Who will be cleaning the floors at the White House?

40 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cueball Cueball's picture
Who will be cleaning the floors at the White House?

Well it looks like incoming Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel is not up for the job, or so says he father who noted: "What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."

But perhaps Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates is up for the job:

Quote:
Like the president-elect, Mr. Gates supports deploying more troops to Afghanistan. But the defense secretary strongly opposes a firm timetable for withdrawing American forces from Iraq, and his appointment could mean that Mr. Obama was effectively shelving his campaign promise to remove most troops from Iraq by mid-2010.

Obama Leans Toward Asking Gates To Remain at Pentagon for a Year

Slumberjack

Well, that promise to disengage from Iraq as soon as possible has been one of the central planks of his platform from the beginning.  I can't see that they any other choice but to leave at least a division's worth of troops behind in the immediate area as a hammer.  The lynchpin in their strategy, as evidenced by domestic political complaints of a huge Iraqi surplus in comparison to their massive deficit at home, is to entice the Shiite Iraqi government take over responsibility for paying off the Sunni Neighborhood Watch committees.  The resulting decline in violence from what it once was will be the reason offered up for withdrawal.  Obama's version of mission accomplished.  They will need to call upon that hammer in the likely event that the plan doesn't come to fruition.

remind remind's picture

 

Quote:
President-elect Barack Obama's transition team announced ethics guidelines
Tuesday to keep federal lobbyists at arms' length, following through on a
campaign pledge to reduce the influence of special interests on policymaking.

Transition co-chair John Podesta committed to monthly reporting of private
donations to a transition effort that's expected to employ 450 people and cost
$12 million.

Since Congress has appropriated $5.2 million for the transition, the
remaining $6.8 million or so will come from donations. Those contributions will
be capped at $5,000 per donor, and they can't come from federally registered
lobbyists, corporations or political action committees.

Podesta, a former chief of staff for President Clinton, announced these and
other steps Tuesday in a wide-ranging news conference at which he pledged a
process that's organized, bipartisan and "the most open and transparent
transition in history.

 

As for whether Obama would ask Defense Secretary Robert Gates to stay, as has
been widely speculated, Podesta said that Obama "has great respect for Secretary
Gates" but that prior to any decision, a transition team would be briefed at the
Pentagon about "ongoing operations" and Obama would "render judgment as a result
of and after those briefings occur and he's had a chance to meet with his key
advisers."

The ethics rules announced Tuesday are "the strictest, the most far-reaching
ethics rules of any transition team in history," Podesta said.

Under them, active federal lobbyists can't work on the transition and those
who were registered as federal lobbyists within the past year can work on the
transition only if it doesn't involve the policy field they've lobbied about.
Anyone who becomes a lobbyist after working on the transition will be prohibited
from lobbying the Obama administration on related matters for a year.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/politics/story/55723.html

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Cueball Cueball's picture

Gates prepared to stay on, but will Obama ask him to?

 

Quote:
On Monday, John Podesta, Obama's transition co-chairman, refused to say whether Gates has been asked to remain at the Pentagon.

Obama "has great respect for Secretary Gates" but before any decision is made, a transition team will be briefed at the Pentagon about "ongoing operations" and Obama will "render judgment as a result of and after those briefings occur and he's had a chance to meet with his key advisers," Podesta said.

 

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Hillary Clinton to accept Obama's offer of secretary of state job

 

Quote:
Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.

Obama's advisers have begun looking into Bill Clinton's foundation, which distributes millions of dollars to Africa to help with development, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. But Democrats do not believe that the vetting is likely to be a problem.

Michelle

Wow.  She's taking a real risk.  Her job will be totally at his whim, whereas her current job is assured for the rest of her term and probably as many re-elections as she likes.

johnpauljones

and Hillary is more right wing on many foreign policy issues that Obama ever was

Cueball Cueball's picture

No joke. Except that one has to ask the question that if Hillary is more right wing than Obama, why did Obama do this deed? Gates at the DOD, and Clinton at state, Emanuel as Chief of Staff? This is a bipartisan war party.

djelimon

It all comes down to how much of a controll freak he is. Having a pitbull on a leash is often more effective than just letting one run around. Based on his campaign, I would say very much a control freak.

