How does the Cabinet look now?

As I said earlier, I liked Obama’s first pick, Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff.  I am not crazy about most of the rest of his picks.  It looks more like a rerun of the Bubba Clinton years with the Hill getting a little more official power.  Are we better off with this group than the group they will be replacing?

The best that can be said for the crop he is assembling is that they do not seem to be overly hard core liberals.  After that, it is hard to come up with much positive on most of them.

Hillary Clinton is the obvious choice I question the most.  Not only does she have virtually no foreign policy experience (other than “dodging bullets” in Bosnia and sipping tea around the world), she brings the horrific baggage of the former President who has made a living off of foreign speaking tours and large financial donations from countries with whom Hillary will be dealing.  Even during the primary, the differences between what Hillary said and what Bill said were revealing and significant.  The thought of Bubba clearing all his foreign speeches with the White House before giving them is too laughable to be true, but it is humorous to think about a former President groveling before the new power (and his wife) to make a few more bucks.  Is there anyone that believes Hillary will be a better Secretary of State than Condolezza Rice?  While there is no question that the Hill is hard working and intelligent, Condi is definitely harder working and demonstrably more intelligent.

Eric Holder is truly problematic at Justice.  While not an ideologue, his judgment is highly suspect.  Not only was he involved with the inexcusable commutations of 16 FALN terrorists who set off 120 bombs in the US, he approved the equally inexcusable Mark Rich pardon while apparently bypassing the group within Justice that was responsible for oversight of this.  His role in the Elian Gonzales abduction by force also is a concern.  Will the CIA interrogators be afraid to apply harsh techniques, but not torture, as Holder has said he would pull any of them in and put them on trial if they were suspected of “crossing the line” when questioning terror suspects?  Will they all quit in disgust?  Has Holder’s public pronouncements been a bit extreme to get support for Justice?  I don’t know, but I am worried about him?

Bill Richardson at Commerce seems clearly to be a payback for his support even though he had been a heavy hitter in the Clinton Administration.  Admittedly he has a good bit of experience in the government, federal and state; it does not seem that he has been overly successful at anything he tried.  His tour at Energy was noted primarily for the obscene security leaks at the Los Alamos facility.  Richardson is the only one of the group I’ve personally met.  Although he is very convivial, I’m not sure that should be a measure of merit when selecting Cabinet members.

Two clear exceptions to the rest of his picks are Tim Geithner for Treasury and James Jones for National Security Advisor.  While no one (democrat or republican) seems to have any clue what to do about the current economic mess, Geithner seems to be on the sharper end of the stick; clearly he is not a dolt.  James Jones also seems to be in the mold of a solid, conservative advisor that seems to have more in common with W than Obama, but is likely a good pick.

Of all the people to choose to hold over from the Bush Administration, I think Gates at Defense was the worst possible choice.  Other than being a change from the combative Rumsfeld, I can’t think of anything he has done positively at Defense other than supporting General Petraeus in the surge (which Obama opposed).  I don’t see that as a shining moment for Gates, rather it seems he just went along with the on-scene commander (which for a Washingtonian is actually refreshing).  I do find it amusing that Obama made his bones by opposing the war and is now choosing the person most responsible for carrying out W’s policies; the same policies that a few months ago were an anathema to the left.  Arguably if Obama had not taken the far left position he would not have been nominated, much less elected.  Is it possible he has changed his mind about the Iraq situation as he learned more, which would be laudable, or is it possible he played the left for fools and knew he could not pull the troops out in 16 months as he advertised? 

My supposition is that he knew all along his articulated position on the war was politically attractive to the left, but would be unworkable in reality were he to be elected.  While this is a common characteristic of many politicians, it certainly gives a lie to his mantra of “change” and “hope” as he has, so far, proven he is just another Chicago pol.

Clearly there is an enormous difference between campaigning and governing, but the degree Obama has seemingly changed is more than most politicians I’ve seen in the past.  He unabashedly campaigned from the far left with support from the loonies at DailyKos, etc, but I am curious how he will be when actually inaugurated.  Will he be able to be a “moderate” with a democratic majority in Congress or will he be forced to the left (which I believe is his natural world view) as Clinton was when he had the democratic majority?   I certainly support his move to the right; wouldn’t it be a hoot if he turned out to be more conservative than W or McCain?  It certainly would not be hard for Obama to be more conservative than either of them.

