 PM EST
    on FISA July 7 2008:

    "That, in my mind, met my basic concerns. And given that all the information I've received is that the underlying program itself actually is important and useful to American security, as long as it has these constraints on them, I felt it was more important for me to go ahead and support this compromise," Obama said.

    What's important in that statement is Obama's reference to "the information I've received." He's advised on intelligence matters by John Brennan, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Like many intelligence professionals, Brennan says the FISA program is essential to the fight against terrorism.

    By adopting Brennan's view, Obama improves his standing with the intelligence community; for someone looking ahead to a presidential administration, that's important.

    You can argue this is a bit of editorializing but I don't think it's too big of a stretch.

    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#92)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 03:22:42 PM EST
    I think there is a difference between listening to experts and making a decision and letting the experts make a decision.

    I know that FISA is a sacrilege to the left blogosphere but I really don't find it as troubling as others.  At least not the latest incarnation.  I don't think it even comes close to torture and some of the other acts of the Bush Administration and the I.C. during the same period.

    Parent

    oh and ps (none / 0) (#83)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 09:33:16 AM EST
    how do you think a current government contractor is going to get through Obama's lobbyist hoops?

    No political appointees in the Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.

    But yeah, I doubt that Brennan will need to use the terrorist database his company currently maintains.

    Parent

    That's the CIA line (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 01:59:37 PM EST
    They wanted to go to war.  Not our fault for letting it happen.

    Parent
    Perfect example: (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:04:04 PM EST
    On Charlie Rose this afternoon, Tenet's former chief of staff, John O. Brennan, said that the "disastrous" war plans were formed by "Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz" in the belief that it would be a "cakewalk." He said: "At the end of the day the decision rested with the policy makers."
     Mondoweiss.

    I am thrilled!

    Parent

    Decision to go t o war is one thing (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:04:35 PM EST
    torture and blatantly unconstitutional wiretapping of millions of Americans, perhaps all of us, are quite another, IMHO.  Brennan knew about all of that, and even if he had no influence or input whatsoever into it, which I doubt, he went along with it.

    This is one area we absolutely need to have Clinton administration "retreads" because the entire apparatus behaved dishonorably under Bush.

    Richard Clarke?  Hello?

    Parent

    For those reasons and also (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:22:58 PM EST
    so we shoot down this myth of Republican national security superiority these positions need to go to Dems.  Bob Graham would be another good choice.

    Parent
    You do realize (none / 0) (#80)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 09:18:19 AM EST
    that it is illegal for the CIA to operate with the American borders and that they are not involved in signal intelligence?  

    While I like Richard Clarke, I suspect those supporting him would be shocked to know his views on wiretapping or rendition.

    It goes with the territory.  

    Much like Colonel Jessup in a Few Good Men, being on the front lines fighting the enemy tends to cloud the minds of most spooks.  That's why you don't let them define what is or is not appropriate.

    Parent

    Oh FFS (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by smott on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:53:37 PM EST
    Well I'm not ignoring O's FISA vote and dollars to donuts Brennan had plenty of input on that one. Honestly.

    Parent
    Next to knock down before he's official (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 01:59:26 PM EST
    Ramstad as Drug Czar.

    Had a chance to discuss this one with Senator Feingold Friday. On hearing of Ramstad's persistent opposition to needle exchange, Russ agreed to contact the Transition staff to warn them off, hopefully before any official announcement.

    The Drug Czar nominee gets Confirmation Hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    We should only be calling the potential allies on the Committee, no point in putting this on the radar of the DrugWar supporters just yet.

    If in Vermont, call Leahy. PA call Spector. MD, Cardin. IL, Durbin. MA, Kennedy.

    Good that we won't have to read (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:01:32 PM EST
    this BS anymore from "progressive" media:

    "Defending Brennan."

