Until then, I will be wait-and-see mode and continue to comment on policies and things needing change from my perspective.

So... are you waiting, or commenting? I literally don't know what you just said, there.

I am amazed that people are accusing Obama of running this country into the ground.

And I repeat: huh?

And I mean that with no intended sarcasm nor empty flattery.

I'd only add - and you touched on this - that "competence" is often used as a cover for "ideology I agree with." Thus, Cheney and Rumsfeld were held up as paragons of competence by the right eight years ago, much as Emanuel and Geithner (sp?) are the current technocratic superstars for many of cour comrades and friends on the Democratic side.

"Competence" may be the new "centrism..." a meaningless buzzword for any policy or bureaucrat approved of by conventional wisdom.

You may want to read some of Amity's earlier letters and see if there's a different light by which you could read that comment...

Ostensibly, the only thing that matters is international law

I think where your whole point breaks down is in the yawning chasm represented by that "ostensibly."

International law is not the only thing that matters in foreign policy, even separate from the fact that most areas of foreign policy aren't mere decisions on whether to uphold or ignore laws and treaties. Even in the realm of war - which is I think what your comment was specifically addressing - international law has hardly been the guiding principle. Did Reagan get UN sanction for Grenada? Clinton ever declare war on Serbia?

The point is, ideology does matter. The concept that agreements with other nations should be considered is an ideological one.

Did you hear that Stephen Colbert has a new DVD out for Christmas?

Bootlegger FTW!

with the social networking power of mybarackobama.com, change.gov, and facebook the energy he is unleashing will find its way to the technocrats. we the people only need to make our voice heard - instead of whining about how quiet it is - and all of our objectives will come into focus.

I just threw up in my mouth, a little.

I don't entirely disagree with you, but to answer "international law" to an ideology vs. pragmatism question is kind of like getting asked if you want soup or salad and saying you want a nice pasta. That'd be my preference too... it just ain't on the menu.

Again, if sked, I'd support a US President who led a robust effort to establish (note: not "re-establish) the primacy of a framework of international law in global foreign policy.

I also want a puppy.

I thought the complaint was that Obama's actions have not been as advertised.

Henh??? There was a recent post that made the exact opposite argument, that Obama's actions have been precisely as advertised, but this post doesn't touch on that at all.

I to, sir, am perplexed.

I'll take pragmatism even if I were on fire and ideology was a bucket of water.

Is this not an ideological statement?

Glenn, I'll take "Didn't Read the Post" for $200, please.

Every action requires both. Everything else is fluff.

Which was Glenn's point. What's yours?

And you wonder why people think you get paid per comment. Tsk.

1. "Glenn, why don't you give Obama a chance before ripping him a new butthole?!?!??"

2. "Glenn, why did you support Obama since he's clearly a tool of the money elite?!??!!?"

There, that should pre-empt a hundred posts at least...

This sentence should be repeated until January 2013 (at least).

Thank you.

at the beginning of this thread:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/25/cheney/permalink/b41e429f5a8c6be52ab7987878742cfb.html

Like Ron Paul... I saw this coming

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.

Is it only me, or does the "liberal blogs" excuse look increasingly thin?

If he could have been confirmed without any "particular[] difficult[y]," what was the real reason? Certainly not to throw a bone to the "netroots," who as Glenn recently pointed out made no demands and wield little power.

Anyone else smell a setup?

No disrespect intended, I just don't have any appreciation for how much power is wielded by the psychologists' association to dictate the top leadership of the American intelligence apparatus.

It just seems awful thin to me, guys.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was aware of the protest of the APA, as many of us were who were revolted by the acts done in our name at Guantánamo and elsewhere.

My question is how much influence the APA has to dictate the appointment, made by an incoming president with considerable political capital, to leadership positions in the awesomely powerful intelligence establishment. As Glenn noted, this is the first appointment where there was so much as a hiccup.

You accept that the blogs and psychologists explain it. That's fine. I'm just not persuaded that the Daily Kos and the APA stood up against AIPAC, the DLC, the rest of the mainstream political establishment, as well as Obama's own reported preference, and prevailed.

I get the feeling you may be implying that Brennan could be a sacrificial lamb. Some raw meat to the 'netroots'

No, absolutely not. Almost exactly the opposite... something more like what Digby says, with the "netroots' as some sort of misdirection.

ITo a large extent, we're all speculating, so I'm being free in throwing my WAGs out there. The bloggers/psychologists theory doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I could be engaging in gross tinfoilhattery with this.

And it may be that things will be clearer when the eventual designee is out there.