 

Not to say that he can't be a warmonger, but until he does something, no one knows.

remind remind's picture

For those interested, one can look at the new limo tanks that will carry Obama around here.

 

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Cueball Cueball's picture

djelimon wrote:

It all comes down to how much of a controll freak he is. Having a pitbull on a leash is often more effective than just letting one run around. Based on his campaign, I would say very much a control freak.

 

Not to say that he can't be a warmonger, but until he does something, no one knows.

So I hire Luddendorf to be my Minsister of Defence, what am I thinking about? 

djelimon

Cueball wrote:
djelimon wrote:

It all comes down to how much of a controll freak he is. Having a pitbull on a leash is often more effective than just letting one run around. Based on his campaign, I would say very much a control freak.

 

Not to say that he can't be a warmonger, but until he does something, no one knows.

So I hire Luddendorf to be my Minsister of Defence, what am I thinking about? 

you mean this fellow?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Ludendorff

 

Who said this?:

 

"By appointing Hitler Chancellor of the Reich, you have handed over our
sacred German Fatherland to one of the greatest demagogues of all time.
I prophesy to you this evil man will plunge our Reich into the abyss
and will inflict immeasurable woe on our nation. Future generations
will curse you in your grave for this action."

I guess you'd be thinking you need a military man with a track record who doesn't trust/like demagogues, or something. I mean. it was late coming, but he beat out a lot of the leaders of Allied nations, and other Germans too.

I don't really see the connection to Hillary Clinton, though.

I mean, I'm sure you wouldn't use the old X=Hitler schtick, based on a what-if. You seem a reasonable person.

So I'll guess your point is that you hire people for their strengths.

Which, frankly, is the one thing that has me scratching my head. What does Hillary bring to the table besides the Clinton brand here? I mean, campaign swagger aside, what has she done foreign policy wise? Complain about Canada? Buit then again, the Clinton brand is indeed a powerful thing.

remind remind's picture

Cueball wrote:
The Clinton camp are the ones who are the architechts of the new unilateral interventionist policy of the post cold war era, not the Bushies

Oh, so we are just supposed to forget about the 1st Gulf War and GHB, eh, in order to support your premise.  Pfffft!

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away

Cueball Cueball's picture

And you are right, this is the sense of what I am saying. But not just any "military man" Erich Ludendorf, was a founding member of the Nazi party, and author of Der Totale Krieg -- more or less the book that became the theoretical foundation of Hitlers foreign policy and rebuilding the German war machine:

Quote:
At Hitler's urging, Ludendorff took part in the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. The plot failed but Ludendorff was acquitted in the trial that followed. In

 1924, he was elected to the Reichstag as a representative of the NSFB (a coalition of the German Völkisch Freedom Party and members of the Nazi Party), serving until 1928. He ran in the 1925 presidential election against former commander Paul von Hindenburg and received just 285,793 votes. Ludendorff's reputation may have been damaged by the Putsch, but he conducted very little campaigning of his own and remained aloof, relying almost entirely on his lasting image as a war hero, an attribute which Hindenburg also possessed.

So regardless of whatever kind of falling out happened between Luddendorf and Hitler, he is the theoretical architecht who set forth the plan for rebuilding Germany's military machine.

The Clinton camp are the ones who are the architechts of the new unilateral interventionist policy of the post cold war era, not the Bushies.

 Let me put it to you this way. This is not about Obama. This is about being president of the United States. And being the candidate of the Democratic party. And both titles come with obligations. The fact is that US foreign policy is not some kind of football that gets kicked from the war camp to the peace camp whenever the Republicans or the Democrats clear out their offices to be replaced by functionaries of the other brand. The concept that the Republicans are "hawkish", and the Democrats are "dovish" is a pretense that really only has currency in the American media, and among some voters, and has everything to do with election posturing, and nothing to do with policy.

