Critiquing The Obama Administration

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 07:20:18 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

As someone who was criticized for railing against the idea of John Brennan as a potential head of the CIA (I also find the idea of Michael Hayden as DNI intolerable), I do find it ironic that by and large, I am quite comfortable, pleased even, with the makeup of the incoming Obama Administration. At the same time, I am someone who has always urged people to speak their mind - to wit, if you are not pleased with the makeup of the incoming Obama Administration, it seems to me you should say so. In a NYTimes article on the subject, Markos Moulitsas is quoted as saying:

“Some people may be nit-picky about his choices but at the end of the day, he’s going to make better choices than John McCain would have made,” Mr. Moulitsas said by telephone. “There will be a time to push him, but as far as I’m concerned, I’m going to wait to see what it means on a policy basis, not on personalities.”

I disagree with that. The time to push is all the time. There is not a time not to push. I suspect that in reality Markos is probably pretty comfortable with Obama's choices so far himself, so he does not urge "pushing now." In the same article, Chris Bowers is quoted saying "“Why isn’t there a single member of Obama’s cabinet who will be advising him from the left?” Chris seems upset about the quote:

That so many news organizations would quote me and identify me as representative of a certain viewpoint without even bothering to contact me doesn't make it difficult to see that I am being stereotyped and used. If you are a "reporter," and you are quoting me--in a forum where I can't possibly respond--but not actually bothering to contact me, then you don't actually care about my thoughts on Obama's personnel decisions so far. Even though those view happen to be quite detailed and mixed, they don't care. Instead, two quotes I wrote, out of about 60,000 words I have published since the election, have been constantly recycled used to fit their established narrative. What I actually think, be damned.

So does Chris regret the quote? Does he not mean it? Can he explain in less than 60,000 words what he means by that quote? For once, my sympathies lie with the reporter - Bowers' complaint does not make a great deal of sense to me. Did he not express frustration that more liberals have not been chosen for the Obama Administration? Is it necessary to read his dissertations on the subject to be able to report that, in fact, Chris Bowers wishes Obama's cabinet had more folks from the Left in it? And if he means it, why would he be upset that the NYTimes is reporting it? I do not understand Bowers' complaint here at all. As an aside, I thought Chris was quite good on Hardball discussing this issue. Sure, it was more nuanced and in depth than the standalone quote from the Times, but the message, it seems to me, was the same -- Bowers wants more folks from the Left in the Obama Administration. He argued the view quite effectively I thought.

Anyway, a note to the Times - you can pull a quote from my posts anytime you want - no need to call me.

Speaking for me only

< Rep. Fossella Gets 5 Days in Jail for D.U.I. | The New New Deal: A New WPA? A New PWA? Both? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Critiquing The Obama Administration | 58 comments (58 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Agreed about Bowers (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by lentinel on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 07:39:54 AM EST

I don't understand his complaint re: the quote.
I agree with what he is quoted as saying.
He seems to be upset that he wasn't "interviewed" before he was quoted - as if there is some context that would soften his critique.

The thing he really seems upset about is that he is the object of abuse from people who do not feel it is appropriate to criticize the one. This is weird to contemplate - both the bile being directed at him, and his reaction to it.

Obama's team has had things to say about the auto industry and plans for rebuilding "infrastructure", but nothing whatever to say about the plans to send 20,000 American troops to Afghanistan.
Obama does speak at this time. He does about some things, not others. And war is one of the things he does not discuss.

I agree with you, BTD, that this is no time for what is being called "patience". This is a time for urgent communication from people who were, naively or not, hopeful about progressive change from an Obama White House.

The left is getting angry with Obama (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Saul on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 07:46:05 AM EST

They did not expect him to be so centrist. Read here

: Well, you can't fault Obama. (none / 0) (#35)
by ThatOneVoter on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 10:10:09 AM EST

Markos is wrong; Bowers is complaining (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by koshembos on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 08:24:07 AM EST

The claim by Markos that he going to wait may fit him, but should be rejected by the public. In a democracy, criticism and opposition are important and necessary. Bowers seems to complain and one may get the impression that he is quoted daily in the NYT and the Post. I find it funny.