    Appoint Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by magster on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:07:34 PM EST
    The reaction would be fun to watch.

    woohoo! (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jedimom on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:34:34 PM EST
    oh this just keeps getting better! great news!

    we are lucky to have voices like BTD to help say BAD IDEA- BEFORE the appointments are made, WHEN the trial balloons go up, that is the entire point of the trial balloon concept, to test the waters

    if we don't roil those waters and push back when something seems wrong to us, what is the point of having blogs or freedom of speech at all? JMO

    bad Brennan, bad bad Brennan

    The article has expanded (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:34:55 PM EST
    Brennan is sad;

    Obama's advisers had grown increasingly concerned in recent days over online blogs that accused Brennan of condoning harsh interrogation tactics on terror suspects, including waterboarding, which critics call torture.

    One former intelligence official said Bush in 2005 rejected nominating Brennan, then interim National Counterterrorism Center director, as the actual director.

    I keep scouring the list of people on the Campaign to Ban Torture and I seem unable to find your name Brennan.  Nuts!

    I was just about to ask if there (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:39:34 PM EST
    any evidence bloggers influenced Obama not to nominate Brennan.  Guess so.  

    Parent
    Jeepers (none / 0) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:40:24 PM EST
    This is certainly the first I've ever heard they paid the slightest bit of attention to blogs, other than sending hired "sweeties" our way during the primaries.

    Parent
    Blogosphere as a sometimes useful tool (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by joanneleon on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:43:00 PM EST

    Obama's advisers had grown increasingly concerned in recent days over online blogs that accused Brennan of condoning harsh interrogation tactics on terror suspects, including waterboarding, which critics call torture.

    While I respect the people who spoke out about Brennan, including BTD and Greenwald, I find it hard to believe that the backlash from the "liberal blogs" was the main reason for the Obama team's concern and for Brennan's withdrawal.  I think there were some other people who spoke up and said "no way" and the press chose to cite the blog's opposition and not mention opposition from elsewhere.

    I think the blog's outcry was effective, but I don't believe it's the the thing that tipped the scales.  If this was the case, Summers would have been told to  withdraw too, no?  And wouldn't there have been more response to the many legitimate questions and criticisms that have been coming from the blogs?

    Regardless, I'm glad this turned out the way it did, and for more reason than one!  

    I should have included (none / 0) (#30)
    by joanneleon on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:49:02 PM EST
    Well done, BTD, and other bloggers who spoke out when things needed to be said, and took hits for it, but stood their ground.

    Parent
    Props to the "crybabies" (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Faust on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:43:54 PM EST


    thank our lucky stars (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:02:32 PM EST
    for Jane Mayer.  Her book - The Dark Side - that has been a reference point throughout this discussion.  And she wrote the much cited New Yorker article Black Sites.  

    I am much more optimistic about a torture commission now.  Time to dream about who the CIA Director will be...there's no one else I am as scared of out there (yet)...

    Richard Clarke and Richard Beers would be good choices in IMO.  Melvin Goodman wrote ferociously against Brennan too and had a long CIA career but I think he might be getting on in years ?

    Obama should appoint (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:06:53 PM EST
    Mayer to some super-watchdog position.  

    Parent
    Why would I give props (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by RussTC3 on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:59:11 PM EST
    to people who over-reacted before any decisions were made?

    I have confidence in Obama's decision making.  When I see or hear something stupid FROM HIM, not false media reports, I'll act on them.

    I guess you do not take (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:01:33 PM EST
    Brennan at his word.

    Neither did we.

    Did you read his letter?

    Parent

    On "over-reacting before decisions" (none / 0) (#62)
    by cymro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:26:26 PM EST
    If you don't approve of ...
    people who over-reacted before any decisions were made

    ... then what behavior do you approve of? Not reacting until after decisions are made? Please explain how that influences decisions, or is effective in any way.


    Parent
    So who is next? (none / 0) (#11)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:00:01 PM EST
    This is a post to watch imo.

    I mean if they could go as far as to float Brennan's name, they seem not to have as much of an issue with the torture question as they do with the issue of someone being publicly supportive of the practice.

    Wish they had knocked Summers (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by joanneleon on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:25:11 PM EST
    out of the running.

    Parent
    I think you won on Summers. (none / 0) (#33)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:18:27 PM EST
    Summers had to be demoted because of the outcry about him imo.  If he hadn't said that women weren't good at math though, I would bet money that he would be named Sec Treas now.