Comments

[Bob Kelley]

Hillary is not the most experienced hand in foreign affairs, but she is not the bald-faced liar that Rice is. The administration knew in 2002 that Iraq had no ongoing WMD program. Yet she spoke time and again of the imminent threat that wasn't, of the "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" that she knew was not credible. The nation went to war over phony intelligence that Rice knew was phony. This alone makes Hillary preferable to Condi.

Regarding Holder, if he opposes the use of torture and would prosecute those that cross the line, bravo. Regarding Elian Gonzales, the right thing was done. Fathers have rights, even those that live in governments we don't like.

[Timo Kokko]

Wow Bob, you really went over the edge on this one. If I'm not mistaken, virtually all the intelligence services from all pro-western countries agreed that Iraq had WMD, which was clearly true as they had used them on their own people. Why you are picking on Condi, who did not create the intelligence, is a mystery to me. Are you postulating that the author of the "vast right wing conspiracy" who found the Rose Law Firm billing records in the family quarters of the White House after "searching" for them for months and was "shot at in Bosnia" is more truthful than Rice? That proposition doesn't pass any sanity test.

Holder has yet to define torture, he has just made his threat. Without a definition from him as Attorney General, I don't know how the CIA can run their operations with any sort of confidence. Does sleep deprivation consist of torture? How about cots without blankets? How about not feeding religion appropriate food? How about withholding the Koran? A general statement is worthless as policy other than to drive people out of the business of defending America.

Surely you don't think armed men breaking into a private citizen's house and kidnapping a child is appropriate action for our government to take? If so, you obviously approve of Ruby Ridge and Waco as well?

[Bob Kelley]

Here's a source for you:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749_page2.shtml

"So in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam's inner circle that he didn't have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?" Bradley asked.

"Yes," Drumheller replied. He says there was doubt in his mind at all.

"It directly contradicts, though, what the president and his staff were telling us," Bradley remarked.

"The policy was set," Drumheller says. "The war in Iraq was coming. And they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

The White House declined to respond to Drumheller's account of Naji Sabri’s role, but Secretary of State Rice has said that Sabri, the Iraqi foreign minister turned U.S. spy, was just one source, and therefore his information wasn’t reliable.

"They certainly took information that came from single sources on uranium, on the yellowcake story and on several other stories with no corroboration at all and so you can’t say you only listen to one source, because on many issues they only listened to one source," says Drumheller.

"So you’re saying that if there was a single source and that information from that source backed up the case they were trying to build, then that single source was ok, but if it didn’t, then the single source was not ok, because he couldn’t be corroborated," Bradley asked.

"Unfortunately, that’s what it looks like," Drumheller replied.

So after knowing that Iraq had no WMD program, Rice continued to play the WMD card to beat the drums for war. That makes her a liar. Her lies cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives and has bankrupted the nation. This is more significant than misplacing a piece of paper.

Regarding torture, see this link:
http://www.military.com/news/article/obama-reps-retired-generals-talk-torture.html
"President-elect Obama has said that Americans do not engage in torture, that we must send a message to the world that America is a nation of laws, and that we as a nation should stand against torture. He believes that banning torture will actually save American lives and help restore America's moral stature in the world," said an official close to the transition who asked not to be named to discuss internal matters. "This meeting is timely and very helpful to advancing this work."

These are retired generals, who know a thing or two about defending America.

Finally, enforcing a court order is hardly the same as kidnapping, don't you agree?

[Timo Kokko]

Bob,
In reverse order.

If memory serves, there was not a court order to send him back to Cuba, the court order was his relatives could not petition for asylum. While it could be argued that this is splitting hairs, I don't believe it is. When the Supreme Court decided not to overturn the lower court's ruling, there were still other avenues Elian's relatives or the government could have taken. The relatives to find a way to keep him in the States without asylum; the government could have sought a court order giving a reasonable source of legal authority to invade a private citizen's house. As it was, the Attorney General, Janet Reno, ordered the return of Elian before the legal system had finished their work. I'm not sure I object to Elian going back to Cuba, but I object strongly to the government's forced invasion of a home.

While clearly the generals know a bit about defending America, their job is to kill people and break things. The CIA's job is to handle interrogation that goes beyond the military's realm. I don't know if torture or "extreme coercion" provides good information or not, but intuitively if someone is being harshly interrogated something of value may come of it. However, it is the CIA's job, not the military's to work this out.

The fact that Obama says he thinks banning torture will save American lives means absolutely nothing to me. He has no basis in his background to have an opinion either way and has proven to be able to switch sides at will. The professionals in the business, the CIA, should decide what is best to save American lives, not a political hack. If Obams does indeed thing (say) water boarding is torture, an executive order would resolve the issue; I'm confident the CIA would follow the direction of the sitting President. Of course it would let the bad guys know exactly how much to expect as well.

