Obama's Neocon Fans

Jesse Walker | January 6, 2009

The neoconservative pundit Jennifer Rubin takes a look at the pending presidency and likes what she sees:

So let's get this straight: Robert Gates will be the Defense Secretary, we're ramping up U.S. forces in Afghanistan and providing a reasonable period of time for a hand-off in Iraq, there isn't going to be a windfall oil profits tax or income tax hike but there is going to be a huge set of business tax cuts -- and Rick Warren is giving the invocation at the Inauguration. Who won in November?

I'm sure there will be times during the next four years when the Obama administration's decisions on issues (e.g. judicial appointments) have conservatives banging their heads against the wall, bemoaning the fact that John McCain wasn't elected. But so far it's hard to imagine McCain would have been doing more than the incoming Obama team seems to be proposing -- and with as much chance of success -- to further some key center-Right policy aims.

Those tax cuts might sound like good news, but they're bundled with some giant hikes in spending; they're basically a way to bribe Republicans into voting for the "stimulus" package. As for the rest -- well, it's no surprise that a Commentary writer would find more value in keeping Robert Gates in office than in blocking Detroit's corporate welfare package.

Meanwhile, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith seem happy with Obama's choice to run the CIA.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|1.6.09 @ 11:31AM|#

Oh, I think we'll be hearing plenty of wailing from the neocons over the next couple of days about Leon Panetta:

We have preached these values to the world. We have made clear that there are certain lines Americans will not cross because we respect the dignity of every human being. That pledge was written into the oath of office given to every president, "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." It's what is supposed to make our leaders different from every tyrant, dictator, or despot. We are sworn to govern by the rule of law, not by brute force.

We cannot simply suspend these beliefs in the name of national security. Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don't. There is no middle ground.

We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that.

- Leon Panetta

Here's Greenwald:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/05/olc/index.html

Progressives Must Be Very Disappointed.

Warty|1.6.09 @ 11:31AM|#

In more important news, the Stooges' guitarist died. No Fun.

Jesse Walker|1.6.09 @ 11:33AM|#

In more important news, the Stooges' guitarist died. No Fun.

No Fun indeed. I'll be playing some old Iggy in his honor on my show Thursday.

|1.6.09 @ 11:39AM|#

conservatives banging their heads against the wall, bemoaning the fact that John McCain wasn't elected.

I'd prefer it if they would all drown themselves in their bathtubs in protest.

Seriously- where do these people come from? What do they see when they look at the world?

|1.6.09 @ 11:41AM|#

joe,

Historically, CIA chiefs with no conception of intelligence, the military, or foreign policy have been less than effective in reform. This was a political appointment and not much else. Panetta was hardly a loud voice against torture during the past eight years, since we're only hearing these statements now. I'm also sadly dubious that the Bush administration was the first to use such means, though I like to think they were the worst offender. Letting our allies use torture is likely a long tradition for us.

That said, if he (and Obama's administration in general) really does work to get the U.S. out of the torture and torture-enabling business, I will consider that a significant accomplishment. I don't want to minimize the importance of the administration being vocal in its anti-torture stance, either, but the proof is in what they actually do, not what they're saying today. How they handle Guantanamo is going to be very telling.

And, of course, if Panetta remembers me from our brief introduction (and I mean brief) when he was Chief of Staff, then I'll kiss his boots for that plumb appointment. Ambassador to the Conch Republic? A License to Thrill? So many opportunities.

Abdul|1.6.09 @ 11:42AM|#

Neocons love Panetta, Nancy Pelosi hates him.

What's next? Dogs marrying cats!

Seriously, I think Obama picked Panetta because 1) Obama has no law enforcement, intelligence, or foreign policy background and therefore no contacts in those areas; 2) many Democrats with some background in those areas had approved to some degree of the Bush detention and interrogation practices and would upset liberals. Obama was stuck picking someone who was an outsider.

I also wonder if the CIA is capable of significant reform, and if so, whether an outsider like Panetta can do it.