US foreign policy is a clear continuum handed down from one president to the next, and has been such since George F. Kennan (a Democrat) first set forth the principles of the Containment (AKA the Truman Doctrine) in the 1940's. Prior to that there was a quantifiable difference between the parties in terms of isolationism and interventionism, of which I am sure you know the former was most often the cause followed by the Republicans not the Democrats. But since then, any serious analysis will show that neither is less hesitant to express US power through force, in order to protect the "interests" of the country, and its ruling class.

What we see here, is not a break from the past, but a reintroduction of the old guard Clinton foreign policy team that gave us such wonders of policy as allowing military infrastructure training companies like MPRI to operate under State Department License in Croatia, in order to build the Crotian army into a military machine capable of executing the largest ethnic cleansing in European history since the end of the WW II: Operation Storm.

Quote:
MPRI, formerly known as Military Professionals Resources Inc., may provide the best example of how skilled retired soldiers cash in on their military training. Its roster includes Gen. Carl E. Vuono, the former Army chief of staff who led the gulf war and the Panama invasion; Gen. Crosbie E. Saint, the former commander of the United States Army in Europe; and Gen. Ron Griffith, the former Army vice chief of staff. There are also dozens of retired top-ranked generals, an admiral and more than 10,000 former military personnel, including elite special forces, on call and ready for assignment. "We can have 20 qualified people on the Serbian border within 24 hours," said Lt. Gen. Harry E. Soyster, the company's spokesman and a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. "The Army can't do that. But contractors can."

America's For-Profit Secret Army

Later, in 1999, they also gave us the first unilateral attack by the NATO alliance on a soveriegn nation, in its entire history, as the first "coalition of the willing", while they were busily trying to starve Iraqis in order to prepare the ground for regieme change, an operation that commenced under the Bush adminstration in 2003.

Someone above thought it was apropos to note that Clinton is to the right of Obama on foreign policy issue. If this relative estimation is correct, one would surely find someone in his new cabinet to the left of the Clinton/Gates/Emmanuel triangle, more of Obama's presumably "progressive" ilk. So far all the important posts are going to the war party.

 Linked items in bold.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Not at all. You are supposed to remember that George Bush senior, cautiously and carefully built up a coalition and a mandate for limited militatary intervention under the auspices of the United Nations "use of force" resolution. It was Clinton/Albright who broke that mold.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Who likes Clinton? None other than Henry ("the issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves") Kissinger: Saying that Senator Hillary Clinton would make “an outstanding appointment” as America’s top diplomat.


 

remind remind's picture

Pffft...

Quote:
(private)Contractor support was crucial to Operation DESERT STORM i

http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/kidwell.pdf

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Cueball Cueball's picture

"Pffft" associated to a link does not amount to a discussion point. Perhaps you can explain your point for everyone's edification.

remind remind's picture

Your major thrust to say it started with the Clinton admin was this:

"What we see here, is not a break from the past, but a reintroduction of
the old guard Clinton foreign policy team that gave us such wonders of
policy as allowing military infrastructure training companies like MPRI "

I noted it had started with GHB, you said not, I provided evidence otherwise.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Cueball Cueball's picture

That is irrelevant to the main case which is that Clinton/Albright were the first to undermine the UN system, in the post Cold War era,  by unilaterally attacking Serbia in 1999, without an express use of force mandate from the UN. The same principles were applied by Bush in 2003.

Also, the fact that the contractor system was already in use prior to the Clinton Adminstration giving a license to MPRI to oversee the creation of the Croatian army, and MPRI/NATO involvement in the subsequent ethnic cleansing in Krjaina, in no way removes the Clinton administrations culpability for those acts.

These are two seperate, but related developments. The principle that the US could unilaterally abrogate the sovereignty of a nation state, without the express approval of the UN, was first set by the Clinton Whitehouse, in respect to the post Cold War period.

The First Gulf War, had the clear authorization of the UN. The bombing of Serbia did not.

remind remind's picture

Frankly I do not think it is irrelevant at all, and you apparently did not think private contractors were either, as you erroneously stated that it was Clinton who started the practise, when indeed it wasn't, in order to bolster your position that Clinton started such actions of attack against a sovereign nation.

However, it was a NATO action, NOT a Clinton action per se. And then clearly Canada would be complicit as well, as would be the Liberal Party of Canada, who hopped on that NATO bandwagon.

