EugeneDebs Says:

There is no inevitable drama from the Clintons.

No? Have we been living in the same country? Hillary may not be a Drama Queen, but it is just not in Bill’s DNA to be quiet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No, I live on Planet Earth and YOU live on Planet Wingnut. We heard this same BS when Hillary was elected Senator and she went about her Senatorial duties in a low key style until it was time to run for President. The Press has a Clinton fixation but he CAN stay out of the limelight and NOTHING is enevitable except death, taxes, and rightwing smears and lies.

Susan Rice promoted the myth that Saddam had WMDs. “It’s clear that Iraq poses a major threat,” she said in 2002. “It’s clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that’s the path we’re on.” (After the invasion, discussing Saddam’s alleged possession of WMDs, she said, “I don’t think many informed people doubted that.”)

Well, this would make her a perfect match with SoS
Clinton(s) since they said pretty much exactly the same thing from both the WH and the floor of the Senate.

How ironic.

¶ AIO

After eight years of President Bush expanding the power of the executive branch to unparalleled levels, President-elect Barack Obama will take office in January with enormous discretion on policy. The Obama campaign’s mantra of change really hit home with a lot of people, and human rights groups are putting forward wish lists for the new administration about significant changes they’d like to see in short order.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has taken out full page ads urging the Obama Administration to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay on day one. Beyond that they call for him to “reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions.”

Amnesty International decided to give the new president a little more time, calling for concrete steps in the first 100 days of his presidency. They want Gitmo closed as well (or at least a plan in place to do so), an executive order banning torture, and an independent commission created to investigate US wartime abuses. Secretary General Irene Khan says “The new Administration must focus on righting some of the wrongs of the Bush Administration and restoring the US as a human rights champion at home and abroad.”

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has the most ambitious plan, issuing an 11 point briefing of policy recommendations (note: PDF) for the president-elect. Containing much of the same as the plans of the other groups, HRW also wants to see the administration repudiate Justice Department memos on torture, reject preventative detention as an alternative to prosecution, and reject the “global war on terror” as a basis for detentions.

How quickly and how thoroughly an Obama Administration will follow through on any of these changes is unclear. Obama has indeed promised to close the Guantanamo facility, but his aides have said there is no process in place to make any decisions on how to proceed on that matter.

Obama has likewise said “America does not torture,” but since those identical words have been uttered repeatedly by the Bush Administration, it is unclear whether this portends a policy change or rather expresses growing agreement between the outgoing and incoming administrations that the current behavior does not constitute torture. Obama advisers have said that the new administration is unlikely to bring charges against anyone involved in Bush Administration interrogations.

The promise of change is an alluring one indeed, but as the Obama transition team shores up an increasingly hawkish cabinet it seems like the priorities of the new administration are not with significant moves away from Bush-era security policies.

You two…get a room..

There is no inevitable drama from the Clintons.

No? Have we been living in the same country? Hillary may not be a Drama Queen, but it is just not in Bill’s DNA to be quiet.

There is no inevitable drama from the Clintons. Please spare me the Clinton bashing. I DO think Richardson was shortlisted as SOS. He would be a very good choice. He seems to do his best work under the radar. Perhaps a position a little less high profile would allow him to better serve this administration. I would be suprised if he didnt get a post. If the SOS goes somewhere it is HUGE news. As say national security advisor or undersecretary of state he could travel anonymously, twist arms, make deals WITHOUT the hoopla always accopanying a SOS visit. That would play to his strengths. I would agree he is a very talented statesman.

Why not Bill Richardson, the guy who broke ranks with the Clintons to support Obama when he needed it? If anything, he is more experienced than Hillary and moreover has earned it. What is he going to be offered if not this?

If we do not restore law, justice, and accountability, there will be no real change in our politics. At this time, they are virtually immune to punishment. That must change.

Fair enough.

Well, thank you.

He’s made some good choices too, but what’s the fun in pointing those out.

