Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
In a blunt statement to the press, Feinstein said that the CIA should be headed by a Intelligence professional at this time.
Jay Rockefeller is also raising "concerns," and they're both petulantly complaining that they weren't consulted ahead of time.
I can't think of any better references for Panetta than the fact that those two might be opposed to him.
I can't think of any better references for Panetta than the fact that those two might be opposed to him.-- GlennGreenwald
Not only that, but it's an indication that Obama pulled an "if you would please step aside I would appreciate it" move. Or in more blatant words, "Get the hell out of the way because a new sheriff is in town". Not likely that Obama didn't know he would be dissing those two insertcusswordhere.
Dennis Blair was picked for DNI and after I read this:
Blair also is known in Navy circles for once trying to water-ski behind the destroyer he skippered, the USS Cochrane
How could I not like him?
It's LCO (legal to get counsel in office) and defined only legal and/or illegal if the Administrator/Decider/Nixonite says it will accomplish the necessary objective of full political advantage/supremacy.
or
COIL (counsel office is legal) as noted above if Administrator/Decider/Nixonite says... and other morally-challenged notions distilled into cute acronyms.
This quote Leon Panetta, in a Monterey Herald article about fear electioneering, details nicely some of his thoughts:
"Unfortunately, fear remains an appealing weapon in the modern political arsenal. In a tight battle, the temptation is to scare the hell out of the public in order to win an issue or beat an opponent. Consultants design campaigns to get voters to vote their guts and not their brains. This appeal to the lowest common denominator afflicts both the way this nation elects its leaders and ultimately the way these leaders govern.
Fear exacts a terrible toll on our democracy. Five years ago, America went to war in Iraq over the false fear that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Even though we now know that there were intelligence officials who questioned the assertion, few leaders were willing to challenge this argument for war because they knew it might undermine public support for the president's decision to invade Iraq.
More recently, President Bush vetoed a law that would require the CIA and all the intelligence services to abide by the same rules on torture as contained in the U.S. Army Field Manual.
The president says the rules are too restrictive, implying that the use of some forms of torture just could help avoid another Sept. 11.
But all forms of torture have long been prohibited by American law and international treaties respected by Republican and Democratic presidents alike.
Our forefathers prohibited "cruel and unusual punishment" because that was how tyrants and despots ruled in the 1700s. They wanted an America that was better than that. Torture is illegal, immoral, dangerous and counterproductive. And yet, the president is using fear to trump the law.
The same rationale is used to justify eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without a warrant. The president has made clear that the failure of the Congress to pass this authority could jeopardize our security. Instead of trying to negotiate a compromise with Congress that would meet both our intelligence and privacy concerns, it is easier to threaten with fear."
http://www.montereyherald.com/commentary/ci_8511876
Given that Leon Panetta was applauded in many quarters for the way he handled the budget and forced department heads to get in line during the Clinton years, should give the Senate Intelligence Committee much to consider.
Thanks for letting me know. I guess that's the one I'll use, then.
And Thanks, again, to Jim White for the link.
Since I have the file, do you want me to try to email it to you?
I wonder if it would be OK with Jebbie for you to send it to the e-mail on his blog? For me, that would be better, I think. I'll wait to see if Jebbie sees this. I really appreciate your help. :-)
Ultimately, there are a lot worse things in life than having people send you mean emails and write mean things about you on the Internet. I honestly don't consider it brave to incur that, even though it's true that lots of people will avoid saying things in order to avoid those outcomes.
As for lost opportunities and the like -- who knows? There's no way to know what offer you end up not getting as a result of something you say or write. But I think it's pretty clear that I never worry about any of that....
My new bride is (and some others are) of the opinion that I ought to "watch what I write" (or use a pseudonym) because everyone Googles nowadays when hiring, and being in a consulting practise currently, there might even be potential customers that don't take too kindly to what I write ... about politics (albeit, given my job, some might look askance at some of my opinions on telecomm and wiretaps, etc.).
But I'm of the same mind as you, Glenn. If they don't want to do business with me because of my (I hope principled and supported) positions, that's unfortunate ... for them. And they might just as easily take offence to my (a)religion or skin colour. And there's nothing I should (or could) do about those, and I don't think any rational person would suggest I do so.... So be it.
Cheers,
you can reach me at bystander [dot] again [at] gmail [dot] com
"[E]ither Obama has made a political misstep, or Ms Feinstein needs a serious kick in the ass."
Would choosing the latter be considered cruelty toward expired equine? She's needed it, at least electorally, for some time now.
Oh, with what satisfaction I read this law professor's expressions of outrage! This is certainly the best news I have heard in a long time.
I look forward to hearing more about her actions in office.
Rockefeller and Feinstein? Well, first, neener neener neener to those jackasses. And second, what are they so miffed about, unless her critiques have hit too close to home?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