Personally, I was against the NATO actions in this conflict. But one can not mix and match, US actions with NATO actions, in order to bolster some sort of fantasy that one has.

Here is an indepth review of what happened in 1999 for those who are interested

 

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Cueball Cueball's picture

I didn't say that the Democrat's started the practice of using "contractors" (aka Mercenaries). Get real, the practice is as old as armies. At one time all armies were private contractors more or less. What I said was that the Clinton Democrats allowed a license to MPRI to operate in Croatia. That was their idea. No. The Canadian Liberals had nothing to do with that. MPRI can only operate with a license issued by the US Department of State. The authorization is a mandatory requirement of the terms that MPRI can operate. As such, MPRI's activities in Croatia, are an explicit act of the policy of the US government.

NATO's involvement, was direct military activities aiding the assault on the Krajina enclave, including removing the roadblocks put up by the defenders to speed the Croatian advance, and attacking Serbian anti-aircraft and communications facilities with NATO aircraft.

I don't care wether you approve of Clinton's actions or not. I simply want to get the record straight.

Please follow the concept through from the begining. There is nothing in the history of the Democratic party that is particularly dovish. In fact, I assert that US foreign policy is a continuum of bi-partisan action. As an example of that, I am pointing out that in the post Cold War period, it was the Clinton administration that first set the precedent that the US, with the aid of its allies, could unilaterally step beyond international law outside of the context of a UN "use of force" resolution, and this practice was continued by the Bush administration.

remind remind's picture

Cueball wrote:
I didn't say that the Democrat's started the practice of using "contractors" (aka Mercenaries). Get real, the practice is as old as armies. At one time all armies were private contractors more or less. What I said was that the Clinton Democrats allowed a license to MPRI to operate in Croatia. That was their idea.
Uh, they way you spoke, you used it as a bolster for your premise that Clinton had started the act of illegally entering the country and used contract forces to do so. Perhaps you should have just left that part out then, as I was stating they were also given contracts in the first Gulf War.

Quote:
No. The Canadian Liberals had nothing to do with that.
Never said they did, don't shift the sands, I said they were also complicit then in an illegal war, if Clinton was.

 

____________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

remind remind's picture

Quote:
It would seem that it was used in this case to avoid such an obvious
link between the US government and its policy, and also, one sumises
the interference of Congress.
  I would agree with this, though I do not know if such was the case of reasoning.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Cueball Cueball's picture

I see, I though you were saying that the Canadian government would be complicit in MPRI's activities in the Balkans. This would only generally be the case, whereas Albright signed the documents, presumably with Clinton's approval. As far as the use of huge multinational "military contractors" (chock full of former US retired brass) as a tool of US foreign policy, I can not say that this is the first case of this being done at this level, but it is possible that the Clinton administration is unique in this respect. My impression is that this was MPRI's first big contract.

Can you think of any prior examples where a US military contracting service has been given a license by the Department of State, in order to build an army for a foreign government from the ground up? Previously, that kind of training and development was usually a US army domain of operation, and thus required some kind of congressional oversight. It would seem that it was used in this case to avoid such an obvious link between the US government and its policy, and also, one sumises the interference of Congress.

I'd be interested in seeing any other prior examples you have to offer.

remind remind's picture

Quote:

Obama to adopt
Saudi plan, ram home Israel-Arab peace deal

US President-elect Barack Obama intends to start his presidency with a bang
by rapidly concluding an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement based on the 2002
Saudi peace proposal
.

That according to sources close to Obama who spoke to London's Sunday
Times
.

Advisors to the president-elect said they had convinced him to give the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process top billing during his first year in office,
as the enormous goodwill he currently enjoys will make it easier to oversee a
final status agreement.

They also say that getting the Israelis and Palestinians to sign a peace deal
would dramatically and instantaneously transform the mood across the region,
bolstering friendly regimes and isolating extremists and the current Iranian
regime.