Warty|1.6.09 @ 11:43AM|#

Jesse, if I batted my eyelashes at you and said pretty please, would you play something from Metallic K.O.?

BDB|1.6.09 @ 11:43AM|#

Well, joe, Di-Fi is pissed over his appointment.

Jesse Walker|1.6.09 @ 12:01PM|#

Jesse, if I batted my eyelashes at you and said pretty please, would you play something from Metallic K.O.?

You know I can't resist those eyes, Warty. But I don't own that album, so it'll depend on whether we have it in the station library. (We probably do, considering the band's Ann Arbor roots.)

Meanwhile, you should stay tuned to WCBN for the next few days whether or not I'm DJing at the time. I expect a lot of people will be pulling out those old Stooges records. The early morning host today already played "Search & Destroy," "I Wanna Be Your Dog," and "Death Trip."

|1.6.09 @ 12:04PM|#

If neo-connish philosophy remains preeminent, that's going to torque a large percentage of the population. One thing that could be bad about the Clintonization of the Obama administration is that Clinton's folks often tried to look "tough" on military and law enforcement issues to offset any (additional after 1994) moves of the public to the right. That approach means that the Democratic voters get betrayed, and it seems to never work very well, either. So we all lose.

Time will tell.

Other Matt|1.6.09 @ 12:15PM|#

they're basically a way to bribe Republicans

But don't think that Obama is in any way related to Gov B in the way that he acts, it's just the Chicago way.

|1.6.09 @ 12:17PM|#

Well, joe, Di-Fi is pissed over his appointment.

So did Jay Rockerfeller....that right there makes me like this appointment

|1.6.09 @ 12:25PM|#

When Bush nominated Porter Goss to head the CIA, DI-FI said:

"After much thought and a careful review of the record, I voted today to confirm the nomination of Representative Porter Goss to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (DCI). But I do have some serious concerns - especially about the impact of this nomination on intelligence reform and his record of partisanship in Congress.

I believe the President should have the prerogative to appoint who he wants to be the DCI, or for any other senior position, subject only to the requirement that the person be qualified for the job. As a former CIA officer, a former Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and a former Army intelligence officer, I think he is certainly qualified. If he is confirmed, I would hope that he demonstrates the necessary independence required of the DCI. But there are still some open questions, which gave me some hesitancy in supporting the nomination.

Compare that to her comments about Panetta:

"I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA Director. I know nothing about this, other than what I've read," said Senator Feinstein, who will chair the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in the 111th Congress.

"My position has consistently been that I believe the Agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."

Does this qualify for hackwatch ? I know Goss had more of a background in intelligence, but would he qualify as an "intelligence professional" ?

Boston|1.6.09 @ 12:31PM|#

Woah a mention of Doug Feith and no Doktor T. Color me surprised. Also its kind of amazing to me that in this day and age you look to the CIA head and think "man i guess hes alright, at least he doesnt condone torture"

|1.6.09 @ 12:57PM|#

When the neocons approve of what you're doing, you're doing something wrong. But that's ok, he's Obama, and everything he does is rainbows. I'm already enjoying this, except I'm hating it.

The Angry Optimist|1.6.09 @ 1:03PM|#

Seriously- where do these people come from? What do they see when they look at the world?

Are you talking about "conservatives upset at things Obama will do"? What do you mean, where do they come from? They're CONSERVATIVES...I mean, where do liberals "come from" who get upset at tax cuts?

I am afraid I do not understand what you are going for.

neocon|1.6.09 @ 1:05PM|#

Ponies for Israel!

Elemenope|1.6.09 @ 1:10PM|#

...where do these people come from?

Look at a 2008 election return map. The thing points to itself.

...What do they see when they look at the world?

A scary place with bad people who are out to convert their children into gay Muslims and take their jobs, and then shoot them. (That part, apparently, is just for fun.)

Elemenope|1.6.09 @ 1:12PM|#

Are you talking about "conservatives upset at things Obama will do"?

