Scared Yet?

[I814U]

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to scrap the way President Bush oversaw domestic security in the White House and name a former Central Intelligence Agency official to coordinate counterterrorism, people close to the transition said Wednesday.

The plan being discussed would eliminate the independent homeland security adviser’s office and assign those duties to the National Security Council to streamline sometimes overlapping functions. A deputy national security adviser would be charged with overseeing the effort to guard against terrorism and to respond to natural disasters.

Democrats close to the transition said Mr. Obama’s choice for that job was John O. Brennan, a longtime C.I.A. veteran who was the front-runner to head the spy agency until withdrawing in November amid criticism of his views on interrogation and detention policies. His appointment would not require Senate confirmation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/us/politics/08council.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

What's wrong with this:

1) The plan is to consolidate BOTH foreign AND domestic power. There is a reason why the Dept of Justice and Dept of defense have different spheres, why the FBI and CIA cannot overlap: it's to prevent too much power from being concentrated in one place. You can bet your bippy that SCOTUS would never frown on foreign surveillane but now we may be seeing both foreign and domestic taps being run from the same desk?

As my BF says, "Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot!"

2) He's putting a neocon torture enabler into that position. We're supposed to believe he'll keep his foreign and domestic taps seperated, that he won't "accidently" get his wores crossed? The Maher Arar's of the world are just unfortunate accidents, right? It's just another form of regrettable collateral damage, right?

3) It's an "advisory" role which means it isn't subject to senate oversight. He would have been Obama's CIA director but he withdrew himself after whining about critics "distorting his record" on torture. TRANSLATION: He never would have survived the confirmation process. I say if you have nothing to hide you have no reason to run. So now he's being brought back in through the back door and Panetta--who is merely an administrative type--is put up instead. So the neoons get to write the policies while a Clinton holdover stays home and takes care of the house and kids like good domesticated chattel.

Who told Obama to pick this guy? Are we being sold out by our president-elect or do the neocons still rule the US even though we won the election?

[balantz]

1. And what about this guy?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x257459

[I814U]

4. I just got done reading that at D-Now!

and I was goin going to post it next.

Not good, not good.

[balantz]

7. No, not good.

And Blair would be the intelligence boss of ALL of them!

[BeFree]

2. Neo-cons still rule

And they will until, well, just until.

The fear Americans have will not go away overnight, and if the neo-cons have their way it never will.

[terisan]

17. These appointments can't be blamed on the American people. They are not clamoring

for them.

The fear, if there is any, is on the part of Obama and his team--they are now responsible for safety and they are following the Bush-Cheney model.......and I believe they intended to from the beginning. Remember the Fisa vote. Obama campaigned against it, then voted to keep it, then said it would be ok because he would be president and wouldn't abuse.

Can't blame the neocons either. These appointments are the choice of Obama, although I suspect that the neocons and the Obama campaign had an understanding for awhile.

[Occam Bandage]

3. Opeach!

[I814U]

9. I assume you're criticizing the critics...

...as opposed to seriously advocating his impeachment. I don't think he should be impeached but that's because I don't think he's the one truly making these appointments.

But I want to ask honest and fair questions before you non-chalantly criticize and dance away without thoughtful consideration or response:

* If we were ready to send Bush and his neocon cronies to the Hague for their crimes do these cronies suddenly get a pass just because their Obama's cronies now?

* Is Obama playing us for saps, sweet-talking us to get elected just to be the next neocon? Was the 52% landslide just Obama's joke on us?

* If you're being sarcastic about "Opeachment" then you are defending Obama...in a roundabout manner, but how can you defend Obama by calling him a liar when he promised us CHANGE from endless wars, racism and torture?

* Have you onsidered that maybe the neoons really still in power and telling Obama whom to appoint where?

Maybe you don't think illegal wiretaps and torture are no big deal and the people who institute such policies can dance from one desk to another with no consequence except more pay and more power. I don't...but then again I'm a progressive.

[Occam Bandage]

12. To answer.

-I wasn't, and they aren't.
-He isn't.
-He did and he didn't, and he will and won't respectively.
-I did and they aren't.

[grantcart]

20. lol didn't you realize you get paid by the word?

[Thrill]

5. Nope. Not scared at all. Brennan is in a position that if you read his resume

best uses his talents. Nope. No problems with him there

[Jennicut]

6. Not if it means homeland security needs no committee and Joe Loserman is gone

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. This is not the DHS, it is only a WH advisory office

[Jennicut]

13. Aw shucks!

[Vilis Veritas]

8. Not Neo-Cons, Corporate Oligarchs

Two party system is an illusion...

Edited to add: I have no fear but plenty of anger...;-)

[balantz]

11. I have tried to tell people about these neocon selections.

But most don't even care to look into it. I think a lot of people may be in La La Land and just glaze over what is going down under their noses. These selections are being approved by the Obama team!

[HughMoran]

18. Barack Obama is a fascist neocon Muslin terrorist Arab Nazi!

:scared:

[sandnsea]

14. Napolitano is Secy of Homeland Security

Brennan is just an advisor, and actually there does need to be a counter-balance from the right, especially in matters of security. That was the failure of Bush, remember, not respecting opposing views.

[I814U]

15. Well, that changes everything. He's "just an advisor"...

Let's bring back Karl Rove.

He was "just an advisor" too.

[sandnsea]

19. His advisors have a variety of philosophies

I would have preferred a different list, but maybe he is trying to make sure he gets opinions that are so completely foreign to his so that he doesn't miss anything.

[elocs]

16. No, I'm not scared. I refuse to live in fear.

Was that not the right answer? I am allowed to not be scared, am I not? But then you cannot truly be a Democrat unless you are wringing your hands about or over something. Something is always wrong.

[Phx_Dem]

21. Nope. Feeling pretty damn good thankyouverymuch.