Let's follow your logic on Tyler Drumheller. There is one high ranking person, Drumheller who has come out and said George Tenet is a liar. That sounds suspiciously like a single source of "intelligence," just like the issue you had with the intelligence about WMD. Who is right, Tenet or Drumheller? I don't know, but one of them is lying for sure. Because Drumheller made his statements in 2006, I'm not sure you can hold Rice responsible for believing the Director of the CIA in 2002 that WMDs existed. Colin Powell, as honorable man as ever lived in Washington, believed it as well. It is ridiculous to claim she lied. Perhaps you could go as far as saying she was fed bad information, but with the information she had, she proceeded to support her President--as she should. To compare her veracity with the Hill's is not even apples and oranges.

[Bob Kelley]

Regarding torture, a former Air Force torturer wrote a piece under a pseudonym for the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

I know the counter-argument well -- that we need the rough stuff for the truly hard cases, such as battle-hardened core leaders of al-Qaeda, not just run-of-the-mill Iraqi insurgents. But that's not always true: We turned several hard cases, including some foreign fighters, by using our new techniques. A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate."

Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.

It isn't moral, it doesn't work, and it cost lives. Yet another example of the failings of the Bush administration.

[Strider]

Mr. Kokko, not really sure why anyone really cares about your opinions on the cabinet, with the exceptions of you and Bob, and Bob's comments make a hell of alot more sence than yours.

The reality is this Peoples Blog has grown stale and the sooner it ends the better. I check in once in a while to see if anyone new gets on, very few and when the blog becomes so pathetic that the peoples bloggers have to fill the comment section, well time to move on ....

[Andrew Smith]

While I share the concerns about Billary being back in the White House, I'm curious about the fact that it appears to be unconstitutional for her to serve since she is a sitting Senator and the salary for Cabinet members has been raised. Regardless of whether or not one believes this is one of those silly and outdated constitutional concepts, it is yet another example of the ignorance and disdain our representatives have for the rule of law, and how they will simply change the rules when it suits them. The fact that Obama and Billary both knew about this clause and had discussed it, yet chose to go ahead with the appointment reeks of audacity and arrogance and reduces this appointment to a mere political game. The fact that Harry Reid is willing to step in and perpetrate legislative trickery to achieve the party goal is not surprising, but is a sad corollary to this situation. Political maneuvers like this aren't going to regain the trust of the American people, but why should we be surprised? There has been no real change in the way Obama's Cabinet has been built, only a change of faces with the same philosophy.

[Timo Kokko]

Andrew,
I've come to the conclusion the democrats in Washington may as well disband their ethics committee as it is impossible for them to have an ethics violation. When anything they do is OK and when anything the republicans do is subject to investigations, the left has been proven to be both immoral and mendacious. Ethics and democrat leadership should not be used in the same paragraph.

Bob,
I was hoping someone else, other than Strider, would bite on your hopelessly ridiculous comment on Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo being the cause of the foreign fighters in Iraq. Unless I'm mistaken, there has never been even an accusation of military using torture, much less any proof. There has been accusations of the CIA using torture, but that has yet to be proven to my satisfaction; before you ask, I do not believe waterboarding is torture. The Abu Ghraib situation was a matter of young people in a stressful environment using terrible judgment and "embarrassing" the poor captives; it was bad, but far less bad than the terrorists beheading captives on video. I would be interested in how you "learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo." I have read a fair amount on Iraq and have never seen anything that corroborates that view.

I have practically the opposite view; I think the terrorists laugh at our concept of "harsh" interrogation and prison. They understand raw power and believe any coddling is a sign of weakness. The way they used the desecration of the Koran in Guantanamo proves they understand the mentality of the left and they played it perfectly. I personally don't understand why we give them such good food and a copy of the Koran in the first place. We should put the sheriff of Maricopa County, AZ, in charge of Guantanamo and let the left bellyache all they want; clearly they have no interest in protecting the US or our military.

[brynb2]

Wow. I think I have come to the conclusion that every time I read Timo, I lose IQ points.

Thank you, Bob, for well thought out rebuttals.