Most of the left is complaining about the cabinet mainly because there are many Clinton people in it. What is left of the left is Clinton hate (kind of micro-racism); we don't really have a left anymore.

I don't like the cabinet because it has too many people who shouldn't be there. The ultra insider Holder, the screamingly inept Daschle, the inexplicable Geithner and the unfit Richardson. I also find Obama's the 250 highly respected economists Obama selected a pyramid size CYA.

I don't understand Bower's reaction ... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Robot Porter on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 08:57:56 AM EST

and I agree with his initial statement. Obama hasn't chosen anyone at the cabinet level who could be describe as "from the left."

Even if you're a centrist, it seems a reasonable criticism of his cabinet. And it certainly is contradictory to Obama's statements about wanting strong voices and and debate in his administration.

That can't happen when everyone is a centrist.

Of course, I never thought he would have anyone from the left in his cabinet. But that's beside the point.

Mister "Crashing The Gates" (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by Fabian on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 09:06:35 AM EST

becomes Mister "What, Me Worry?".

Break out the pom poms and join in!
"Obama! Obama! He's our man! If he can't do it...well, at least he's not McCain!"

Chrissakes, Marcos. I loathed the Not-McCain excuses during the campaign. If you keep using them, they'll rank right up there with the Right's "B-b-but the Terrorists!".

Chris Bowers (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Fabian on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 09:10:05 AM EST

has come to startling conclusion that "journalism" is not blogging.

I recommend he go read a couple weeks' worth of the Daily Howler to become familiar with the current "journalistic" practices.

: heh :) (none / 0) (#37)
by Faust on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 10:35:21 AM EST

Not just critiquing. . . (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 09:18:51 AM EST

but even just commenting on Obama's cabinet selections seems to have the true-believers in a tizzy.

Interesting question: Does Obama's retention of Gates and appointment of Jones serve to promote the idea that only Republicans are prepared to handle national defense? Or is it an attempt to coopt the Republican brand? Or to tarnish the Republican brand by making them responsible for undoing what they did?

Not the sort of thing you can even discuss in the abstract when the only response is "Smile when you say 'Obama'!"

hee hee (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 09:37:55 AM EST

but at the end of the day, he's going to make better choices than John McCain would have made," Mr. Moulitsas said

I see Markos is finally admitting the basis for his ObamaLove - notMcCainism. Weak reason for the previous adulation; he sure wouldn't have said this before. Falling out of love is always hard.

As someone who has been pretty happy (5.00 / 3) (#30)
by tigercourse on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 09:54:02 AM EST

with President elect Obama so far, I have to point out a big inconsistency with what Kos writes. People aren't complaining about Brennan or Daschle or whoever because they don't like their personality, they complain because they don't think they will implement the right POLICY (or at least won't do a good job of implementing the right POLICY). No one is knocking cabinet picks because they don't want to have a beer with the guy/gal. Kos remains, as always, a very... simple fellow.

Was there ever a more ineffectual pol than (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by pluege on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 11:31:21 AM EST

Daschle? I think not.

To put him on the point of anything important is an indication that Obama doesn't want to get that done.


: Gotta pay the bills. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Fabian on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 12:00:20 PM EST

You don't think Obama won the primary all by himself, do you?

Almost completely agree (none / 0) (#36)
by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 10:18:33 AM EST

This is certainly true when I discuss my disagreemnt with HRC at State. I like her fine, I just very rarely agree with her foreign policy votes or pronouncements.

As for Gates, it may be true I don't like him. He was up to his ears in Iran Contra, worked with Bush 41 at CIA during a time support for Saddam and Noreiga was provided, errors in judgment which later required us to spend blood & treasure to "correct." I have no doubt Gates will be Bush 41's mole in the Administration. Like his mentor and his mentor's wayward son, the man is no judge of character and should not be in a position where such judgments matter.

So he has followed in the long line of Bush 41 hacks who have been called in to clean up after one of Boy George's messes, so what? All the more reason to oppose his retention at Defense.