I'm pretty sure he was referring to people who thought that McCain was the cat's pajamas.

The Angry Optimist|1.6.09 @ 1:12PM|#

A scary place with bad people who are out to convert their children into gay Muslims and take their jobs, and then shoot them.

This is what the millions of John McCain supporters see? Is it OK if I say that Obama supporters saw a world where, if Republicans were elected, gays would go back in the closet, the Klan would ride again and women would be barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen?

Because your stereotype is as ridiculous as mine.

|1.6.09 @ 1:14PM|#

Elemenope,

Who are these people? I don't think many Republicans liked McCain, except to the extent that he wasn't Obama or, for that matter, Clinton.

The Angry Optimist|1.6.09 @ 1:16PM|#

where do these people come from?

All over the United States. Did you know McCain won a borough of New York City? Those fuggin' hicks!

What do they see when they look at the world?

They have a misguided support for Republicans, but it's not any stupider than support for Democrats.

The Angry Optimist|1.6.09 @ 1:24PM|#

Silly me, I didn't realize there were 58 million redneck white-trash MF-ers who ascribed to the three "Gs" of god, guns and gays.

Alternatively, all 66 million of Obama supporters are wise little Buddhas, with the calm, reserve and wisdom to guide this ship of state around all of that PWT that had the audacity not to support The One.

|1.6.09 @ 1:31PM|#

Pro Lib,

As White House Chief of Staff, Panetta served on the National Security Council and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, oversaw the intel "black budget," had the same security clearance as the President, and attended all situation room meetings. Hardly "no knowledge of military or intelligence."

You may not have heard a great deal from Panetta about torture over the past few years, but that's more a consequence of the press coverage. He's been writing and speaking quite a bit, if you care to check out the Greenwald link.

If this was a solitary appointment, I might find it less significant, but announcing it on the same day as the awesome Dawn Johnson, who's taking John Yoo's old job, after having geunuinlely and passionately torn him a new one for his torture memos, is downright awesome. This also comes a couple of weeks after the withdrawal of the previous CIA nominee, who got grief for being insufficiently hostile to "advanced interrogation techniques." The DNI appointee, a retired admiral, also has no connection to the Bush-era abuses.

Even more than the Iraq War, torture and the rule of law in the treatment of terrorism suspects was the most important issue for me in this election. So glad I supported Obama.

Abdul,

You mean Diane Feinstein hates him.

Only in the CIA could Leon Panetta be considered an outsider!

BDB,

And Jay Rockefeller. Awesome.

|1.6.09 @ 1:33PM|#

Trotting out the "not a dime's worth of difference" shtick after the appointments of Panetta and Johnson proves definitively that the speaker is just affecting a pose, and doesn't actually give a damn whether our government tortures people.

|1.6.09 @ 1:46PM|#

Warned you, idiots.

And only he, not McCain, could get military action against Iran through Congress.

Looooooook out.

joe,

I'm not unwilling to be pleasantly surprised. Aside from whether Panetta will really try to do anything constructive--or, perhaps I should say destructive--with the CIA, there's also the question of whether an outsider can implement real change. Despite what you said, hearing about high-level intelligence when it isn't your principal responsibility isn't the same as dealing with it operationally. Neither does a verbal commitment to ending things like torture equate to actually ending them. I fear that we'll just end up moving the ball rather than fundamentally altering our policies.

The whole appointment of a CIA chief is a bit of a Catch-22, because an outsider may not be able to do much, and an insider can make things worse. Not to mention that while most of us here would like some serious reforms, both in the reputational/moral sense and in the overall functionality of the agency, we have to be careful not to screw with things so much that we end up with a worse situation (utility-wise) with our intelligence operations.

Abdul|1.6.09 @ 1:52PM|#

the awesome Dawn Johnson

Ooooohhhhh yeah! Stubble, pastel t-shirts with white suits, and kick-ass 80's blues soundtrack.

Oh, DAWN Johnson.