Oh, as for Clinton not being able to serve as SOS constitutionally, there was a president once, who set a precedent for how to get around that.... Oh, what was his name?....I KNOW! NIXON. Wasn't he a democrat....no, wait, he was a REPUBLICAN, right? Figured out how to get around those pesky constitutional requirements. (see "Saxbe Fix")

I love it when the thugs don't like Democrats using the very "Fixes" they themselves have introduced, and utilized. It's okay of you're a Republican. You know, poop on The Constitution, but complain when a Democrat does something marginal. (the wingnuts are sweating whether Obama will rescind all those executive orders that gave Bush Waaaay too much power. Why? It was okay when Bush used them...weird)

Eric Holder has not been named for even a week yet, but you complain that he hasn't defined torture.... How long was Mukasey named, and refused to do so? Claimed he needed to see classified info, but wasn't classified to do so... LOL. Torture is freakin torture. Period. I think there are some clear definitions of what torture is, and no classified information is going to change that one bit.

Excuse me, while I go read the Sunday Comics and regain some of my IQ points.

[Timo Kokko]

brynb2,
Again, the best defense the left can come up with is finding a republican who committed the same "offense." It strikes me as a grim omen for Obama's Presidency if you are already comparing him with Nixon; you may want to rethink that.

After you read Blondie, I'd like to know your definition of "freakin torture." The left is always crying foul for any seeming violation of human rights or privacy (except when it involves someone from the right-such as Joe the Plumber), but they have no clue or plan on how to handle the real world other than "can't we all just get along" or "we need to talk to (fill in the blank) more so we can understand them." I believe Holder is the wrong man for the job based on his demonstrated judgment.

[brynb2]

And again, the defense from the right about any perceived shredding of the constitution only happens when it's a Democrat. When Bush dumps on it, and shreds it for toilet paper, it's all good.

I never compared Obama to Nixon, just stating that precedent has been set. There's already a fix in place. Along with a gazillion executive orders that Obama now has at his disposal, thanks to the looting that Bush has done for 8 years. Nary a word has been said, until the first time Obama tries to act on one of them, THEN, the wingnut rethuglicans will cry foul. I can't wait.

And you're wrong about Elian. He was an ILLEGAL ALIEN. Why is it okay for a rethuglican government to deport illegals, but not when the Democratic government does it? The boy was picked up in open waters, and as such, should have been returned to Cuba, NOT brought to the US. Period.

There were no orders in place to keep him here, there were no pending hearings. His uncle's temporary custody order was rescinded. He had no reason to stay in the US, mostly because his father, the only one with true legal standing, wanted him returned. Period.

INS stormed the home because relatives refused to turn him over. That would have happened (and has) under a rethuglican rule, why was it different that Elian be left alone? The boy later went on to state that he was manipulated and never wanted to stay here.

[brynb2]

Torture: As defined by the Geneva Convention (which outlawed torture)

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

===

When the US says: "We don't torture" They LIE.

Soon, we won't torture, and we'll be safer for it.

[Timo Kokko]

brynb2,
The only thing I can think of that I agree with you on is your statement "I think I have come to the conclusion that every time I read Timo, I lose IQ points." Clearly you have been reading a lot of what I write.

The way I understand your post is that the US should follow the Geneva convention which covers state, uniformed combatants while we deal with non-uniformed, non-state ones? Does that make any sense at all? Where does waterboarding fit in your description? Do outrages to personal dignity cover beheadings?

Of course Elian was an illegal, but according to our standards (right or wrong), if a refugee from Cuba hits land, we don't send them back. Only if they don't make land do we send them back. Now I may not be the brightest bulb, but I am fairly certain Elian's uncle's house was on land. Even if you bend your logic to say he should have been sent back to Cuba, the uncle's house should never have been invaded by armed government officials. It was inexcusable.

I don't recall defending W any time he shredded the Constitution.

[brynb2]

Elian was picked up at sea, drifting on an innertube. (Not on land) He was turned over, by the fisherman who found him, to the Coast Guard (still, not on land) and was then BROUGHT TO THE US. The USCG SHOULD have returned him to Cuba, instead, they brought him here.

So, you're position is, that as long as illegals are in a house, and the owners of the house are told to give him up, then, when they say "No", the INS should just shrug their shoulders and leave?

I guess, my point is, if Elian had been a 25 year old man, instead of a 5 year old boy, you would have been screaming about illegals, and insecure boarders, and disobeying the law of the country in which you are trying to stay.

I find it amazing how you conservatives work. You refuse to accept a woman's right to choose, yet, you don't want to help (with welfare) to take care of children who are born in less than ideal conditions.

You want illegals to be deported, unless they're 5 year old children who should be returned to the only parent who has a right to make decisions for him.

