Janet Reno back at homeland security director post

[billcoe]

oppps, mean Janet Napolitano. Similar Dyke like look.

 

"The Obama transition team keeps on leaking: word has it that the president-elect will appoint Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to head the Department of Homeland Security, replacing the controversial Michael Chertoff. The move puts the border governor in charge of immigration and border security. Arizona has a large number of undocumented immigrants. Napolitano, 50, endorsed Obama in early January and became one of his most visible supporters. Sources told Politico the offer is likely to be made, and that Napolitano is expected to accept."

 

All kidding aside, might be a great choice. Full story link: http://www.politico.com

[kevbone]

They need to disband the Department of Homeland Security all together, then get rid of the Patriot act.....

[Chaps]

I'm pro-lesbian. I think that a lesbian should be elected president, because they can think like a man, yet have the equipment of a woman...so they can emphasize with both sides of the coin. Also, they know how to climb their 30 meters and STFU, or at least the lesbians I hang out with do.

 

I also like her style. Saw a picture with her having a little skunk white patch in her hair. Makes me think of that girl from ScoobyDo.

 

Minnesota approves.

[Peter_Puget]

Barack Obama, December 27, 2007: "The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result."

 

Vice President Biden: First elected to Washington office in 1972.

 

Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: Worked on his first congressional campaign in 1980; first presidential campaign in 1984; moved to Washington in 1993. Worked as Clinton staffer for five years; went to the board of Freddie Mac; elected to Congress in 2002.

 

Expected Secretary of State nominee Hillary Clinton: First came to Washington in 1993. Elected to the U.S. Senate in 2000.

 

Secretary of Homeland Security nominee Janet Napolitano: Anita Hill's attorney during the 1991 hearings; Clinton appointee to be U.S. Attorney in Arizona in 1993.

 

Secretary of Health and Human Services nominee Tom Daschle: First elected to Washington office in 1978.

 

Attorney General nominee Eric Holder: first began working at the Department of Justice in Washington in 1976.

 

Change we can believe in!

[Bug]

Yeah.

Dang.

Why hasn't he offered Palin anything.

Oh yeah. Because hiring another moron is not change.

[Doug]

Kinda my thoughts too. Hiring competent people who have beltway experience is the change; as opposed to outsourcing the cabinet over to Bangalore....

 

Can you hear it now: "Get me the Secertary of Education on the line"

 

ring ring

 

(Bad indian accent) "Hello, this is Bobby. How may I help you today"

 

"The SAT Scores are down for the second year running, we need to do something about the quality of education in this country"

 

(Bad indian accent)"Ooohh just a moment I need to get my supervisor".

[Doug]

oppps, mean Janet Napolitano. Similar Dyke like look.

 

Guys, you gotta ask: Is this someone I'd trust with my testicles in her mouth?

[Peter_Puget]

Kinda my thoughts too. Hiring competent people who have beltway experience is the change; as opposed to outsourcing the cabinet over to Bangalore....

 

Racist rant snipped

 

 

Interesting viewpoint Doug. Consider....

 

The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.

“Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate, but it sends a very different message when you bring in people who supported the war from the beginning,” said Kelly Dougherty, executive director of the 54-chapter Iraq Veterans Against the War.

link

 

 

The fact that Bush was telling lies was something evident to the CC.com liberal brain trust (ChucK, Mattp, Tvash and the always cuddly J_B) Now our President elect is bringing on board many of the “experienced” WA elite. Which camp do they fall into:

 

1) They were always as smart as the CC.com brain trust.

2) They were/are dupes.

3) They were dupes who saw the light. (eg Edwards)

 

 

Those truly believing the "Bush Lied" story line have to pick which of the three groups Obama’s each of staff fall into. The only acceptable group should #1. ( Well unless the cc.com brain trust is just so darn smart that holding the leaders of our country to their level is simply unreasonable.) Otherwise our new leaders are just dupes of a different color.

 

[Doug]

Kinda my thoughts too. Hiring competent people who have beltway experience is the change; as opposed to outsourcing the cabinet over to Bangalore....

 

Racist rant snipped

 

 

Interesting viewpoint Doug. Consider....

 

The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.

“Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate, but it sends a very different message when you bring in people who supported the war from the beginning,” said Kelly Dougherty, executive director of the 54-chapter Iraq Veterans Against the War.

link

 

 

The fact that Bush was telling lies was something evident to the CC.com liberal brain trust (ChucK, Mattp, Tvash and the always cuddly J_B) Now our President elect is bringing on board many of the “experienced” WA elite. Which camp do they fall into:

 

1) They were always as smart as the CC.com brain trust.