Nevermind.

Abdul|1.6.09 @ 1:58PM|#

Even though I said above that the CIA might not be reformable by an intelligence outsider, there's a powerful counter-argument here.

Add Kathryn Jean-Lopez to the list of neo-cons who likey Panetta as spy-chief!

(Ordinarily, nothing K-Lo writes is coherent, and most of what she links is irrelevant. But blind nuts find squirrels).

cunnivore|1.6.09 @ 2:01PM|#

joe, you know those little old Catholic ladies who refuse to ever vote for a pro-choice candidate because pro-choicers support killing babies? You guys have a lot in common.

If you're telling me to accept a different variety of interventionist foreign policy AND a New New Deal just because the direct appointees won't condone torturing people, sorry, not good enough.

|1.6.09 @ 2:14PM|#

The CIA is a bunch of nonpartisian incompetant assholes who have spent the last 50+ years undermining one President's policies after another. Honestly, Obama could appoint Rosie O'Donnel to run the place and it couldn't do any worse than it has.

I don't think Panetta is a bad choice because he is loyal to the President. He won't go native and will act in the country's interest rather than the CIA's interest. The danger is that he won't see through the CIA's bullshit.

We have had plenty of times where the President has appointed an "intelligence professional" and it has always ended badly. I commend Obama for thinking outside the box and trying something different.

|1.6.09 @ 2:15PM|#

This business tax cut is a bullshit tax cut. It's a sop to home builders and banks. On what planet is this a good train of thought, "You seriously fucked up, lost a shitload of money and potentially crippled our economy. In exchange for this, we will give you a special tax cut in advance so you can get cash and do it again. Bad boy."

Seriously, those back tax refunds for losses are simply a bailout in disguise.

|1.6.09 @ 2:18PM|#

K-Lo likes Panetta? I guess it's because someone else told her to like him, but I'm wary of the people that K-Lo gets crushes on.

On the otherhand, DiFi hates Panetta. I'm so torn, which stopped watch is right?

|1.6.09 @ 2:26PM|#

I'm actually going to agree with ... eeew... Pelosi.

The CIA needs to be run by someone with an intelligence background, especially right now, when there's a transition going on in the middle of a terrorist threat. We all know what happened with the botched intelligence handover last time.

If neocons are happy about this, it's probably because they are thinking "Awesome. Before long, there will be another terrorist attack, and we'll be back on top."

|1.6.09 @ 2:28PM|#

Pro Lib,

there's also the question of whether an outsider can implement real change

I've spent the last two months reading comments about how insiders can't bring about real change.

I think Panetta is both enough of a political heavyweight and an administrative maestro to whip just about any institution into shape. Do you remember what a clown car the Clinton White House was before he stepped in?

In this case, we've got somebody who has the power base and skeelz of an insider, but who has actually being sitting outside the system, criticizing it, for years.

I suspect that the line people in the CIA are gong to be all aboard with this pick, and the people installed as their bosses over the past eight years are furious. I think the Bush administration did to the CIA what it did to Justice, and there are a lot of professional sick and tires of having ideologues and political hacks treating them like a branch of the RNC.

Remember Valerie Plame? Remember the conservative media bashing the "partisan Democrats at the CIA" for not being alarmist enough about Iraqi WMDs? Remember Cheney's little visit to Langley? Remember the mass exodus of talent after Goss was nominated? Remember the Office of Special Plans (ie, the B Team) being created so someone could tell the President what he wanted to hear?

I think the primary barrier to an effective CIA right now is its politization, and Leon Panetta is just the guy to muck out the stables.

Why would *actual* conservatives give a shit about Queeg going down in flames?

FYI- I voted for "None of the Above" so don't waste your time.

|1.6.09 @ 2:30PM|#

If you're telling me to accept a different variety of interventionist foreign policy AND a New New Deal just because the direct appointees won't condone torturing people, sorry, not good enough.

