# What do you think of Obama's National Security Team **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 1, 2008, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198 "2008-12-01T16:49:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![tds1273](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/df705f/32.png) [@tds1273](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tds1273)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198/21 "2008-12-01T18:07:09Z")
Not too thrilled with it. I like Napolitano, but I’m not as thrilled about her heading up Homeland Security. It appears Obama is making the focus of the post on immigration, I would have preferred he took [Adm. Thad Allen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thad_Allen) with more of a focus on port security; he also did a good job during Katrina. I really do not like the Clinton pick. I understand that since Clinton was the last Democratic Administration you can’t not have their people and have experience at the same time, but is it so much to ask not to have a Clinton(or Bush) working in the White House for a change? I also plain don’t understand the pick apart from pure crony-ism. How is Hillary Clinton qualified for the position? What were the [two foreign policy credentials](http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/hillarys_adventures_abroad.html)she touted for herself on the campaign trail? Her harrowing adventure dodging sniper fire? Or her purported role in bringing a peace treaty to Norther Ireland, in which her claims were deemed [“silly”](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1581150/Nobel-winner-Hillary-Clinton's-'silly'-Irish-peace-claims.html) by Nobel Laureate and former First Minister of the Province, Lord Trimble? Why her? Why was Richardson who has far better [foreign policy and diplomatic credentials](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson#U.S._Congressman)not picked? Ugh, I hate this pick. I sort of get(smoother transition at one of the more important posts), but don’t particularly like the Gates pick. I don’t expect him to be there too long. I think it was on the Rachel Maddow Show, I heard that despite bringing in Gates to clean up after Rumsfeld, he kept on much of Rummy’s staff. I know we defended Obama from guilt by association in the primaries but no degree of separation is enough from Rumsfeld or any of these other Neo-Con war pigs. To keep any staff of theirs around to even risk mucking things up or to prevent actual change makes me very uneasy. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198/22 "2008-12-01T18:10:39Z")
Gen, James has been working with an organization that promotes a sustainable and self-sufficient energy future. This includes domestic gas supplies, offshore drilling, nucelar paower and clean coal as well as alternative energy, renewable energy, energy efficiency etc. So basically this organization believes in using everything possible to create more energy independence. is selection to the NSA seems to me to show that Obama consider’s our energy policy as much a security issue as a environmental stewrdship issue. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198/23 "2008-12-01T18:16:29Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > But would she accept the post anyway? Isn’t it a poison pill? She’d have to give up being Senator and would serve at the pleasure of the President? All he has to do is wait for her to make a mistake, however slight, and it’s sayonara, baby. I believe she was convinced her input would be valued and that she could accomplish some major things. I also think it’s true that she was frustrated at her lack of seniority in the Senate and maybe a bit embarrassed (that’s probably too strong a word) to go back to her old job after spend so much time running for president and coming close to getting the nomination. It’s also being reported that Obama’s people will help her raise money to finish paying off the rest of her campaign debt. My view is that she’s very smart, practical, thorough and knows how to make a deal. Does she have the experience for this role? I don’t know, and I’m surprised it was offered to her. I don’t buy the “keep your enemies close” explanation at all and I don’t think she was offered this job in return for her endorsement. She did a lot for Obama, as it turned out, and even if she didn’t want to, politically she knew she had to. The Constitutional thing is a non-issue, and rightly so: that provision is probably in place to prevent backroom spoils system-type deals and the creation of do-nothing posts for the president’s supporters. We can safely say that’s not the case here. From what I’ve read about her, I like Rice. And I like this team in general. In terms of experience and style it seems of a piece with the economic team introduced last week. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198/24 "2008-12-01T18:18:46Z")
They are all excellent choices — brilliant in conception. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198/25 "2008-12-01T18:25:57Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > What’s a white man got to do to be the US Secretary of State ?😃 > > Clinton is a great pick. Her persona and name carries great gravitas amongst US allies and she’s demonstrated that she is able and willing to be a team player. I am not a big fan of HClinton, but I have to agree with **Dutchman** on these points, so I’ll just hope that Obama knows what he’s doing in picking her. OTOH, I agree with **Whack-a-Mole** that the Constitution says what it says, and I really don’t like fudging around the “inconvenient” parts. ---
**Author:** ![borschevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@borschevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/borschevsky)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198/26 "2008-12-01T18:28:09Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It hate being nitpicky but the salary was increased during her tenure. Putting it back does not undo that it was increased. It just effectively makes it like it wasn’t. What counts as her tenure, though? Above it was posted that the salary increase was 2003; Hillary was last elected in 2006. As I read the quoted article, 2006 should be considered the start of her tenure, since it’s “during the time for which he was elected”. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198/27 "2008-12-01T18:46:04Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > OTOH, I agree with **Whack-a-Mole** that the Constitution says what it says, and I really don’t like fudging around the “inconvenient” parts. Yeah, 8 years of fudging around the “inconvenient” parts of the Constituion has me a bit twitchy as well. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198/28 "2008-12-01T18:48:00Z")
> [@borschevsky](#): > > What counts as her tenure, though? Above it was posted that the salary increase was 2003; Hillary was last elected in 2006. As I read the quoted article, 2006 should be considered the start of her tenure, since it’s “during the time for which he was elected”. By [Executive Order](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080104-6.html) the salary of Sec State (among others) was increased in January of 2008. The Constitution does not say Congress had to make the pay raise, just that a pay raise occurred during their tenure. ---