The Times article indicated that Obama was more open to the idea of
hitting the ground running on the Saudi initiative after both Israeli President
Shimon Peres and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni reiterated their support for the
proposal.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=17554

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Cueball Cueball's picture

Such an effort will go unrewarded unless the president is in a position to cut, or limit US to Israel aid. Without such measures Israel will simply drag its feet, either by the design of the extreme right, or the dithering of the more moderate factions. Nothing will happen unless the president has a tangible threat to force the Israeli hand.

At this point, we can file this under, "yet another toothless presidential mid-east peace initiative." I no longer find such announcements interesting, and certainly don't hold out much hope for them. I think that is the Palestinian feeling as well.

Cueball Cueball's picture

 Antiwar groups fear Barack Obama may create hawkish Cabinet

Quote:
The president-elect has told some Democrats that he expects to take heat from parts of his political base but will not be deterred by it.

Aside from Clinton and Gates, the roster of possible Cabinet secretaries has included Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), who both voted in 2002 for the resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq, though Lugar has since said he regretted it.

"It's astonishing that not one of the 23 senators or 133 House members who voted against the war is in the mix," said Sam Husseini of the liberal group Institute for Public Accuracy.

djelimon

There are some interesting speculations in the blogosphere that
by being nice to his political rivals and giving them personal stakes
in the success of his policies, he is engaging in some sort of
Machiavellian power play. If Clinton or Lieberman fucks it up, now
they'll have problems instead of I-told-you-so capital. Also, as
adversaries, they may well  have mental sweat equity on how someone
could make things go wrong. It's an interesting idea I never really
came across before. Perhaps more interesting (from my POV) is that
Harper seems to be sort of mimicking that approach here.

Food for thought:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-heilbrunn/obama-is-killing-the-gop_b...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1860727,00.html?imw=Y

remind remind's picture

First, how is Harper doing the same thing? Going to go find my copy of The Prince later tonight and give it a re-read though, or at lest hope to find it in my boxes of books in the basement.

Secondly, this comment seriously pissed me off in the Time article,

Quote:
But should Hillary get the job, it might prove difficult to distinguish
whether her husband was speaking on the Obama Administration's behalf.
  Sexist bull shit!

Interesting observation from HP;  "Democrats who worry that Obama is selling out to the opposition may
have it backwards. His ingenious approach could end up marginalizing
the GOP for decades." as well as undercutting contenders to the Democratic leadership. Moreover, any stealth tactics by either to take him down, would in essence bring themselves down.

 

 

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

djelimon

"First, how is Harper doing the same thing?"

 

Lot of stuff in the news about him calling for multi-partisan participation in solution for economic crisis, telling cpc party faithful ideology will have to be put aside for this problem.

I hate Harper as much as the next dipper, but I can't ignore the news on the elevator.

Personally I think he's trying to get on O's good side and he knows he's going to have to stray to do so.

"Secondly, this comment seriously pissed me off in the Time article,"

Agreed, but this is not the point of me posting the article.It was to illustrate the rationale which I alluded to prior behind his motivations. The sexist crap is just the reporter talking shit.

 " Moreover, any stealth tactics by either to take him down, would in essence bring themselves down."

precisely

Cueball Cueball's picture

djelimon wrote:

There are some interesting speculations in the blogosphere that
by being nice to his political rivals and giving them personal stakes
in the success of his policies, he is engaging in some sort of
Machiavellian power play. If Clinton or Lieberman fucks it up, now
they'll have problems instead of I-told-you-so capital. Also, as
adversaries, they may well  have mental sweat equity on how someone
could make things go wrong. It's an interesting idea I never really
came across before. Perhaps more interesting (from my POV) is that
Harper seems to be sort of mimicking that approach here.

Food for thought:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-heilbrunn/obama-is-killing-the-gop_b...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1860727,00.html?imw=Y

 I think, looking at this for its silver lining, one might be thinking that Obama is intentionally handing over foreign policy to the right, as part of a deal to reform the system domestically. That for me, is really the best case scenario.

As I have said before, the presidency, is the presidency and the president has obligations. For me, it is the system that is corrupt. I also don't think it can be repaired, frankly.

remind remind's picture

djelimon wrote:

"First, how is Harper doing the same thing?"

Lot of stuff in the news about him calling for multi-partisan participation in solution for economic crisis, telling cpc party faithful ideology will have to be put aside for this problem.