Nice, cunnivore. Our country is turning into a torture state, the new President is appointing people to end it, and that's not important.

This is a pose.

|1.6.09 @ 2:35PM|#

It SHOULDN'T be important that the CIA Director opposes torture, cunnivore. That should be an obvious, universal position that no one dares question for fear of being ostracized by polite society.

But it's not. In case you haven't noticed, this country has been turning into a torture state for the past few years.

That is why such a small thing as being opposed to torture is so incredibly important in the next CIA Director; because the world has gone nuts, and just reaching the decency and sanity that should be standard operating procedure is a big change.

|1.6.09 @ 2:39PM|#

We all know what happened with the botched intelligence handover last time.

There was no handover last time Tenet was a Clinton guy that stayed on through the Bush years. He also had a good deal of Congressional Intel experience with 8 years in the SSCI and 3 in in the NSC in the White House.

Of course, he did such a good job that he got a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

|1.6.09 @ 2:52PM|#

Joe,

You obviously have never actually interacted with the CIA. If you think those people care about anything beyond their own asses you are sadly mistaken. The CIA will actively undercut Obama if it feels it should just like it did Bush, Clinton and every other President. That is why Obama picked Pennetta. He wants someone he knows is loyal to him.

|1.6.09 @ 2:53PM|#

joe,

There are intelligence insiders who aren't CIA people. That's the well to which Obama probably should've gone. Or, perhaps, to the military. A total outsider can be problematic in this type of post.

An inexperienced-in-intelligence CIA head and an inexperienced-at-foreign service SoS is not a good combination. However, I'm perfectly willing to withhold my damnation until the administration has been in actual operation. Who knows--maybe they'll found the Federation, and we'll be at one with one another and with other civilizations in the Alpha Quadrant.

I'm on record as opposing torture and as thinking that we're powerful enough to eschew most, if not all, such immoral ways of doing business. However, I don't share your optimism that everything will definitely change. I'm not at all convinced that this is anything other than window dressing, because I remember the dubious practices of the Clinton administration (which didn't have 9/11 as an excuse) all too well. And their fear of appearing weak in comparison to the GOP.

|1.6.09 @ 3:08PM|#

The CIA will actively undercut Obama if it feels it should just like it did Bush, Clinton and every other President.

Talking about "the CIA" as a monolith indicates pretty strongly that you don't know what you're talking about. Claiming that the CIA undercut Bush, as opposed to vice-versa, indicates that you still can't admit to yourself that your beloved Republicans screwed the pooch by fixing the intelligence.

Pro Lib,

Calling the former White House Chief of Staff a total outsider is absurd.

You don't "window dress" with the CIA Director and the Office of Legal Counsel.

Elemenope|1.6.09 @ 3:15PM|#

Silly me, I didn't realize there were 58 million redneck white-trash MF-ers who ascribed to the three "Gs" of god, guns and gays.

There is a difference between outward hicks and secret hicks. Heaven knows I've talked with many a person who were intelligent and rational and thoughtful *until* the topic of politics comes up. And I'm not talking about people with whom I disagree; there are many who are intelligent and rational and thoughtful. I mean people who when you bring up politics flip into idiot mode, you can't talk with them, logic does not avail.

The emotional triggers that tend to trip people into idiot mode are more skillfully exploited by the GOP. Hence, many of these political idiots end up being the supporters of people like Bush the Lesser and McCain. When polled, still a quarter of the country thinks that Bush is doing a damn fine job. That's millions of people.

|1.6.09 @ 3:17PM|#

Oh, joe, I mean an operational outsider. Hearing a few bullets points about stuff you and I don't hear about until tomorrow isn't quite the same thing.

Of course, by that same reasoning as expounded by others, we get to hear about Clinton's "experience". What a crock of shit. If I padded my resume with that sort of "experience through osmosis" reasoning, I could claim knowledge of whatever the president does, whatever CEOs do, and whatever certain unnamed celebrities do. At least Panetta is a legitimate administrator and has the ability to deal with Congress.