**Author:** ![borschevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@borschevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/borschevsky)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198/29 "2008-12-01T18:53:37Z")
Ok, that avoids the tenure argument then. ---
**Author:** ![TJVM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@TJVM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TJVM)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198/30 "2008-12-01T18:55:50Z")
There’s a Washington Post article [here](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/19/hillary_clintons_fix.html) that gives some background on the constitutional issue. I’m curious to see whether the issue is raised by Republicans, either in a political context (in confirmation hearings) or through some sort of legal proceeding (though I don’t know who would have standing to bring an action over this). ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198/31 "2008-12-01T18:59:47Z")
I don’t like Clinton’s nomination for secretary of state - like **TDS1273** , I see her amazing blunders during the primaries as what should have been the killing blow to this idea. > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I’d like to know more about Napolitano. Especially her views on immigration. According to Wikipedia, she opposed [Arizona Proposition 200](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_Arizona_Now), which requires that individuals registering to vote or applying for public benefits produce proof of citizenship. [Her website](http://www.governor.state.az.us/P_ProtectingAZ.asp) has some other information. I’m interested in finding out what she’s going to do about the TSA. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198/32 "2008-12-01T19:13:01Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > By [Executive Order](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080104-6.html) the salary of Sec State (among others) was increased in January of 2008. The Constitution does not say Congress had to make the pay raise, just that a pay raise occurred during their tenure. Simple enough then for Obama to reverse that executive order for Secretary of State until such time Clinton’s senate term expires. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198/33 "2008-12-01T19:13:22Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > I’m interested in finding out what she’s going to do about the TSA. Wipe it from the national memory? PLEEEEEEZE? I mean, long, winding lines that concentrate the most people in the least area–BEFORE they go through inspection? How is that NOT a suicide bomber’s wet dream? ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198/34 "2008-12-01T19:24:33Z")
Ha, and some people say that liberals won’t criticize Obama. HA! That said, [Eric Holder](http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/384564/the_trouble_with_eric_holder) is an absolute nightmare of a pick for AG. He never ever should have passed the vetting process, and wouldn’t have normally, but he’s black and is a friend of Obama’s, so that makes his creepy past ok I guess. While he couldn’t possibly be worse than Ashcroft or Gonzales, his is the only pick that makes me question Obama’s judgment, putting friends before country and the law. Otherwise, I’m willing to wait and see what Obama has on his mind. He’s a brilliant man, a good and decent man, so I’m giving him all kinds of leeway. He’s much smarter and knows a hell of a lot more than I do. I’m going to keep my eye on Holder though. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198/35 "2008-12-01T19:31:25Z")
Never mind. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198/36 "2008-12-01T19:45:56Z")
> [@Equipoise](#): > > That said, [Eric Holder](http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/384564/the_trouble_with_eric_holder) is an absolute nightmare of a pick for AG. He never ever should have passed the vetting process, and wouldn’t have normally, but he’s black and is a friend of Obama’s, so that makes his creepy past ok I guess. While he couldn’t possibly be worse than Ashcroft or Gonzales, his is the only pick that makes me question Obama’s judgment, putting friends before country and the law. Otherwise, I’m willing to wait and see what Obama has on his mind. He’s a brilliant man, a good and decent man, so I’m giving him all kinds of leeway. He’s much smarter and knows a hell of a lot more than I do. Hmm…can’t say as I like the man either. However, despite the creepy things he did he sounds like he is good at his job. In those cases in the article presumably he was representing his clients to the best of his ability and was successful (creepy though it may have been). So, I can only hope that when working for Obama he will be kept inline by Obama himself. I’ll remain cautious on this one…not happy but will wait and see. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198/37 "2008-12-01T20:45:54Z")