2) They were/are dupes.

3) They were dupes who saw the light. (eg Edwards)

 

 

Those truly believing the "Bush Lied" story line have to pick which of the three groups Obama’s each of staff fall into. The only acceptable group should #1. ( Well unless the cc.com brain trust is just so darn smart that holding the leaders of our country to their level is simply unreasonable.) Otherwise our new leaders are just dupes of a different color.

 

It's not as simple as that Peter. BTW, I didn't think my attempt at humor was a racist rant.

 

If one's position of supporting the war was based upon intelligence that puported that our nation and other allies were in imminent danger, then supporting the war at that stage cannot be considered a bad thing. Those that spoke out against it or the "evidence" leading up to it were labled by some more ferverent supporters as unpatriotic or treasonous. Remember, they are all politicians and at some level will say what they have to to either get elected or stay in office, even if it means compromising any principles they may have. Are/were they dupes at some level? Most probably.

 

Back on topic, change in the Obama vein hopefully isn't a facade or window dressing. Yes, by definition his staff and cabinet are Washington insiders and political veterans. And yes, he more than likely has some political favors to repay. But I really do believe the change that he advertised a need for is an ideolgical change and that we will get. Sorry for the lack of a link, I thought I'd use my own ideas.

[Doug]

Oh, and as far as competent, 5 words: Heck of a job, Brownie!

[Peter_Puget]

Kinda my thoughts too. Hiring competent people who have beltway experience is the change; as opposed to outsourcing the cabinet over to Bangalore....

 

Racist rant snipped

 

 

Interesting viewpoint Doug. Consider....

 

The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.

“Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate, but it sends a very different message when you bring in people who supported the war from the beginning,” said Kelly Dougherty, executive director of the 54-chapter Iraq Veterans Against the War.

link

 

 

The fact that Bush was telling lies was something evident to the CC.com liberal brain trust (ChucK, Mattp, Tvash and the always cuddly J_B) Now our President elect is bringing on board many of the “experienced” WA elite. Which camp do they fall into:

 

1) They were always as smart as the CC.com brain trust.

2) They were/are dupes.

3) They were dupes who saw the light. (eg Edwards)

 

 

Those truly believing the "Bush Lied" story line have to pick which of the three groups Obama’s each of staff fall into. The only acceptable group should #1. ( Well unless the cc.com brain trust is just so darn smart that holding the leaders of our country to their level is simply unreasonable.) Otherwise our new leaders are just dupes of a different color.

 

It's not as simple as that Peter. BTW, I didn't think my attempt at humor was a racist rant.

 

If one's position of supporting the war was based upon intelligence that puported that our nation and other allies were in imminent danger, then supporting the war at that stage cannot be considered a bad thing. Those that spoke out against it or the "evidence" leading up to it were labled by some more ferverent supporters as unpatriotic or treasonous. Remember, they are all politicians and at some level will say what they have to to either get elected or stay in office, even if it means compromising any principles they may have. Are/were they dupes at some level? Most probably.

 

Back on topic, change in the Obama vein hopefully isn't a facade or window dressing. Yes, by definition his staff and cabinet are Washington insiders and political veterans. And yes, he more than likely has some political favors to repay. But I really do believe the change that he advertised a need for is an ideolgical change and that we will get. Sorry for the lack of a link, I thought I'd use my own ideas.

 

Doug - True enough a 4th possibilty is that the politicians could have seen thru the obvious "Bush Lies" and yet for self serving reasons chose not to stand up and be counted. Can these guys really be expected to be agents of change or just more of the same? After all they refused to fight against the war... they willingly sacrificed American youth and America's standing in the world to lies in order to forward their own personal agendas...what other lies will they support to get ahead in the future.....feel free to go ahead and use your own ideas!

 

It sure seems like "the same Washington game with the same Washington players."

[No. 13 Baby]

I say we give Ms. Napolitano a chance -- Homeland Security Czars can't all be as uber qualified as this feller...

 

[Peter_Puget]

Oh and by the way..I wasn't saying you even believed in the "Bush Lied" story line. I am just musing about those that do believe the story line and its implications.

[tvashtarkatena]

Bush Lied? About the WMD?

 

No way.

[Doug]

Well, if he actually believed what he was saying is it really lying?

[tvashtarkatena]

Well, if he actually believed what he was saying is it really lying?

 

God, that is bullshit. He "believed the intelligence"? Um...no.

 

Bush had access to all the information we did and more, and no reasonable person who studied the issue could possibly come to the conclusion that Saddam had WMDs. Bush decided to invade Iraq in Aug of 2002 for geopolitical reasons, not because Saddam was a significant threat. Cheney's office trumped up the intel for the public dog and pony show, and, as usual, the dumber half of the electorate bought it hook, line, and sinker.