Hillary Clinton|1.6.09 @ 3:22PM|#

"Who won in November?"

Not me.

|1.6.09 @ 3:26PM|#

I was referring to her appointment as SoS. President was even more laughable.

Elemenope|1.6.09 @ 3:43PM|#

Pro L --

The President's CoS is a *little* more than the bullet-point memo gatekeeper. In many administrations, that person was the primary liaison to many departments. It is not at all ridiculous to believe that while CoS, Panetta would not have picked up significant operational knowledge of what the CIA does and how it works.

Not that it should be *assumed*. I'm saying we should wait and see what shakes out.

|1.6.09 @ 3:48PM|#

Elemenope,

I've seen too much sausage being made to have too much respect for people at that level. Unless they were particularly tasked with or made responsible for something, they likely knew little more than you and I (access timing aside). And CoS doesn't make the decisions, usually. He just goes around kicking ass.

Panetta has an X-factor as an experienced legislator and administrator, which means that he might be able to do something. Whether that something will be principally associated with rooting out torture and other sins is another matter entirely. We'll see. CIA director is like AG--they usually suck in a major way.

|1.6.09 @ 3:58PM|#

Joe,

You are in for an education.

|1.6.09 @ 3:59PM|#

"Whether that something will be principally associated with rooting out torture and other sins is another matter entirely."

If you beleive that, I have a bridge to sell you. The best you can hope for is to get them to support the President's policies most of the time. You people need to read Legacy of Ashes.

|1.6.09 @ 4:13PM|#

Pro Libertate,

Is that really what you think the White House Chief of Staff does - "hears about a few bullet points?"

Andrew Card, maybe, but certainly not Panetta. Certainly not Al Haig. Certainly not Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney.

I agree, Hillary's claims of experience were sillly. Unlike the White House Chief of Staff, the First Lady is not on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn't administer the intel budget, doesn't have a high level security clearance, and isn't involved in the anything national security or intelligence responsibilities at all.

|1.6.09 @ 4:23PM|#

Huh. I just read that Dennis Blair is Obama's choice for Director of National Intelligence. He's definitely an insider (another Clinton era dude, I believe), and the DNI has some oversight over the CIA.

Also, Admiral Blair is Lance Armstrong.

joe,

As far as his information handling and processing goes, sure. CoS is much more of an administrative position than a policy one. Most of the time. I'm not downplaying the importance of the office or Panetta's experience, but let's not try to make him an intelligence insider due to his proximity to certain conversations. Blair is what an insider looks like.

|1.6.09 @ 4:28PM|#

Holy crap, he is Lance Armstrong.

Admiral Blair is, like Panetta, the best of both worlds. He has serious cred and skeelz to operate in the Village, but no connections to the Bush-era misdeeds that need to be undeeded.

I certainly agree that Panetta is not an intel insider. I certainly wouldn't want to see him running field agents.

But that's not his job. His job, particularly at this point in American history, is to impose the president's political agenda on the CIA. That's a job for a skilled DC operator.

|1.6.09 @ 4:39PM|#

Yes and no. I agree that Panetta should be an excellent selection for communicating the will of the president to the intelligence community. He's got definite experience in doing that. It's the other side of the relationship that I think will be his problem. The intelligence management and personnel are unlikely to trust him, particularly if they feel that Obama is soft on issues that they care about (e.g., the WoT). He could win them over, but that will be no easy task, especially when dealing with people for whom deceit, lies, and mayhem in the name of the greater good are always appropriate. So, he has a chance to do something, but I think that chance is limited. To be fair, there is no perfect guy for this job. . .other than Clint Eastwood.

Yeah, he is Lance, isn't he? Admiral Lance Armstrong. In fact, he should change his name to that. Lance is, of course, a military name, Armstrong is Scottish and associated with the first guy to walk on the Moon, and Lance Armstrong is heavy duty tough as a cyclist and cancer destroyer.

|1.6.09 @ 4:46PM|#

The intelligence management and personnel are unlikely to trust him, particularly if they feel that Obama is soft on issues that they care about (e.g., the WoT).