> [@Equipoise](#): > > Ha, and some people say that liberals won’t criticize Obama. HA! > > That said, [Eric Holder](http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/384564/the_trouble_with_eric_holder) is an absolute nightmare of a pick for AG. He never ever should have passed the vetting process, and wouldn’t have normally, but he’s black and is a friend of Obama’s, so that makes his creepy past ok I guess. While he couldn’t possibly be worse than Ashcroft or Gonzales, his is the only pick that makes me question Obama’s judgment, putting friends before country and the law. Otherwise, I’m willing to wait and see what Obama has on his mind. He’s a brilliant man, a good and decent man, so I’m giving him all kinds of leeway. He’s much smarter and knows a hell of a lot more than I do. > > I’m going to keep my eye on Holder though. I’m not too worried about Holder. As it happens I have a couple relatives who are both career attorneys with the Department of Justice. They were there for the Clinton years and the Bush years. They’re also both quite liberal in their politics, and neither seems at all concerned about Holder. They basically see him as a “known commodity”, since he was already the DOJ #2 under Janet Reno (and even severed as acting AG for a little while, I think). Do you really think he’s going to be pushing a Gonzales-like agenda? Even if those were his views, I don’t think Obama would ever sign off on that. But anyway, the article you linked not withstanding, Holder has actually been critical of the Bush administration’s implementation of the Patriot Act. From [here](http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0404/19/ip.00.html): > [@Eric Holder](#): > > When you look at some of the things that have done under the spirit of the act, where you detain citizens without giving them access to a lawyer, where you listen in on attorney-client conversations without involving a judge, these are the kinds of things that have been done in the name of the Patriot Act by this administration that I think are bad ultimately for law enforcement and will cost us the support of the American people And from [here](http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/19/holder/index.html) > [@Eric Holder](#): > > I think in a lot of ways, the problem that I had with the enforcement of the act is that this administration said essentially trust us. We’re not going to involve judges, we’re not going to report to Congress on what we’re doing, and I think our history has shown us that we are best when we operate as people governed by the law as opposed to putting our trust in people and that’s the problem I have. > > You have to deal with this whole question of secrecy and the way in which the administration has conducted itself. You need to involve judges. If you’re going to look at business records or library records, this should not be something that’s simply done by the executive branch without the involvement of judges. He’s also criticized U.S. torture policy and called for closing the Guantanamo detention center > [@](#): > > “I never thought I would see the day when a Justice Department would claim that only the most extreme infliction of pain and physical abuse constitutes torture and that acts that are merely cruel, inhuman and degrading are consistent with United States law and policy, that the Supreme Court would have to order the president of the United States to treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Convention, never thought that I would see that a president would act in direct defiance of federal law by authorizing warrantless NSA surveillance of American citizens. This disrespect for the rule of law is not only wrong, it is destructive in our struggle against terrorism,” Holder said in the speech. > > Holder also advocated closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, transferring the remaining prisoners to the US and adopting an “expedited and procedurally fair” review process. (from [here](http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/11/holder_on_bush.html)) ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198/38 "2008-12-01T20:57:13Z")
Also: > [@Equipose](#): > > He never ever should have passed the vetting process, and wouldn’t have normally, but he’s black and is a friend of Obama’s, so that makes his creepy past ok I guess. According to Holder’s wikipedia bio, he became a D.C. Superior Court judge in 1988, was appointed a U.S. Attorney for D.C. by Bill Clinton in 1993, and was elevated to the post of Deputy Attourney General (second highest in the Justice Department) in 1997. He didn’t even _meet_ Obama until 2004. From [here](http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/19/holder/index.html) > [@](#): > > Holder isn’t some long-time friend and associate of Barack Obama’s from Chicago. They only met for the first time four years ago. Whatever his politics may be, in terms of his experience Holder is clearly one of the most qualified candidates for the job of Attorney General. I don’t see how you can suggest Obama is picking him because of his race or out of personal friendship. ---
**Author:** ![Driver8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Driver8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Driver8)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198/39 "2008-12-01T21:19:04Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Says it right here: > > Senator Clinton was serving her term when they gave the Secretary of State a pay raise. Hence, she is constitutionally ineligible. In the past this has been done and they simply reverted the salary to the pre-pay raise level. While all nice and fine it skirts the letter of the law…the highest law we have (the Constitution). I don’t understand the sentiment here (and in subsequent posts). I am reading your comments as a grudging admittance that accepting the lower pay gets around the constitution on a technically, but are unhappy that it violates the spirit of the law. I don’t get this. Surely the spirit of this law is to avoid the conflict of interest involved with in effect voting yourself a pay raise? If you don’t accept the pay raise, what “spirit” of the law has been broken? As far as evil money making schemes go, “I’ll vote myself a giant pay raise, and then decline to take it. Mwahahahaha!” sounds like a pretty stupid idea. I’d stick to friggin’ laser beams and secret moon bases … As far as I can see, not accepting the pay raise is neither in spirit nor technically against the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2008, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198/40 "2008-12-01T21:24:34Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > While all nice and fine it skirts the letter of the law…the highest law we have (the Constitution). The “letter of the law” also says “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” and yet you still aren’t allowed to, say, make death threats against someone. Luckily, laws are subject to judicial interpretation, rather than enforced in the most literal way possible. If someone has a problem with Clinton being appointed Secretary of State, let them challenge it in court and see how the court rules. But to act like simply nominating her is somehow not giving proper respect to the “highest law in the land” is silly. People challenge the precise meaning of constitutional language in court _all the time_. That’s a major function of the Courts – to interpret the meaning of the law. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-obamas-national-security-team/475198.md?page=3)