The idea (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by OldCity on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 10:04:45 AM EST

that he wouldn't want experienced people is ludicrous. What's he going to do, appoint a bunch of people who don't have any institutional knowledge? If he did, is the assumption that those people will just smap their fingers and right all wrongs?

C'mon. Well meaning, but unqualified people make bad or unworkable policy. They also, generally, are truly horrible administrators.

I'd worry more about Obama's policy positions than those he's choosing to implement them. His is going to be a top-down administration.

The instant Obama won... (5.00 / 3) (#44)
by pluege on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 11:19:15 AM EST

he lost his 'benefit of the doubt' status, and taking the bad with the good acquiescence. The goal was achieved - he got elected, time to move on.

Its all well and good that people supported Obama because he had to win (and its why HRC supporters needed to get on board), but now that he has won, the job shifts immediately to one of encouraging the correct choices, and critiquing and holding him accountable to what he ran on.

There are no friends in politics, only temporary alliances. Obama can do a whole lot of good, but just as easily could be a wreck (never as bad as mccain, but still bad). It all depends on who is pushing his buttons. He will respond to forces that are loud enough to cause him discomfort. To give him a bye because for the general election he was "our guy" is just stupid and counterproductive. That said, it does not mean that there aren't degrees of vociferousness that are applicable and consider - it all depends on the severity and consequence of the transgression on a case by case basis.

markos: (5.00 / 3) (#47)
by Turkana on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 11:39:13 AM EST

politely knocking at the gates.

There's a reason (5.00 / 3) (#48)
by Fabian on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 11:51:14 AM EST

that I prefer folks like BTD and Bob Somerby and Glenn Greenwald. They don't spin like weather vanes.


greenwald (5.00 / 3) (#52)
by Turkana on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 12:08:51 PM EST

has a great post up, right now. also don't forget digby...


I searched Digby for her (5.00 / 2) (#53)
by oculus on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 12:12:03 PM EST

read on the Favreau "incident." Didn't see anything as of last night, which surprised me.


: You might want to see (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 12:39:18 PM EST

Anglachel today on the Favreau incident.

: could be (none / 0) (#55)
by Turkana on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 12:36:12 PM EST

that she just thought others had covered it well enough, and she was focused on other things.

I read this yesterday (5.00 / 3) (#54)
by lilburro on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 12:22:44 PM EST

and was shocked by the Daily Kos diary Greenwald links to. In a complex Washington bureaucracy one thinks the most realistic model of executive power is...Don Corleone??

Some people seem to think the cabinet only serves to give Obama advice and crowd around him like a bunch of disciples. Actually, they are in charge of huge chunks of the budget, delegate a great deal of responsiblity, hold a great deal of delegated responsiblity, and represent the United States to the world.

I don't understand why some people do not appreciate that fact.


markos: (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 11:51:35 AM EST

Inside the gates and re-closed the gates.


I think, prior to pushing, (none / 0) (#3)
by OldCity on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 07:47:09 AM EST

we might ask ourselves, "What are immediate priorities for Obama?, What will he focus on first? What will he see as unnecessary/inappropriate distraction?"

As much as I would like to see immediate action on the US Attorney firings and even moreso, a full investigation of torture activity, I'm not optimistic that those are going to be focus areas. The same is true for reform of sentencing guidelines and a true effort to redact the overtly conservative Christian influence that persists in many of our institutions.

Obama is going to have to foccus on the economy, on the wars, on healthcare, and probably EPA issues. Those areas need immediate attention...he has time to address my pet concerns.

Unless he indicates that he's not receptive to input from the left, or won't be driving a liberal agenda himself (which I find unlikely...healthcare reform alone is a pretty liberal effort) he should be given some measure of latitude. There's a difference between making sure you and your concerns are visible and unproductive agitation. In other words, you can do it the smart way, and probably get somewhere in the long run, or you can appear to be a less than contemplative zealot, and get shunted aside.

what makes you feel (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by smott on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 07:53:37 AM EST

that Obama will give much immediate attention to healthcare reform?...


you should ask youself those questions (5.00 / 6) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 07:54:01 AM EST

Not Obama.

What are YOUR priorities are what should drive YOUR activism it seems to me.