Think his comments about putting ideology aside were in respect to deficit spending and I could find nothing about his calling for a multipartisan approach on line.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Cueball Cueball's picture

Obama looks at border governor for homeland spot

Quote:
Napolitano also has been a prominent figure in the debate over REAL ID, a federal program launched after the 2001 terror attacks to make driver's licenses more secure. In 2007, Napolitano struck a deal with the Homeland Security Department that was supposed to lead to her state adopting the REAL ID standards. But in June of this year, she signed legislation refusing to implement the standards.

DrConway

Dunno where else this should go. Apparently Obama is about to give Drug Warriors absolute fits. :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9flhDmz7Kwo

Cueball Cueball's picture

John Brennan, Torture-Tainted CIA Prospect, Alarms Obama Supporters

Quote:
To appoint someone as CIA Director or Director of National Intelligence who was one of George Tenet's closest aides when The Dark Side of the last eight years was conceived and implemented, and who, to this day, continues to defend and support policies such as "enhanced interrogation techniques" and rendition (to say nothing of telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping), is to cross multiple lines that no Obama supporter should sanction. Truly turning a page on the grotesque abuses of the last eight years requires both symbolism (closing Guantanamo) and substantive policy changes (compelling adherence to the Army Field Manual, ensuring due process rights for all detainees, ending rendition, restoring safeguards on surveillance powers). Appointing John Brennan to a position of high authority would be to affirm and embrace, not repudiate, the darkest aspects of the last eight years.

Cueball Cueball's picture

No Way. No How. No Brennan.

Quote:

Marc reports the Republican, former chief-of-staff for George Tenet (who authorized war crimes as CIA head), admirer of Dick Cheney, CEO of the company one of whose contract employees improperly accessed Obama's and McCain's passports, and defender of renditions and "enhanced interrogations" is still Obama's front-runner pick to head the CIA. No, I'm not making this up. Brennan was high up in the agency during the run-up to the Iraq war and has since conceded this about the intelligence he was in part responsible for:

"Looking back on it now, as we put pieces together, it probably is apparent to some, including Paul, that it was much more politicized than in fact we realized."

Cueball Cueball's picture

Change in intelligence?

Quote:
Ms. Miscik was deputy director of intelligence for Mr. Tenet during the run-up to the Iraq war, when intelligence was manipulated to support the Bush administration's decision to use force in Iraq. She endorsed the politicized findings of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in October 2002, as well as the unclassified White Paper of October 2002 that was designed to sway votes on the authorization to use force against Iraq. Ms. Miscik was also a willing participant in the crafting of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's regrettable speech to the United Nations in February 2003, which was designed to sway the international community.

Other key members of Mr. Obama's intelligence advisory panel have been former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin, who helped to suppress proof that various sources of intelligence in Iraqi WMD were in fact fabricators, and Rob Richer, a senior clandestine services officer who was a key implementer of the renditions and detentions program.

Mr. Obama will not be able to change the culture of the intelligence community and restore the moral compass of the CIA unless there is a full understanding and repudiation of the operational and analytical crimes committed in the Tenet era. If Mr. Obama genuinely wants to roll back the misdeeds of Vice President Dick Cheney, restore the rule of law at the CIA and create the change that Americans want and can believe in, he should not be relying for advice on the senior officials who endorsed these shameful actions.

Melvin A. Goodman was an intelligence analyst at the CIA from 1966 to 1990 and is the author of "Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA."

Cueball Cueball's picture

Who's in the running for Obama administration jobs

Quote:
Some of those who are the subject of speculation already have been chosen by Obama to serve as part of his transition team. Some names being floated are surprising, such as former Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell for education secretary. Others are high-profile governors or members of Congress. Many are also little known to the general public — and may remain so.

(List available at link in article title, above)

Cueball Cueball's picture

Quote:
Officials in both parties also tell Politco that retired Marine Gen. James Jones — the former Marine commandant and commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Europe — will be named national security adviser, and that Obama will make those leaks official early next week.

 

Reports: Gates to stay at Pentagon; Jones to be security adviser