    But I am a hair more concerned with the intelligence team than the economic team at the moment.  So far it is mostly Bushies and while I've heard the argument that the time is so sensitive that they have to maintain continuity, I am a bit suspicious of how well served we or Obama will be by these people who arguably have things to hide about their behavior in the Bush Administration.  Furthermore, I question the wisdom of allowing so many in this arena to carry on.

    Parent

    There's talk of Fed Chair (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by joanneleon on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:47:03 PM EST
    for Summers, down the line.  

    I don't understand why it's so important to have him in the administration that they're willing to take the flac for his reputation and his well known behaviors.  But then again, I thought Sunstein was someone Obama should distance himself from too.  On some things, I'm really out of the mainstream, apparently.

    Parent

    They're friends. (none / 0) (#45)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:56:10 PM EST
    That's all.

    I'm not defending the selection process, but that's what it often comes down to in DC.

    Parent

    Another thing (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by joanneleon on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:20:17 PM EST
    just for the record -- and a bigger issue than the ones I already mentioned, is that Summers is partially responsible for this mess, at least when it comes to derivatives.  MJ has an interesting article where they talk about his anti-regulation history and role in promoting derivatives.  Note that credit default swaps (CDS) are a type of derivative that is entirely unregulated.

    There are some really big problems with Summers and even if they are friends, this appointment seems to cost Obama a lot of exposure.


    Summers, then the deputy secretary of the Treasury, had another idea--as did Robert Rubin, the secretary of the Treasury, and Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve. These wise men each gazed with horror upon Born's proposed consideration of regulation for derivatives. Speaking for them, on July 30, 1998, Summers testified in the Senate against the notion of the CFTC even pondering rules governing the trading of derivatives. By releasing its memo, the CFTC, Summers complained, "has cast the shadow of regulatory uncertainty over an otherwise thriving market--raising risks for the stability and competitiveness of American derivative trading."
    Mother Jones Link

    Also, they speculate (pretty strongly) that the reason he was given this position is because it doesn't require confirmation in the Senate.  


    While some of that might be true, Summers has been a controversial figure, and it's likely no accident that he is being handed a position that does require him to be confirmed by the Senate.



    Parent
    I just keep talking about the regulation (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:48:25 PM EST
    that I expect from this Congress and the Obama Administration so that when they don't do it - and I suspect they won't without much pressure - maybe some people will notice the absence of action and demand it.  One of the main reasons that I never got very excited about either Obama or Clinton was because I did not see either of them as being aggressive on the issue of finance and corporate regulation.  I see the economic collapse as a possible opportunity for change.  It may be that all these deregulator folks will be forced to regulate as things become more and more dire.  But in a way, I expect the real pressure to come from the sovereign fund types who will begin to see - and may already be seeing - the US as a less than stable market.  Confidence is already clearly a scarce commodity on Wall Street and on "Main Street", but when confidence fails overseas all this bailout money starts to dry up because our foreign creditors will see that all they are doing is pouring money into a black hole.  Nobody likes to play three card monte once they start losing repeatedly.  If Barack Obama doesn't get this right, I believe that even Sarah Palin will be able to beat him in 2012.

    Parent
    What do you think of this article? (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:53:52 PM EST
    NYT on "Rubinomics"

    Parent
    Honestly, I have never had any (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:14:39 PM EST
    respect for any of these people.  My Dad worked for Congressman Wright Patman who was head of the House Banking Committee from the Great Depression until he went after Nixon.  Patman was one of the architects of the regulated and far more stable bank and savings and loan system we enjoyed for many, many years.  He's spinning in his grave.

    Parent
    You will love this article (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:36:05 PM EST
    Default Recovery Swaps

    Parent
    BTD wouldn't touch Summers (none / 0) (#40)
    by Pepe on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:51:37 PM EST
    A lot of people here were against Summers being appointed as Treasury Secretary and are not thrilled that he got appointed as the head of the NEC.

    BTD wouldn't Touch summers because he is a Free Trader.