I never understand this notion of trying to divine WORM. the question is what YOU mean when you speak.


: I would add (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 07:55:20 AM EST

this notion of a "smart way" is one of the all time myths in politics.
Unless you have bundles of cash for lobbyists, there is no "smart way."
I lived through this type of silly "smart way" talk during the SCOTUS wars of 2005 and 2006.

also re: this (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by lilburro on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 08:27:43 AM EST

"a full investigation of torture activity"

Your response is that he has time? Do you think keeping on Hayden, or appointing John Brennan, does not send a signal to those in the government as to what they have to fear from an investigation? Or who will be targeted? Or the seriousness of it?

I think it is important to make clear to the Obama administration that we are paying attention closely to how he handles Bush's torture legacy.

If you treat it like a pet issue, he will treat it like a pet issue. It's not like he can't do more than one thing at a time.

And again with personnel - Obama is a famous delegator. Who he has in charge of policy and management is as important as who is in charge of policy and management at any institution or workplace.


I truly don't believe (none / 0) (#12)
by OldCity on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 08:37:19 AM EST

that we are ever going to see the matter satisfactorily addressed. I expect it to go away, like so many other despicable episodes in our history, and be left for historians.

Expecting the above is not the same as agreeing with it. But, in a country where John Yoo is publishing opinion columns and teaching law, rather than defending himself and fighting to keep his law license, what else can we assume?

The US was sullied, American ideals were trampled. Our reputation will be rebuilt, I suspect, not by prosecuting the wrongdoers, but by enacting prospective legislation banning the practice. Again, I don't think that's satisfactory, but I would be very surprised to see a different outcome.


well if you expect nothing (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by lilburro on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 08:42:54 AM EST

you will get nothing.

Passing effective laws to bar the abuse of executive privileges requires an investigation, IMO. It isn't as though we didn't have many, many laws against torture before Bush.


: The administration (none / 0) (#23)
by OldCity on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 09:10:20 AM EST

covered itself legally, in the sense that they comissioned legal opinion.
I'm not passive on the issue. I just don't expect that we'll see very much in the way of retrospective relief. Historically, that's not how things go. I'm being realistic.
Kissinger, for example, is still (in some quarters, at least) a respected statesman.

Statute of Limitations? (none / 0) (#34)
by Ben Masel on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 10:09:23 AM EST

not sure what it may be on torture, but for criminal sanctions under the Wiretap Act it's 4 years, so for the snooping that occured without AG certification in the Comey/Ashcroft hospital affair, the deadline for indictments is March.


Didn't President-elect Obama (none / 0) (#38)
by oculus on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 10:36:32 AM EST

already state his administration will not be prosecuting the Bush administration? (Leaving open, one could infer, the possibility an international body might do so.)


hardly (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Nasarius on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 08:30:37 AM EST

healthcare reform alone is a pretty liberal effort

Hardly. Just because something has been vigorously opposed by the corporate-controlled right doesn't mean it's particularly liberal.

Strong majorities (about 65%) have agreed that "it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage" for many years. That is, arguably, a rather more liberal view than Obama takes, which is largely the standard Dem trope about "making health care affordable", plus a government-run insurer that you can buy into. A far cry from ensuring that all Americans have health care.


Ok, (none / 0) (#13)
by OldCity on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 08:41:28 AM EST

so destroying the entire profit model for one of the largest industries in the US isn't liberal?

Healthcare reform will require a huge goveernmental effort. The entire process of writing health insurance will have to be redrawn, as will every administrative model. Further, regulation will have to be tight as hell.

It's a gross expansion of governmental power over private industry, and that is without question, pretty fscking liberal.


it's drastic reform (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Nasarius on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 08:58:04 AM EST

Which the vast majority of Americans want. Use whatever term you like, but a fringe view it is not.


: I never said (none / 0) (#20)
by OldCity on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 09:06:09 AM EST

healthcare reform was fringe. What I did say, is that it's liberal.
It is. Definitively. Progressive, even.
I think it's important to recognize that healthcare policy is discrete from the healthcare profit model. Healthcare policy, as promulgated by successive administrations and all of the states, is horrible. The healthcare profit model (take it from one who knows) is robust.

