OK, I'll say it again. A bunch of people who aren't associated with Obama speculating about what Obama might do tells you nothing about what Obama will do.

This is nothing more than political gossip, you can't possibly read the articles as anything but political gossip and yet every time an article like this comes out, people get their pants in a knot.

Give it a rest already, people are starting to sound like fReichtards searching for the hidden "Kill Whitey" message in Obama's speeches.

Two major dailies with differing stories? Sounds like a failure in intelligence to me.

Hayden and McConnell, it's also worth noting, "publicly defended the use of 'extraordinary' interrogation measures that critics labeled torture."

Sounds like he's removing the top two dorks. To me that sends a clear signal that he's looking to lop-off the cancer and then treat the patient. Good for him.

Quite right, it is speculation without any actual news content as yet. After Obama's outrageous FISA vote, however, it is a disconcerting report. We will simply have to watch and see for now, but when the time to pounce comes we need to do it like an army of sirens.

The news content is in the leaks themselves. You leak things as trial balloons, or to influence the course of coming events. If enough papers report something as true, then any other course of action gets reported as a change or a rollback or a lack of will or some other kind of controversy. So I expect the initial leak was an attempt to create the leaker's own reality and effectively dare the Obama administration to go against it.

The WaPo article was probably written with some sort of Deborah Howellesque balance in mind. Whether it was accurate or in the context of anything significant may well be irrelevant.

over-speculation is what got us into this financial mess. let's stop doing it as a general rule.

Actually, the intelligence-gathering operations may not be the problem in a purely technical manner. This administration failed when it used bad intelligence, which was clearly marked, and ignored good intelligence when it didn't match with their preconceived conclusions.

The Bush administration has almost certainly spied on reporters and prominent Democrats, and leading Republicans know it. Why not leave them wondering whether their own practices might be used against them by the Obama administration?

Seriously - the first move of an incoming Democratic administration is to publicly disarm: repudiate the hateful rhetoric and tactics of the outgoing Repubs, swear to never do the same, and then cease all ongoing prosecutions and investigations of the former incumbents.

I think a change is in order.

Political observers will probably have to be patient, resisting the temptation to pounce on every report as evidence of Obama offering too much or not enough change.

I thought Obama just may lose was when you paranoid twits abandoned him after the FISA vote yet, here we are, 7 days passed the election and the fair-weather fans are ready to jump ship at the slightest perceived offense.

Just curious: did Glenn Greenwald refund your money yet?

paul i think you are so right. this is the tactic started in the dubya years. i remember an article, from harpers i think that mentioned rove talking about this way of influencing reality. good catch.

Anyone who looks like McConnell should not be in a position of such power. Similar to John Clayton on ESPN.

I'm not assuming anything.
I'm just sayin'.

Hayden staying is not enough change.

All current political appointees are, by definition, Bush stooges. They and their neocon staffs need to be replaced.

McConnell, on MTP, was very close to criticizing Obama's position on Iraq timetables, at a time when Obama had just finished his overseas trip. It was obvious political push-back.

It isn't so much that these guys go before Congress and push their wares, it is that they go on political talk shows and do the same thing.

Let's see... no attacks since 9/11, good idea to get rid of the top guys who just may have a hand in preventing any terrorist activity in the US since then. Let's not be shortsighted and start all over again with appointees who may take months to be brought up to speed and help Joe Biden's probable self fulfilling prophesy about the new POTUS being tested. Liberals, democrats and others who want to live in a land filtered through rose colored glasses need to look at the real world, not their concept of Kumbaya.

Liberals, democrats and others who want to live in a land filtered through rose colored glasses need to look at the real world, not their concept of Kumbaya.

You should've told that to Dubya when he took office and maybe there never would have been a 9/11. But thanks for playing.

Marko: I read your post and have a question... How long do you think the terrorists took to develop and implement the 9/11 attack? Surely Clinton, who by his actions, was perceived to be weak on attacks against Americans, seemed to be asleep at the switch, didn't spend much if any time on keeping up to date on foreign intel.
No matter how you'd like to pin everything on Bush, there was plotting and planning going back before he took office. Why didn't the Clinton people know, or even have a hint... two words, Jamie Garelick, who made sure the intel agencies couldn't talk to each other. So now the ball is in your court...

