Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Wayyyyyy back on page 10, you offered up a "not at all short first sentence." I loved it. It presents an engaging narrative, but also a true understanding of punctuation and grammar. IMHO, a writer (or editor) can only "mess with the rules of style" etc. when one first has the base knowledge of what is being messed with! (Ah, Kerouac, Steinbeck even, James Joyce, DeLillo, Faulkner, certainly e.e. cummings and so many more...)
Anyway, I'm simply writing to say thanks to you. (However, I am biased because I'm a writer/editor ;)
We need to strongly support Obama on his decision to nominate Leon Panetta as the new CIA director. If you live in California, I strongly suggest that you e-mail Feinstein expressing your dismay with her non-support of Panetta. Here's my e-mail:
January 6, 2009VIA E-MAIL ONLY
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Washington, DC
Dear Senator Feinstein:
I am deeply dismayed and shocked by your non-support of President Elect Obama on his selection of Leon Panetta as the next director of the CIA.
First, and foremost, most of the “intelligence professionals” that you cite as a preferred alternative have been tainted by the last eight years of lawlessness and torture by the worst administration in history, the Bush Administration. Barack Obama wisely chose someone outside of the intelligence services precisely because that person is not tainted by the illegal wiretapping and torture scandals of Bush and Cheney.
Second, Leon Panetta is an outstanding public servant, having served as a congressman from nearby Monterey County, and later, as President Clinton’s chief of staff. He is an excellent choice for the position, despite his ‘lack’ of intelligence experience. He is no one’s crony, at least in the intelligence community, and that is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing!
Third, Barack Obama wants to reshape the intelligence gathering for this nation in a way that will both benefit our safety and that will restore the respect that this nation once garnered for its handling of world-wide affairs.
I strongly suspect that you are more concerned with your own potential liability as a “gang-of-eight” member who has been briefed on Bush’s illegal activities, than you are concerned with the future of this nation.
Sincerely,
farbie
Belmont, California
cc: Senators Reid and Rockefeller
DCIA is traditionally NOT a job for intelligence insiders. And -- contrary to Feinstein's lament -- right now, more than ever, it should not be given to somebody already on board and in the tank. I think Obama wants to clean house and Panetta is well-qualified for that. Go get 'em!
Glenn,
I quite enjoyed your interview with HH and found him refreshingly even tempered in his manner. He did focus rather predictably on the Hamas as terrorsist/Arabs with grievances towards Israel want to kill all the Jews "argument", but at least he kept his voice down and let you speak.
My comment concerns your hewing to a rather mainstream tack regarding the recent, and to my observation Israel's most egregious and unjustifiable aggression. I'm wondering if this was deliberate with the idea that Hewitt's listeners would be a hostile audience. Whatever the intent, I was surprised by the host's manner and found it a fairly productive discussion.
"Supporting Bush's illegal NSA program -- as Harman did, repeatedly and explicitly -- should be disqualifying for the position of CIA Director."
True, but even more damning, Harman publicly admitted, in a broadcast interview - apparently without shame - that she had never even bothered to read the administration reports to the Intelligence Committee on warrantless wiretaps.
To my mind, that ought to disqualify her from any position on any congressional committee related to - or requiring any measure of - intelligence.
Perhaps the only thing worse than being a Bush syncophant is not even knowing the words to the tune that you're supposed to be joyously singing.
Thanks for the correction.
However, I don't think it answers the contention that the OLC-designates "outrage" is highly selective, and that this selectivity mirrors the tribal affiliations of the individual concerned.
This is completely in keeping with Glenn's earlier points about Orwell, Tribalism, and etc ...
It may be tolerable in a young person, or someone with minimal exposure to political realities, but in the person who is allegedly going to "Say 'No' to the President" it is unforgivable. It thoroughly disqualifies her for the job, marking her as little (if any) more than another partisan propagandist for her boss and his political allies. While she may well be a far more convincing propagandist, I would argue that this makes her more dangerous, not less.
If anyone who welcomes this appointment can show me some expression of similar outrage over the murderous conduct of federal agencies at Waco (or Bosnia, or the cruise missile attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory, or any other Clintonite crimes) then I will gladly credit her for it and retract my objection. Until then, it stands.
And what about Glenn? Is he immune to the tribalist blind spot? Why did he leave it to me to make this elementary observation?
How desperate are we to believe that Obama really is a good guy, even after he has shown time and time again that he's just one more in a long line of interchangable parts of a throughly corrupted and corrupting political machine?
If anyone who welcomes this appointment can show me some expression of similar outrage over the murderous conduct of federal agencies at Waco ...
Get over it. The nutjobs at Waco:
a). Torched their own building.
b). Fired on and killed federal agents. Under such
circumstances, the administration showed remarkable forbearance
against a bunch of armed loony-toons.
... (or Bosnia, ...
What's your problem with Bosnia?
... or the cruise missile attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory, ...
Read Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars". The sourcing of the information was not all that great for the al Shifa plant, but by most accounts, what Clinton was told was that the intelligence was good that it was up to no good and related to either bin Laden, Iraq, or both.
I wouldn't have approved [of] it, but it was hardly a wanton crime. FWIW, I also thought that Clinton was off-base sending Tomahawks into Iraq the couple of times he did that. Here you actually come the closest to a legitimate indictment....
... or any other Clintonite crimes)
What other Clinton crimes? Murdering Vince Foster? Raping Juanita Brodderick? Smuggling cocaine into Mena airport?
Cheers,
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