It's a failed business model (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Fabian on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 09:00:47 AM EST

If you view the for profit health care industry purely in terms of the profit, it's been successful. No behemoth health insurance companies are crying for government aid or threatening to go bankrupt.

If you view the for profit health care industry in terms of providing vital services to as many people as they can, forget it. They have a near perfect business. There's a high demand for their product and they have multiple ways of controlling "losses". From a public health perspective, the health insurance industry is a necessary evil at best.

From a public health perspective, there's nothing wrong with private insurance companies being part of the health care system. But when private health insurance dominates, you don't HAVE a public health care system.


It is NOT a failed business model. (none / 0) (#24)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 09:14:41 AM EST

If you view the for profit health care industry purely in terms of the profit, it's been successful.

That is the only way to judge a business model. And therefore the health care industry is a tremendously successful business.

The problem is that it is primarily a business.


: It's a lovely model. (none / 0) (#27)
by Fabian on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 09:25:20 AM EST

"Chainsaw Al" Dunlop probably weeps when he considers the beauty of an industry that balances its books by removing "expenses". Plus the industry can claim that it provides a Vital Service! (to a select group) so they should be sheltered from "unreasonable" demands.

It's not our job to second-guess Obama operatives (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by lambert on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 08:48:10 AM EST

There are people who are paid for that (and wannabes for whom feeling like an insider is reward enough).

It's our job to be informed citizens, and advocate policies that accord our interests and values.

Why negotiate with ourselves? The Overton Window won't ever move left unless we give it the hardest shove possible.


Pardon me, but that's a bit of a load (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by sj on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 09:02:30 AM EST

Rather, we might ask ourselves:

"What is Obama doing that is in alignment with MY priorities? And what am I going to do about it?"


: ok, what are your immediate (none / 0) (#25)
by OldCity on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 09:16:56 AM EST

priorities? And, given the current Sitz in Leben" of the US, which do you expect to get traction first?
Serendipity intrudes...we have a guy who's disposed, I think, to make fundamental changes in many areas. However, his focus will be on the marquis items affecting all Americans.
That said, and I have, one can lobby (poor choice of words, I know) to keep one's concerns visible, so that they are eventually addressed when there are less pressing, less far reaching problems.
It's counterproductive to be combative with the prospective Obama administration at this early date, especially when any sentient being knows what the immediate priorities are.

Steve Hildebrand? (none / 0) (#7)
by lilburro on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 07:58:15 AM EST

is that you?


I can see why Bowers is worried (none / 0) (#29)
by ruffian on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 09:48:16 AM EST

I can't think of any other writer that leaves himself more open to misintepretation. His 60000+ words on any subject are a treasure trove.

I hope the new 'standard' of reporting is not to find what a blogger has said on a subject at some point in time instead of calling the guy and asking him a question in the here and now.

Personalities and process are perhaps (none / 0) (#31)
by ThatOneVoter on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 10:01:19 AM EST

more important than policy.
The reason a lot of policy was SOOO bad under Bush was that process was thrown out the window.

Chicago, Chicago (none / 0) (#33)
by NYShooter on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 10:07:03 AM EST

What a Wonderful Town......

"Governor is Held in Inquiry Into Filling Obama's Seat"

Lest we forget where Obama "made his bones."

Fitzpatrick. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by oculus on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 10:42:30 AM EST

If he really tried to get money for filling (none / 0) (#42)
by tigercourse on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 10:58:27 AM EST

Obama's seat he should be put in prison just on grounds of stupidity. The man must know he's being investigated 17 ways to Sunday and he's still screwing around? Idiot.


: There is no monopoly (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Fabian on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 11:58:17 AM EST

on arrogance and stupidity. The world is full of people who think that because they got away with it before, they'll continue to get away with it.
That's true, actually. There's a certain type of personality that won't stop until they are made to stop. Maybe it's utter arrogance or a serious lack of impulse control, but even when they see the danger, they just keep going.