Oh, none whatsoever. I am not against knowing about these people who SEEM to be questionable choices. I just don’t think Obama should be crucified for them at this point. Nothing’s been done yet. So — please, keep the cretins informed about each and every one of these questionable politicians, so that we know who we should be keeping a closer eye on. (o.k., bad english. I’m not fixing it. So there. :> )

I think Obama’s choices for his cabinet are very telling.
I think they do set the tone for future policy decisions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

NO THEY DONT. They dont say a THING about policy. They MIGHT, when poicies are emerging we will see but appointments ARE NOT POLICY. You get the guys who know congress and the political game and YOU set the policy while THEY go about getting it done. APPOINTMENTS ARE NOT POLICY, the ONLY reason to say they are is you are determined to criticise BEFORE THERE IS ANY REASON TO. John Kennedy picked LBJ to be his vice president. LBJ was such a warhawk he was known in the Senate as the Senator from the Penatagon. Yet when the Cuban missile crisis happened and Johnson was all for direct war and invasion of Cuba Kennedy set his own path.

He was elected, he gets the chance to choose his people that he wants to work with.

You can’t micromanage his presidency.

When he becomes the war monger/corporate whore that kay predicts that he is I will judge him then.

pre-imptive judgement is nothing more than guessing. The man has been in the oval office one time……for a brief visit.

If you hate the Clintons, think back……I would gladly replace the last 8 years with the Clintons……and despite the war monger references by Kay, et al, Bill Clinton did not invade a country based on lies and cost millions of lives……

Fair enough.

He’s made some good choices too, but what’s the fun in pointing those out.

However:

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Jeremy, those are some of the bigger names, but you also name some others that are less well-known. You mention two: Ivo Daalder and Michele Flournoy, both of whom were associated with the neoconservative Project for the New American Century.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Right. I mean, many of these people—I mean, you have, at the top of the list, you have Dennis Ross, who was both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton’s Middle East envoy, and Martin Indyk. Both of them work very closely with AIPAC, as well as the Project for a New American Century.

Michele Flournoy is one of the people that, down the line, may be tapped as the first female Defense secretary, also working with the Project for a New American Century, and in fact authored a paper that is said to have reframed Obama’s perspective on Iraq, backing him off of the total withdrawal rhetoric and looking more at a sort of residual force, downsized, rebranded occupation.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/20/agents_of_change_or_hawks_clintonites

Kay, I can tell.

Eugene, All we have to observe is the decisions he is making in appointments, and some have been worrisome based on how wrong their judgment(s) have been in the recent past. What is so wrong about pointing that out? Obama himself has proven that he can handle criticism. Why is everyone walking on eggshells for him?

I personally see value in equating appointments with policy until proven otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Because this is a pattern for the left. I have seen it over a long period of time. The perfect can be the enemy of the good and when a lefty DOES good but not good enough the left begins attacking him which is quickly joined by the right and it destroys a leftys ability to govern. I am all for attacking BAD POlICY. Yes the appointments are the only thing there is yet and IT ISNT POLICY. Just because a Rahm Emanueal is COS doesnt mean ANYTHING ABOUT POLICY. One of the reasons the right was able to hold on to power for so long while being so bad is they had discipline. More than we should have but they didnt convene the circular firing squad as soon as their guy did any little thing that looked like there wouldnt be total conformity to their point of view. Appointments are taken from a smaller pool of candidates than you might think IF they are going to be experienced. Emmanueal is a good example HE WONT BE MAKING POLICY but he knows the trench wars and is a GOOD not bad choice because of the way he voted and the policies he espoused. I am all for holding Obamas feet to the fire. He wasnt my first choice but attacking him before he has even done anything is counterproductive. Give the guy a chance he isnt even in office and the left is already all over him BEFORE HE HAS DONE A SINGLE THING. These appointees are not MAKERS OF THE POLICIES. They will carry out OBAMAS POLICY this seems like a simple concept to me.

“… and deserve to be whack-a-trolled by the professional whack-a-trollers.”
____________

Ooooooooooo… somebody call fer a li’l Whack-A-Troll™???

Where’s the Talking Llama? Hey… you… up ahead… playin’ thru!!! Fore!!!