Elian's uncle had no right to keep him here against his FATHER'S wishes. Period. It was kidnapping all wrapped up into illegal entry into this country.

And, you call MY logic twisted?

Defending W period (since he's pissed upon the constitution on a regular basis) is inexcusable.

[Bob Kelley]

Timo, the passage you referred to ( I would be interested in how you "learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.") came from the former torturer who wrote the piece for the WaPo under a pseudonym. It was he that learned that in Iraq, not me.

Anyway, Elian Gonzalez had a father who wanted him back. His rights trump those of Elian's uncle. It's just that simple. Reno and Clinton handled it just right.

[Timo Kokko]

Bob,
Let me understand. A person, writing under a pseudonym who claims some inside information, who is published in the ultra liberal Washington Post is your source for the ridiculous comments on Abu Ghraib? I scarcely believe a comments like that is worth repeating.

brynb2,
Let's take it from the top.

The current US policy on refugees from Cuba is they get returned if they don't hit land; they get to stay if they hit land. Doesn't matter what you or I think of the policy, those are the ground rules under which the US claimed to operate when Elian was picked up.

The fact that the Coast Guard should have returned him to Cuba has nothing to do with the fact they did not and he ended up on land in Florida. The USCG's mistake does not overcome US policy.

I would like to think a country that has the largest military in the world, a State Department that negotiates with despots around the world, a Justice Department with gazillions of lawyers, and a huge government bureaucracy doing something, could find a way to resolve an uncle's refusal to turn over a 5 year old child without a night time armed violation of his home. It was disgraceful on Reno's, Clinton's, and Holder's part. Bob: to say that Clinton and Reno handled it "just right" is absurd.

I personally don't think, although I have no inside knowledge on the topic, Elian's father could have cared less if Elian was in Cuba or in the US. My opinion is based on news articles based on interviews with Elian's relatives so I'm not at all certain my opinion is correct. Clearly he was a pawn in the silly political game between the US and Cuba. This round went to Cuba; largely due to the pressures of the left who decided to change the rules in this case. Had the US followed its own policies, the situation would have blown over.

[Bob Kelley]

I think his comments are indeed worth repeating. You may think it is "ultra liberal" because the truth has a well known liberal bias. But the Post would not have run the piece if that person was not actually who he said he was. Don't forget that Bush and Cheney are still in command, so using his real name might well have resulted in some real personal hardship. The link to the story, which every American should read:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html

I stand by the assessment that Reno handled Elian correctly. Just because someone lives under a despotic government does not mean that they forfeit parental rights. Someone who is of age can get asylum in the US by landing on US soil, but Elian was not old enough to make that choice by himself.

[Aubrey Marron]

Timo,

Elian's father had joint custody of Elian with his ex-wife, and Elian spent most of his time with his father and siblings. Once he learned that his ex-wife had taken Elian without his knowledge or permission, his father immediately petitioned the US government to get him back home. The idea that Elian should have been forced to stay with people he had never even met before, rather than going home to his father, after all the trauma he had just been through, is outrageous.

[Timo Kokko]

Bob and Aubrey,
I think you are both, intentionally or accidentally, characterizing my position incorrectly. I stated early on in the thread "I'm not sure I object to Elian going back to Cuba..." I do object vehemently to the US Government making an armed intrusion into a private citizen's home. I also mildly object to to the change in the known, standing US policy pushed by the left in this particular case, but at least that was defensible from the "fathers rights" perspective with which I agree. I am confident there was solution other than armed intervention, despite the uncle's refusal to respond to government requests to turn the child over, had Clinton, Reno and/or Holder wanted to work it out. There is no excuse for how Elian was taken.

[brynb2]

I have just lost further IQ points, and I see no hope of regaining them if I stay in this conversation with you.

[Bob Kelley]

If I understand your logic correctly, if a person defies the law and prevents the government from reuniting a child with his father, that is the government's fault? Providing it is a Democratic AG, of course. What was Reno supposed to do when the Florida relatives declined to willingly turn Elian over? Say pretty please with sugar on it? Elian's relatives refused to cooperate and a SWAT team came in and did the job bloodlessly. Exactly who was hurt?

[Timo Kokko]

Bob,
The entire country and our respect for the law was hurt. Reno acted totally unlawfully, despite the fact she was a democrat; I recognize a democrat acting unlawfully or unethically is a foreign concept to the left, but it is true.

