Though I'm no fan of the Obama's-got-a-master-plan conspiracy theories...

Me neither, but Obama is on the record as saying at a recent press conferrence that he was the change agent. This was in response to a good question regarding the number of Clinton admin. veterans he'd picked up, and "where's the change in that?". Obama stated that he was the change--"That's my job".

Obama's comment at that presser should be booknoted, for future reference.

Whoa--didn't see that coming...

That is a surprising choice. A quick glance at his record shows nothing tying him at all to intelligence expertise. But as Clinton's chief of staff, he would have had several years of intelligence experience at the highest level.

This would be a good line of inquiry during confirmation hearings...

That will be must-see TV.

-------

On a completely different subject, please check out the following, with apologies for any wasted time.

www.sockandawe.com

I understand that, and by itself that is great. My point is that the function of the OLC seems to be focused on the behavoir of the present executive, rather than investigating past ones.

If so, then regardless of how squeaky-clean Obama's administration might be, and regardless of how outspoken the head of OLC (Johnsen) has been regarding Bush's past behavior, the foundations for future lawless behavior by an executive--laid by Bush with assistance from others--remain intact. This would be the case even if Johnsen was allowed to review all Bush OLC decisions, and the bad decisions withdrawn/rejected by Obama.

Thanks for that link--very heartening.

But given that the OLC is all about keeping the president squeaky-clean in his activities (is that correct?), it seems possible that it might have little or nothing to do with going back to review and reveal what Bush's OLC (and other Bush executive shops) actually did. Yes, they might be helpful in producing evidence from OLC files for other investigators, but that would not be OLC's role.

Great clip.

It is neccessary, but not sufficient. Ms. Johnsen's appointment appears to be an excellent first step. But that step will have no lasting impact on long term executive behavior and meaningful reinforcement of the rule of law unless this actually happens:

"We must avoid any temptation simply to move on."

If the incoming administration 'moves on', then Ms. Johnsen's appointment looks more like window dressing.

The US isn't backing Israel because it loves Israelis but because its useful to its domination of the region. Part of how the United States rules the planet is by controlling the vast oil resources of the middle East, and a militarized Israel is a very handy weapon to have in the region against Arab resistance groups wanting the Americans out (so they can have their resources back).

The concept that Israel is in any significant way beneficial to US regional interests in the middle east (or elsewhere) is a tenuous one. It would be easier to argue the opposite--that the fixated, unbalanced attachment between Israel and the US is emotional and disadvantageous, rather than rational and advantageous.

I can't think of a single benefit enjoyed by the US in return for the Billions in foreign aid given to Israel. The disadvantages seem much easier to identify.

I agree. For example, Barack Obama famously said "If my children were being endangered by the possibility of missiles coming though the roof and killing all of us, I'd do everything in my power to stop that". (Can't find the exact quote but it was something like that").

When saying this, Obama missed a golden opportunity by specifying that this was an Israeli concern. He could have pointed out that this same concern was equally true for Palestinians. I'd speculate that many more Palestinians have died from bombs and missiles coming through their roofs than have Israelis.

But my concern regarding the suicide bombers is that their implementation will put the dispute beyond reclamation. Once they start--then there will be nothing anyone can do to stop the cycle.

Renegade's comment is bigoted, I agree.

But don't you think suicide bombers hitting Israel are now hightly likely?

The 'roadmap for peace' should be scrapped altogether, given that Palestinian Govt. has changed since Bush's edict, Hamas winning a majority.

It also seems like a new wave of suicide bombings will soon begin, regardless of what happens in Gaza. The US might have a small window of time to intervene and restart a true participatory peace process prior to the onset of suicide bombings in Israel. To halt those bombings, the US should begin a policy of negotiating with terrorists. I think it would be in US interest to take steps to save Hamas now, in order to have someone to talk to later.

I am only here to respond to those who excuse anything and everything the Palestinians might do, and condemn anything and everything Israelis do...

Yesterday, this is exactly what you accused Greenwald of doing. When asked to produce any evidence of your claim, you failed to do so. Now you are again making the same claim, without offering any basis for it.

You've shown me clearly that your comments here are not in good faith. You are either fooling yourself or attempting to fool others. I frankly don't care which is true. I'm done with you and your comments.