I have a sneaking suspicion that the line personnel - as opposed to what the CIA management looks like after 8 years of Bush/Cheney - are thrilled with this pick.

What do you think the Valerie Plame episode, the Office of Special Plans, Bush blaming the CIA for the WMD intel he had to go around them in order to get, and the Porter Goss purge did to CIA morale?

|1.6.09 @ 4:51PM|#

Pro Libertate, I realize it isn't recent.

But it's hard to claim that a former Army intelligence officer has zero military or intelligence experience.

|1.6.09 @ 4:52PM|#

Our country is turning into a torture state, the new President is appointing people to end it, and that's not important.

Not when taken in comparison to the rest of the scope of this administration's activities. No doubt you think those little old single issue voter ladies who are willing to vote for Republican warmongers because the Dems want to kill babies are deluded. Look in the mirror.

And if you think our government wasn't torturing people before 2001 you're a naif. What was new about the Bush administration was their brazen public defense of torture, which I'll admit was sickening.

|1.6.09 @ 5:02PM|#

Intelligence people are a weird breed. I met an NSA guy a while back who regaled me with stories of potential Pearl Harbors and other horrors. I think paranoia about external threats is so ingrained that they don't think the way you and I do. If they feel that Obama will take away some of their "tools" that they "need" to fight terror, etc., they won't like him.

Davebo,

I think you might want to dig a little deeper into the length and significance of his military experience.

|1.6.09 @ 5:07PM|#

Pro Libertate,

Two years as a commissioned officer working in Army intelligence.

Why do you spit in the faces of all those kids serving now who've served less than 10 years? And where is your yellow ribbon magnet.

Also, as a relative who worked in Air Force intel and later at FEMA under Reagan when 90% of their budget was spent on black ops always told me....

If you meet a guy who claims to work for the NSA or having formerly been a Navy Seal he's most likely lying.

|1.6.09 @ 5:10PM|#

I think that's insignificant, unless we're going to attack Vietnam. Honestly, what is the deal with people defending those with little experience these days? I'd accept the so-what argument, which I believe is joe's principal position--Panetta's an administrator and consensus builder who will do that as CIA chief, etc. We can quibble over whether his exposure to intelligence has been relevant as a resume line--I think it hasn't--but that's not really worth much discussion.

|1.6.09 @ 5:15PM|#

"I think that's insignificant, unless we're going to attack Vietnam"

I hear you. I felt the same way about Condi Rice and the Soviet Union. I was just yanking your chain a bit.

The question becomes, who with significant intelligence experience hasn't been tainted over the past 6 years?

If we could find a former senior intelligence official who resigned in protest recently I'd be all for it.

|1.6.09 @ 5:23PM|#

Davebo,

It's the taintedness that makes me understand Obama's choice. I think he probably could've found someone without the torture taint, but not at a high level and not with the loyal henchman qualities of Panetta. I don't agree with the nomination for various reasons, but it's not insane, either. Just unlikely to produce much in the way of results.

|1.6.09 @ 6:40PM|#

I must be the only one who doesn't think it matters one shit who Obama appoints. He could appoint George W for something, and I wouldn't be surprised at all. I think he's just that ignorant.

|1.6.09 @ 6:53PM|#

I think Obama should appoint Bush and Bill Clinton to the SCOTUS. Just because he can.

Elemenope|1.6.09 @ 7:04PM|#

I think Obama should appoint Bush and Bill Clinton to the SCOTUS. Just because he can.

Personally I think the biggest problem with SCOTUS these days is that the appointees are all so fucking boring. Even Scalia is getting old. We need a Kozinski on the bench, to keep it lively.

|1.6.09 @ 7:08PM|#

There's no chance of this, but Janice Rogers Brown would be a great deal of fun.

|1.6.09 @ 11:06PM|#

McCain would have been worse.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements