Comments on: He’s Here

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:52:33 +0000

When you do a Shorter x it should be shorter. eg. Shorter Oliver: I’M AN OBAMA FANBOY!
See?

By: Dave in SoCal

Dave in SoCal — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:41:26 +0000

POTUS-elect has landed. Repeat, Obama is here.

Shorter Oliver:

OHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGOD… HE’S HERE HE’S HERE… OHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGOD

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:34:32 +0000

Obama yesterday:

I think what you’re also going to see is a team that is committed to breaking with some of the past practices and concerns that have, I think, tarnished the image of the agencies and intelligence agencies and U.S. foreign policy. Last point I will make on this is that there are outstanding intelligence professionals in the CIA, DNI and others and I have the utmost regard for the work that they’ve done and we are committed to making sure that this is a team effort that’s not looking backwards but is looking forward to figure out how we’re going to serve the American people best.

Seriously, settle down.

By: PD100

PD100 — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:47:49 +0000

Keep on with that cornfield of strawmen, joaquin. You seem to be doing fine in your invented reality. No wonder wingnuts make such poor writers and artists.

By: joaquin

joaquin — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:38:00 +0000

PD100 – With that kind of brilliant deductive reasoning, I’m guessing you’re lobbying for Dee Dee Myers to head the FBI. I mean God, she’s perfect!

By: PD100

PD100 — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:24:00 +0000

The Obama administration is sending in a politico because intelligence in Obama’s eyes………. is a political issue?

If by “politico” you mean 2 year army First Lieutenant, 9 term congressman and part of the Iraq Study Group / Baker Commission, then yeah- Panetta is just an inexperienced lobbying politico hack.

By: joaquin

joaquin — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:29:05 +0000

Tom – From one progressive to another, did you say ‘I find it quite illuminating’?
Wow, for a dim bulb, that’s not bad.

By: (: Tom :)

(: Tom :) — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:05:13 +0000

I find it quite illuminating that the usual Reich wing Republican’t types are already holding Obama to higher standards than they, to this day, would never conceive of doing to Putsch.

Also, the knowledge that Obama is not using hyperparitsan party loyalty standards as the sole factor in determining eligiblity puts his selection process leagues ahead of what the Republican’t junta has been doing since they usurped power in 2000. As is the knowledge that there’s not a brain dead drunken cokeheaded deserter monkeying around with the selection process machinery while he ostensibly is large and in charge.

And that’s Change We Can Believe In.

By: joaquin

joaquin — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:22:01 +0000

I guess Sandy Berger was busy!

Look, Republicans tried to blame al Qaida on the Clinton administrations by saying that in the 1990s America treated terrorism as a criminal/policing problem – calling the FBI to investigate the USS Cole, is an example.

The Obama administration is sending in a politico because intelligence in Obama’s eyes………. is a political issue?

Don’t kid yourselves, we all knew Obama didn’t have any intelligence or international experience – but didn’t we think he would bring in people who did? No, actually he did tip his hand by appointing Hillary.

Change and Hope, baby!

By: Amused Observer

Amused Observer — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:01:20 +0000

Brucie brings up a good point. Being Clinton’s chief of staff must have been a substantial undertaking. Putting out the fires Bill was constantly lighting all around him would be a difficult job. Doesn’t say much about his ethics or personal integrity, Obama could use a guy like that.

By: Bruce Henry

Bruce Henry — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:32:59 +0000

Oh, and also, what PD100 said.

By: Bruce Henry

Bruce Henry — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:24:18 +0000

I’m pretty sure Panetta’s role as White House Chief of Staff, was a little more substantial than Jay Tea, ever the soul of integrity, suggests.
And for AO, can Chief of Staff be compared to a post as important as CIA director? With your permission, of course.

By: Parthenon

Parthenon — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:30:55 +0000

Interestingly, they’re comparing Brown to Panetta before he’s started working. Also, I wonder how many of them leapt to Brown’s defense but now wail about Leon.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:26:45 +0000

Mr. Tea gave away his game just a couple of days ago:
I don’t even know the details…and don’t care.

For Mr. Tea to lay the label of “hack” at anyone else’s feet is like being called a clown by a man wearing size 54 shoes.

By: PD100

PD100 — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:25:11 +0000

Who was that other CIA director with no experience in the intelligence community?

Oh yeah. George Bush I, that pansy.

By: PD100

PD100 — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:16:31 +0000

“Panetta has ZERO experience in anything remotely resembling national security.

A patent chickenhawk harping about experience. Funny if not sad.

By: Amused Observer

Amused Observer — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:03:33 +0000

“Panetta absolutely cannot be compared to Brownie.”

Neither can the CIA be compared to FEMA. Perhaps a better comparison of competence would be our boy Brownie in his role at FEMA and Wrangell writing tax legislation.

By: Jay Tea

Jay Tea — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:59:04 +0000

Bruce, Panetta has ZERO experience in anything remotely resembling national security. Well, apart from helping to cover up Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky (knowingly or not) and a tangential role in the Chinese spy cases of the 1990s — but I’d hardly consider those positive reviews.

But he’s REAL good at carrying out the poliitical agenda of his boss, so if that’s his priority at CIA, then he might be successful…

By: anotherbozo

anotherbozo — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:32:57 +0000

“Sure he’s a brilliant man, having prevailed over a horribly-run campaign”

Jaim (and Duros), I phrased that ambiguously. I meant “prevailed over a horribly-run REPUBLICAN campaign.” In fact, he prevailed over two horribly-run opposing campaigns – McCain’s and Clinton’s.

By: Bruce Henry

Bruce Henry — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:28:16 +0000

Wasn’t Panetta White House Chief of Staff for a while? He might have picked up a little knowledge in that stint.
Panetta absolutely cannot be compared to Brownie. Even for Jay Tea, that is shameless.