Obama betrays conservative liars, disappoints progressives?

The Hayden rumor

Source: Unclaimed Territory
Link: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/08/hayden/index.html
Title: "Gen. Hayden and the claimed irrelevance of presidential appointments", by Glenn Greenwald
Date: December 8, 2008

I wish I could say, "No comment", but it just doesn't work that way.

Until five weeks ago, I literally never heard anyone claim -- in either party -- that it was irrelevant who the President appointed to his Cabinet and other high-level positions. I never heard anyone depict people like the Defense Secretary and CIA Director as nothing more than impotent little functionaries -- the equivalent of entry-level clerical workers -- who exert no power and do nothing other than obediently carry out the President's orders.

In fact, I seem to recall pretty vividly all sorts of confirmation fights led by Democrats over the last eight years (John Aschroft, John Bolton, Alberto Gonzales, Michael Hayden, Steven Bradbury) -- to say nothing of the efforts to force the resignation or dismissal of people such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Gonzales -- that was based on exactly the opposite premise: namely, that it does matter who is empowered to lead these agencies and departments, and specifically, that their ideology not only matters, but can, by itself, warrant rejection. Nobody ever claimed that Ashcroft, Bolton or Hayden were "unqualified." It was their beliefs and ideology that rendered them unfit for those positions, argued Democrats.

When and why did everyone suddenly decide to change their minds about this and start repeating the mantra of some Obama supporters that high-level appointments are irrelevant because only the President counts? For the people who now make this claim to justify Obama's appointments, were any of them objecting during any of the above-listed confirmation fights that those fights were wasteful and unjustified because presidential appointments are irrelevant?

(Greenwald)
Click to expand...

In truth, I'm genuinely not worried yet. But I certainly would have to stop and question the choice if Hayden really is the next in line for Obama's blessing as DCIA.

For the most part, the progressive disdain about Obama's cabinet selections has stopped at the superficial. Yes, it is easy to understand why some might be skeptical about Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates, but two points circle 'round and 'round:

• The Obama selections are remarkable for a certain degree of talent.

• How will that talent be put to use?​

In this sense, it is not so much that his selections are defensible; rather, in this context the question does not seem so apparent to me. But it is a harder consideration in this case. While the swirling rumor depends on the ideas that CIA abuses occurred before Hayden came on, and some would say that he is, as such, his own man who stood up to Agency wrongdoers, one wonders what Obama could possibly see in a man whose confirmation he opposed, and whom he denounced on the Senate floor as "the architect and chief defender" of Bush administration transgressions in the pursuit of a war against terrorism.

That's a problem with rumors, though; we must wait to see what comes.
____________________

See Also:

Bedard, Paul. "President-Elect Obama May Keep Mike Hayden as Director of the CIA". Washington Whispers. December 5, 2008. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washing...-keep-mike-hayden-as-director-of-the-cia.html
 
IMO, the people chosen for the president's cabinet is more important than the president himself. Everything he bases his decisions off of come from them. If you have some sneaky little lying power-player like I dunno, say Dick Cheney, you can make the president do whatever you want.

That's why with Obama's old school picks when he claims to be for change, I'm like, eh, I'll see it when I believe it. I don't ever wanna see a corrupt Bush or Clinton still in power. And Robert Gates, Mr. Iran-Contra Affair? Hell, man, may as well have Oliver North there, if that's the case. Every one of those names are the whole reason behind our drug problems. Great, so we still have a buncha drug kingpins in high positions right now. And with those picks, it makes me think Obama is involved with it as well, especially since you can't become president without all the big players allowing you to. I wonder how he earned it. Like Bill Clinton did? Votes schmotes. I mean, dang, at least make it a little less obvious. And with the current corruption charges going on in Illinois/Chicago, even more. I'll wait and see what happens next.

- N
 
Last edited:
MOD HAT:posts on the coruption moved to apropriate thread. Buffalo you are lucky that i didnt see it last night or i would have banned you for incorect referencing again. The only reason im NOT is because you posted the link 2 posts latter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top