[tvashtarkatena]

Oh, and I love how the GOP hacks on this site, worshippers of an agenda that has basically waged war against blacks since Reagan, love to play race ref on this site, almost always because their pea brains can't process satirical humor of any kind. What a fucking joke. Peter, you are such a tool.

Edited November 21, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[Doug]

Well, if he actually believed what he was saying is it really lying?

 

God, that is bullshit. He "believed the intelligence"? Um...no.

 

Bush had access to all the information we did and more, and no reasonable person who studied the issue could possibly come to the conclusion that Saddam had WMDs. Bush decided to invade Iraq in Aug of 2002 for geopolitical reasons, not because Saddam was a significant threat. Cheney's office trumped up the intel for the public dog and pony show, and, as usual, the dumber half of the electorate bought it hook, line, and sinker.

 

I'm positing that Bush is part of the dumber half of the electorate...Hell for that matter I am too!

[j_b]

If one's position of supporting the war was based upon intelligence that puported that our nation and other allies were in imminent danger, then supporting the war at that stage cannot be considered a bad thing. Those that spoke out against it or the "evidence" leading up to it were labled by some more ferverent supporters as unpatriotic or treasonous. Remember, they are all politicians and at some level will say what they have to to either get elected or stay in office, even if it means compromising any principles they may have. Are/were they dupes at some level? Most probably.

 

Anybody informed couldn't have been duped. There were 10's of millions of people in the streets around the world before the war who already knew the intelligence was fabricated. The pols who voted for the war shouldn't be trusted to represent the people.

 

Back on topic, change in the Obama vein hopefully isn't a facade or window dressing. Yes, by definition his staff and cabinet are Washington insiders and political veterans. And yes, he more than likely has some political favors to repay. But I really do believe the change that he advertised a need for is an ideolgical change and that we will get. Sorry for the lack of a link, I thought I'd use my own ideas.

 

Actually, the experience argument is widely being used to justify Obama's conservative choices for his cabinet but it doesn't account for the fact there are experienced politicans who were against the war, against deregulation, etc .. who are also experienced in washington so he has little excuse not to select at least some true progressives at important posts.

[mattp]

... so he has little excuse not to select at least some true progressives at important posts.

 

You may well end up very disappointed, j_b. I don't think he is likely to really shake things up.

 

As to the war? Anybody who read the newspaper very carefully knew Bush and co. were lying. In order to vote for or support the war you either had to believe that it was a good idea anyway or, in the case of an elected official, that you wouldn't be reelected if you came out against it.

[j_b]

... so he has little excuse not to select at least some true progressives at important posts.

 

You may well end up very disappointed, j_b. I don't think he is likely to really shake things up.

 

So hang on to your hat because without shaking things up, we are in for a very nasty ride.

 

 

As to the war? Anybody who read the newspaper very carefully knew Bush and co. were lying. In order to vote for or support the war you either had to believe that it was a good idea anyway or, in the case of an elected official, that you wouldn't be reelected if you came out against it.

 

Without the democrats toeing the war party line, we wouldn't have gone to Iraq. If the opposition had done its job, the corporate media, including the NYT, couldn't have have done its dirty work to the same extent. Even with all the propaganda, it is only days before the war when it was inevitable we were going in that public opinion became pro-war and that didn't last very long.

[Peter_Puget]

Here is Andrew Sullivan's take on another agent of change:

 

We didn’t work our butts off to elect Obama only to get Bush another four years at CIA. If Brennan emerges as the pick, those of us against the continuation of war crimes and the prosecution of war criminals will have to oppose him strenuously in the nomination process. We will, in fact, have to go to war with Obama before he even takes office.

 

Here is Brennan's wikipedia entry - dig the close Bush connection.

 

Yes more change is coming. The question is who are the real dupes.

[Hugh Conway]

The question is who are the real dupes.

 

The Republicans because Obama WON! HE BEAT YOU! HAHA!

[Peter_Puget]

LOL Thats what the Dems thought when Johnson was elected! Two years later Reagan replaced Brown as Gov in CA. 4 years later Nixon was elected. Carter was soundly defeated despite Nixon and the revolution that first began when Goldwater was defeated had come into full bloom! The next Dem elected Pres was a young man as a member of the DLC explicitly moved his party to the right!

[j_b]

That was before you killed the golden goose (the middle class)and emptied the treasury. There is nothing left to steal and you'll find that pandering to ignorance of your role in this economic debacle is going to be impossible.