The USA "intelligence" military junta--- (none / 0) (#39)
by wurman on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 10:38:18 AM EST

Dir., Nat'l Intelligence, John M. McConnell (Vice-admiral, USN, Ret.) The enabling legislation for this position requires

that Director of National Intelligence, Office of the Director of National Intelligence (I) ... shall have extensive national security expertise. [50 U.S.C. § 403] Not more than one of [the Director of National Intelligence and the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence] may be a commissioned officer of the Armed Forces in active status. [50 U.S.C. § 403-3a(c)]

Congress required that at least one of the 2 top executives for national intelligence must be a civilian.

In the 3 years since congress authorized this administrative structure, there have been 3 "principal deputy directors of national intelligence" & Donald Kerr (a civilian) now holds this assignment. LTG Ronald L. Burgess, Jr., (USArmy) has served as Dir. of Intelligence Staff from May 2007 to the present.

The rest of the national security chiefs are senior military officers.

Dir., Central Intelligence Agency, General Michael V. Hayden (USAF).

Dir., National Security Agency & Chief, Central Security Service, LtGen Keith B. Alexander (US Army).

Dir., Defense Intelligence Agency, LtGen Michael D. Maples, (US Army).

Dir. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, VAdm Robert B. Murrett (US Navy).

When Pres. Bush meets with his principal intelligence advisors, he is the only civilian in the room.

I wonder if all of these directors submit their resignations to Mr. Obama before Jan. 20, 2009, or if they have defined terms of service that will span successive administrations?

Wrong again (none / 0) (#41)
by mantis on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 10:43:54 AM EST

As someone who was criticized for railing against the idea of John Brennan as a potential head of the CIA (I also find the idea of Michael Hayden as DNI intolerable), I do find it ironic

You were criticized for calling Obama pro-torture just because Brennan's name was tossed around the rumor mill, not for opposing Brennan's possible appointment as CIA director.

Then I was criticized for someting I did not do (none / 0) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 11:13:12 AM EST

If you are one of Cole's sycophants, please do not come here trying to stir trouble.

Cole's accusations against me for opposing Gonzlaes on torture are a matter of record. As are his accusations against me for opposing Justices Roberts and Alito.

I know it is now popular to mythologize and forget what Cole write and did, and to forget what I wroter and did the last 5 years, but I will not be lectured to by the likes of you.

I have made my peace with Cole. He does not need you to comme here and break it.


I don't speak for Cole (none / 0) (#57)
by mantis on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 04:20:34 PM EST

So don't blame him for anything I write. I don't know anything about whatever encounters you've had with Cole in the past over Gonzales or Roberts and Alito, nor what they have to do with this.

My point is that you are trying to pretend that people were criticizing you for being vocal in your opposition of potential appointees, when in fact most if not all were criticizing you for claiming that Obama was pro-torture based on some rumors you heard that one person might be under consideration. That sort of thing is disingenuous and helps no one, but I guess it gets you some attention, so mission accomplished.


: You comennt is filled with errors (none / 0) (#58)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 04:45:34 PM EST

and since they echo Cole's, I think my assumption that you were relying on his criticisms was reasonable.
You are simply misstating what I wrote.
As Cole was prone to do for the past 5 years.

: You underestimate (none / 0) (#59)
by lilburro on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 04:49:46 PM EST

the seriousness of Brennan's involvement with the Obama transition (which AFAIK he is still involved in) and the seriousness of his candidacy by saying he was "tossed around the rumor mill."
I suggest reading the WSJ article again.

Mr. Obama is being advised largely by a group of intelligence professionals, including some who have supported Republicans, and centrist former officials in the Clinton administration. They say he is likely to fill key intelligence posts with pragmatists.
"He's going to take a very centrist approach to these issues," said Roger Cressey, a former counterterrorism official in the Clinton and Bush administrations. "Whenever an administration swings too far on the spectrum left or right, we end up getting ourselves in big trouble."
Cressey for example is an official advisor to Obama. I'm not exactly sure what a "centrist" intelligence policy is but I am fairly sure it includes immoral compromises and falls short of what we want.

Which solely-internet-based (none / 0) (#45)
by oculus on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 11:20:41 AM EST

journalist will win the initial Pulitzer in this field? link

Warning: link is to Huff Post.