Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Good way to start a Monday and a new year!
Hopefully this appointment can be confirmed and we can "move on" and start investigations into the administration's law-breaking... and make sure that Obama doesn't end up using the same transgressions in the name of "national security".
If the incoming administration 'moves on', then Ms. Johnsen's appointment looks more like window dressing.
No doubt about it. As I said: "No praise is due Obama until he actually does things that merit praise."
Still, while it's very hard to judge someone's character from some article they wrote, she certainly doesn't strike me as the type who would willingly serve as window dressing for an administration that is doing things that she finds highly objectionable, though that, too, remains to be seen.
It's an encouraging sign, but that's all it is -- as you point out, just a first and necessary step, but far from sufficient.
I'll hold my applause until it actually happens, but I'll thank Obama for at least showing us a glass of water in the Saharan desert of potential appointees.
Wouldn't it be nice if she were appointed Attorney General instead - so that she could act on those convictions (and maybe get some?) retrospectively rather than prospectively?
If she had any chance of being confirmed as an AG if something should happen to the Holder nomination it would make it almost worth it to see Holder's nomination shot down. He has said some of the right things (and some of the wrong things) on occasion, but the articles she wrote evince passionate and deeply held beliefs and not the platitudes of the day.
Interesting that he finally threw the progessives a bone on what for most is (or at least was until recently) a relatively obscure position. Ah... if only the tea leaves would tell me if this is political calculation, our dumb luck, or grist for the "don't worry about the appointments, wait and see what he DOES" crowd!
But, I'll believe it when I see the Bush-Cheney gang frogwalked to the gallows.
... is the only option for determining the direction this appointment might go. I have multiple levels of worries given our recent history with the Senate. But, I also don't want to be a wet blanket on the current celebration.
Waiting to see ...
"What is next? Giving David Duke space to advice Obama on race relations?"
Far too shrill and unserious to be 'fit to print...' But, that's a great line and I'm probably going to steal it at some point. Thanks.
She wrote an interesting article on her view of the OLC. You can download the .pdf version here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8-FrzhHT_w
and linked at my name. I'm only part way through, but it's good.
Thanks for the tiny snippet of good news, Glenn. Taking her writings, what you've presented anyway, at face value, she seems like a distinct improvement over some of the previous appointees.
Of course, we have to Hope that she wields more influence over OS than [everybody else in the Cabinet but Chu?]
I'll lay odds on how that turns out.
Sorry, links not allowed, except in the sig. You can find the article there.
In an admittedly sort of hodge-podge Timeline undertaking which I simply call “WAR”, this is what I have for Bolton, John:
1998 “the neocons persisted with their policy goals, and in early 1998 they twice lobbied President Clinton to bring down Saddam. The second attempt came in the form of "An Open Letter to the President" by leading neoconservatives, many of whom later played key roles in the Bush administration, where they became known as the Vulcans. Among those who signed were Michael Ledeen, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and David Wurmser.”(B)
May 6, 2002-US Department of State informs UN Secretary General Kofi Annan that the US “does not intend to become a party to” the “Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998.” The letter is signed by John Bolton. (PP) [See also September 7, 2002]
September 7, 2002-NYT: “The Bush administration is shifting its emphasis in seeking exemptions for Americans from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, telling European allies that a central reason is to protect the country's top leaders from being indicted, arrested or hauled before the court on war crimes charges, administration officials say.”(QQ)
May 2, 2003-Iran sends to Washington “the grand bargain” for negotiating differences, just before a meeting in Geneva between Iran's U.N. ambassador, Javad Zarif, and neocon Zalmay Khalilzad, then a senior director at the National Security Council. “According to a report by Gareth Porter in The American Prospect, Iran offered to take ‘decisive action against any terrorists (above all, al-Qaeda) in Iranian territory." In exchange, Iran wanted the U.S. to pursue "anti-Iranian terrorists’—i.e., the MEK. Specifically, Iran offered to share the names of senior al-Qaeda operatives in its custody in return for the names of MEK cadres captured by the U.S. in Iraq.”… the Bush administration simply declined to respond. "We're not interested in any grand bargain," -Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton (U)
**************
(B) The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/07/yellowcake200607
(PP) State Department letter from John Bolton to inform UN that US “will not be party to” the Rome Statute [ICC] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9968.htm
(QQ) “On World Court, US Focus Shifts to Shielding Officials”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E5DD103EF934A3575AC0A9649C8B63
(U) From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq, by Craig Unger, March 2007
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/ [...]
When was OLC created, or, has it always been there?
What was its original mission within the executive branch?
In light of recent history, has it changed from what it was supposed to be?
If so, how; and who had a role in changing it over the last few years?
During the past few weeks, Obama has made a multitude of nominations of people who don't seem to believe in the same things most progressives believe in and we've been told that it doesn't matter because Obama will make his appointments to Administrative positions toe his line.
We have yet to hear Obama tell us just what his line is.
If he takes Ms Johnsen's counsel to heart and actually follows her advice, we have reason to hope.
If, however, his vision of Right and Wrong doesn't fit with her's and he either forces her to bend to his Executive Will or resign, then we'll end up right where we are now.
His current level of silence and total lack of leadership regarding events in Gaza do not leave me with a warm fuzzy feeling about how this is going to work out and thus, I don't share Greenwald's optimism.
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"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