    Parent

    I think that's unfair. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:19:03 PM EST


    Parent
    I really don't know much about that (none / 0) (#66)
    by joanneleon on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:46:08 PM EST
    I'm speaking for myself only.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 06:52:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Amen Sister (none / 0) (#48)
    by Pepe on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:00:19 PM EST
    Those were pretty much my sentiments upthread.

    Parent
    Yeah! (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:08:38 PM EST
    Good work.

    Sweet vindication BTD... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Thanin on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:10:49 PM EST
    now Im curious to see what other new and interesting ways Obama detractors will insist that hes still pro torture.

    Did that actually happen? (none / 0) (#21)
    by joanneleon on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:28:18 PM EST
    That's one thing I haven't seen.  I've got my doubts about Obama, but pro-torture never even entered into my mind.  He's doesn't seem the violent type at all, thank FSW.

    Parent
    Some comments here were like that. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Thanin on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 06:47:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Is it worth working agianst (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:32:03 PM EST
    Colin Powell as "Ambassador to the Middle East" or is this a figment of Steve Clemons's imagination?

    I think it's worth it (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:01:53 PM EST
    I like Powell. He never lied about my WMDs though. How is the Middle East supposed to like him?

    Parent
    That is the puzzling part. Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:04:26 PM EST
    the ME actually wanted us to invade and occupy Iraq?  Or maybe it is the same theory as the one advanced that if Obama were elected President having an African American in that position would positively influence out relations with ME and Muslims.  

    Parent
    Why not a Muslim then? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Lil on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:23:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh, good idea. Any suggestions? (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:30:44 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't know about that (none / 0) (#52)
    by Pepe on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:04:52 PM EST
    Huge perceived potential conflict of interest.

    Parent
    Oh I am sure many did. (none / 0) (#54)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:16:32 PM EST
    I talked to lots of people from the region before the war who were very gung-ho about taking out Saddam.

    Parent
    This morning on MSNBC (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by joanneleon on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:55:05 PM EST
    Zbignew Brzezinski was on.  When talking about the SoS position, he mentioned something about having a team of people, since Clinton would be, if focused on ME peace deals, unable to do the rest of the job.  He threw out some names, saying he was using them as examples, but Colin Powell was one of two or three names he mentioned.  This idea was put forward as a suggestion by Brzezinski but I always wonder about an agenda when people like him say things like that to a national audience and to a bunch of pundits sitting at a table listening to him.  

    Parent
    Guaranteed to piss off Clinton (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:04:04 PM EST
    supporters.  Let's put a woman in as Secretary of State but make sure there are plenty of guys around to actually do the job.

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by joanneleon on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:42:31 PM EST
    I did initially take offense slightly, but I'm getting pretty good at not getting upset when someone disses Clinton.  It's just a fact of life, and she pretty much proves them wrong every time, IMHO.

    In fact, what Zbig was saying was something that has crossed my mind more than once.  If an SoS is tasked to work on ME peace plans, it's going to be a full time job.  However, suggesting that Obama has to appoint some kind of team to work with or around her, shouldn't be necessary.  It's not like she's an island as SoS.  The State Dept. is (or at least was) a sophisticated organization.  If she is running it, I would hope she'd be able to have some autonomy on how to run it.  So I found Zbig's suggestion to be a bit weird in that respect.  Especially since he had just expressed concern that Obama may be appointing too many people to these councils, and that said councils would take too much of his time and would detract from his focusing on the bigger picture.  In general, I thought he was saying it's looking like there may too many big people in the mix for effective governing.

    Worse, I thought, was even the suggestion that Colin Powell be given a position related to the State Dept. or any department, for that matter.  I find that to be unbelievable.  I had a ton of respect for Powell at one time and clearly the Bush admin. did him dirty.  But he had free choice.  He could have resigned.  He could have spoken out, before the Iraq war, and didn't.  He could have spoken out after he was out of the admin. and he didn't.  And on and on.  Why in the world would he be appointed to any position in this administration?  I found this to be the most offensive thing about Zbig's statements.