According to proper legal proceedings, the Gonzalez family in the US filed for asylum for Elian. Reno unilaterally, without a court order, said Elian had to go back to Cuba and ordered the Gonzalez family to turn him over prior to April 13th, which the family refused to do. On April 19th, the 11th Circuit Court said Elian "MUST" stay in the US until the family had a chance to appeal for an asylum ruling in May. The 11th is a duly constituted federal court that, in my humble opinion, has legal standing to make such an order. On April 20th, one day after the direct court order, Reno apparently made the decision to snatch Elian by force. Then on April 22, 130 armed federal agents raided a private citizen's house and the rest is history. A magistrate, operating under Reno's orders, apparently provided the "legal" cover to countermand the 11th's order that Elian must stay until the asylum hearing; the legal cover was a search warrant. It was blatant violation of the law and the 4th Amendment by Reno, and the people that helped orchestrate it--Clinton and Holder.

Reno should have heeded the 11th's order and at least waited until the asylum hearing before ordering an invasion.

The left screams about the Patriot Act and the Telecommunications Surveillance Act, both which were duly voted for in Congress, as being a violation of privacy rights but thinks an armed incursion of a private citizen's home is OK as long as a democrat ordered it. It is flagrant hypocrisy at a minimum and downright wrong at its worst.

Surely reasonable people could have found a better way to handle this. Was waiting one month for the Court of Appeals to hear the case inappropriate? Was an armed invasion of 130 people necessary? If the left conceives of talking with murderous Islamofascists to resolve problems couldn't they reason with the Gonzalez family? It was a black episode in our history.

The only good that possibly came from the invasion is that the good people of Florida voted for W instead of the abominable Gore in the next election. Obviously I don't know how much, if anything, the Elian episode had to do with their votes, but we can only hope some good resulted from this gross violation of government authority.

[Bob Kelley]

What Reno did was use force to reunite Elian with his father in the US. She could have done so after the initial INS ruling on Jan 3, 2000. She did this to give the relatives a chance to fight it in US District Court, which they did. The US District Court ruled for the INS March 21,2000. Despite assurances from Reno that Elian would not be leaving the country until the appeal processes had been exhausted, the relatives refused to cooperate. Reno did the right thing. Indeed, Elian did not leave the country after the 11th Circuit Court took the case. The 11th ruled for the INS on June 1, 2000 and denied a rehearing on June 23. The US Supreme Court denied a hearing June 28, 2000, ending the case and clearing the way for Elian to return to Cuba.

It is unfortunate that you use the inflammatory term "Islamofascists". It makes you look bigoted, in my opinion.

[brynb2]

Timo wrote: "The only good that possibly came from the invasion is that the good people of Florida voted for W instead of the abominable Gore in the next election. Obviously I don't know how much, if anything, the Elian episode had to do with their votes, but we can only hope some good resulted from this gross violation of government authority."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

What you probably don't know is, Gore was in favor of giving Elian and his father citizen status so he could stay in this country. Gore was in favor of him being held here, against his will.

That and, the one act of returning a child to his father is enough to justify the damage that W has done to this country the last 8 years?

I suppose if a Muslim father absconded with his son and went to Iraq with him, you'd be all in favor of the Iraqi government using their forces, or even the US Military, to have the child returned to his mother in the US, however that had to happen, right?

There was no violation of government authority. The Miami relatives who had kidnapped Elian refused to turn him over, as ordered. Janet Reno negotiated with them like they were hostage takers and they refused ANY solutions that didn't include leaving him there, and taking away the father's rights. When it was apparent there was going to be no resolution, the INS was sent in, just like any SWAT team or other governmental authority would do in a hostage situation. And that is exactly what it was.

[Timo Kokko]

Bob,
If you can think of a better term for murderous thugs who want to kill or convert all "infidels" (which means all of us non-Muslims, I'll be happy to listen. Until then, Islamofascists is the most appropriate term to use. It is not bigoted.

brynb2,
I don't care if Gore wanted to keep Elian or his father in the country, he was and is a nut job. His presidency would have been far worse and done far more damage, as hard to believe as that is, than W's.

While it shouldn't surprise me, your comment that there was no violation of government authority is absurd. There is no Constitutional authority anywhere that allows the Executive Branch to charge into a citizen's house and kidnap a child. In order to invade the house they should have, at a minimum, had a legal order to do so; they did not. There is a theoretical separation of powers in the country that was not followed at all.

Elian's relatives did not kidnap him, he was found on an inner tube and they took him in out of the kindness of their souls. They were not hostage takers in any form; your implication is absurd.