I don't know where you get this revisionist history of Clinton. If I recall correctly, there was an attack on the WTC on his watch. Although the explosions were not strong enough to bring down the building, the perpetrators were caught, tried, sentenced and are still in jail.

Also, IIRC, Clinton left a detailed report on current terrorist activity for the incoming administration. Which they promptly ignored, because it was from "Clinton".

Sorry I can't do the research right now - will provide links later.

I would like to see these links. As I recall, it was widely reported that Clinton didn't spend much if any time being briefed by his national security people. I too will be looking for links later. At least we're keeping this civil, although I'm not sure about revisonist history.

Surely Clinton, who by his actions, was perceived to be weak on attacks against Americans, seemed to be asleep at the switch, didn't spend much if any time on keeping up to date on foreign intel.

Bullshit.

1.)Clinton told Bush during the transition that terrorism would be the defining issue of his presidency, and Bush scoffed at him.

2.) Blame for the attack on the Cole was not definitively ascribed until the change of administration was at hand, leaving it to fall to Bush to respond.

3.) Clinton did not get the 06 August PDB with that warned of the 9/11 attack and dismiss it with a glib "okay, you've covered your ass now," and go back to clearing brush.

And for the record, you know fuck-all about the intel world. The Gorelick memo had no bearing whatsoever on military intelligence gathering and sharing. But thanks for playing.

Here is a link to the (.pdf) actual 1995 Gorelick memo. It was quite limited in scope, putting a wall between the FBI and the criminal division of the DoJ. Again, it had no bearing on military intel and it was a military intelligence gathering operation (Able Danger) that identified Atta before the attacks.

And again, the info was there for Bush's folks to utilize, but they did not.

Why didn't the Clinton people know, or even have a hint... two words, Jamie Garelick, who made sure the intel agencies couldn't talk to each other. So now the ball is in your court...

That old saw? Wingnut dementia sets in and they howl "Jamie Gorelick" at each other as if it means something.

It doesn't do your side any good, at this stage of the game, to cite Gorelick. The attempts by the DOJ to SEPARATE intelligence gathering from law enforcement--keeping communications between the FBI and the criminal division of the Justice Department separate to avoid creating a conflict of interest.

Now, if wingnuts want to have the FBI out investigating people who make anti-American statements on their blogs so that they can feed that information directly to the Department of Justice, which could start investigating wingnut welfare and all manner of means by which wingnut blogs solicit funds to operate and how they run their Internet affairs, more power to you.

There was a time in this country when the FBI and the Department of Justice were intended to be kept apart on matters so that the privacy rights of Americans could be protected. How bad do wingnuts really want to open that can of fucking worms?

OK, but it is unusual for a president to relinquish power that he has inherited. He may not use it, but he may want to keep it in has back pocket. Not that I think Obama should keep it, mind you, just that I won't be surprised if he does.

OK, but it is unusual for a president to relinquish power that he has inherited.

Except for all the times various Presidents disbanded the large standing armies that they inherited, sure. The Church Committee took power away from the Executive, and Cheney and Rumsfeld were able to wrest it back because they were not challenged by their own party. Don't think that will happen this time around. Obama will be significantly challenged on this front because the entire Republican establishment in Washington is gearing up for a battle against a possible "abuse of power" by his administration.

...the entire Republican establishment in Washington is gearing up for a battle against a possible "abuse of power" by his administration.

Until all the Republicans show up for their congressional subpoenas, they can just STFU about presidential abuse of power.

Here Steve - a link to support what I said about pre-attack warnings being ignored. And another.

I agree Marko - but I want this crap rolled back, and if the r's can be used to that end, so be it. I don't have to trust them in the process.

Good point, Blue Girl. But if it gets rolled back during a Democratic administration, only to be re-taken in the next "unitary" Republican administration, it isn't really fair. If it can be rolled back permanently (constitutional amendment?) then it would make more sense.

And thanks for the links. Those were the ones I was going to be looking for CTBob. Got that Bob? See Blue Girl's links @ 4:00 PM. I await your response.

Glad to be of service. Smacking down wingnuttery is what I do. :)