    Parent

    Because he endorsed Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:46:43 PM EST
    No, it isn't a good enough reason.  I agree w/you.  I'm more forgiving of the infamous Michael Vick than I am of Powell.

    Parent
    Excellent (none / 0) (#23)
    by Lolis on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:33:15 PM EST
    There have to better options than Brennan. Anyone have any suggestions?

    Um (none / 0) (#38)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:48:07 PM EST
    you REALLY didn't have to apologize to Cole IMO...if he can't tell you apart from the WSJ ...

    This is too important (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:48:58 PM EST
    for stupid pi**ing contests.

    I should have not brought him into this post.

    Parent

    Maybe so (none / 0) (#41)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:53:16 PM EST
    still unless his post is 100% spiteful it appears the moral of the story went unlearned:

    In case people were wondering, THIS is why you do not wait to express your "concern" about issues and personnel.

    Parent

    Does not matter (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:54:08 PM EST
    I detracted from my own post with it.

    Parent
    Hurrah! (none / 0) (#46)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:57:26 PM EST
    Now can we do something about HOLC?

    Well, Gates stays on as Secy of Defense (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:05:04 PM EST
    according to CNN sources.  What does that mean about policies in Iraq -- such as torture. . . .

    That is one strange story (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by joanneleon on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:52:10 PM EST
    I just saw the news release myself.  I've been reading here and there about the Gates thing.  He doesn't want to stay, or he does but wants to keep some staff, he wants to return to teaching, or wants to move to the northwest.  I've heard that he said the equivalent of no freaking way, and on and on.  Recently I read that there are big concerns about Obama and the military.  I don't know what to think.  

    Do the commanders of the various "COMs" (CentCOM, etc.) stay in place or do they serve at the pleasure of the president?  Does Petraeus stay in place?

    Parent

    Unless (none / 0) (#72)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 06:59:08 PM EST
    those appointments you're concerned about includes   Hillary.  

    Gates staying on is a horrible idea. What these appointments tell me is that Barack is likely as comfortable with the idea of maintaining American Empire, with all the military-industrial-corporate boondoggles and senseless violence it entails, as is Hillary adn Gates.

    I hope I am wrong and I will give Obama the benefit of the doubt despite these disappointing choices.  At the end of the day it is what he does and what his appointees do that matter, not personalities.

    I am still so thrilled (none / 0) (#73)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:02:19 PM EST
    that he is out of consideration.  

    mcjoan asks what now?

    She links to Scott Horton, whose article is a strong statement on Brennan being morally unfit.

    I am curious to see whether Obama throws Brennan under the bus or lets him slink away.  To the best of my knowledge of all the people who had Obama's ear, Brennan was one of the closest.  I wonder how he will choose now?

    I'll give it to you, (none / 0) (#78)
    by OldCity on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 08:06:42 AM EST
    but I also think thre's some exaggeration, here.  the poster above who noted that it was the media who made the link to bloggers.

    I think it was a foregone conclusion that he was not a serious candidate...

    I am wholeheartedly against torture.  I think it diminishes us as Americans.  I'm also conflicted as to what our expectations are of career people in instituions such as the CIA...do we expect them to resign en masse when they disagree?  do we expect them to follow legal reasoning given them?  Can they remain in an institution that has many facets, even if one compnent of the institution is defective?  

    I think we have to separate torture from rendition...Clinton did that, too.  The question is, once you've got'em, are you inflicting harm?

    a foregone conclusion? (none / 0) (#79)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 08:11:16 AM EST
    what gave you that impression?

    Nov 20:

    Democratic and national security sources say that former National Counterrorism Center head John Brennan remains the favorite to be nominated director of the Central Intelligence Agency even as his pending appointment raises the hackles of some Obama advisers because of his ties to George Tenet and controversial programs.

    The sources say that Brennan has begun to recruit a team he hopes to bring with him to the agency, and that he has been vetted. Brennan did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment...


    Ambinder

    From what I have read, perhaps the sole purpose of rendition is to put people in a place where we can rough them up more easily.  That is the case for Bush rendition anyway.


    Parent

    Report: Brennan Out of Consideration For Intelligence Post | 90 comments (90 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment