[Guest post by DRJ]

From the LA Times, Barack Obama has named four officials to his legal team:

Elena Kagan, Harvard Law School Dean — Solicitor General.

Dawn Johnsen, Indiana law school professor — Head, Office of Legal Counsel.

David Ogden, Obama transition team head — Deputy Attorney General.

Tom Perrelli, Obama transition team deputy head — Associate Attorney General.

All four are former Clinton Administration officials. Ogden was Chief of Staff for Attorney General Janet Reno, followed by a position in the DOJ Civil Division from 1999 until 2001. Perilli was counsel to Reno from 1997 to 1999 and then served as deputy assistant attorney general in charge of the Federal Programs Branch of the Civil Division.

Kagan was Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council (1997-99) and Associate Counsel to the President (1995-96). Prior to accepting a professorship at Harvard Law School, Kagan taught at the University of Chicago Law School, apparently when Obama also taught there. The Office of the Solicitor General is responsible for representing the U.S. in Supreme Court and federal appellate cases. If confirmed, Kagan will be the first female Solicitor General but she reportedly has never argued a case in the Supreme Court.

Johnsen is also a former Clinton Administration member, a legal director for the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL Pro-Choice America), and Staff Counsel Fellow for the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project in New York. Johnsen has been especially critical of the Bush Administration, including John Yoo’s memo and Bush’s Supreme Court appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito because of the threat they pose to Roe v Wade.

No doubt the Clintons approve of these picks. The left should be especially happy with Johnsen.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Barack Obama today named former Congressman and Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta as his CIA Director:

“A former senior CIA official who advises Obama defended the surprise choice of Panetta, who has no direct intelligence experience beyond a two-year stint in the mid-1960s as a U.S. Army lieutenant. The official said Panetta had been a consumer of CIA intelligence when he was at the White House. He said he was selected for his administrative, management and political skills which will allow him both to control and advocate for the agency.

He said Panetta will rely on the expertise of CIA officers to balance his lack of personal intelligence experience.”

Obama is also expected to name retired Adm. Dennis Blair to be director of national intelligence. The AP describes both Panetta and Blair as “short on direct experience in intelligence gathering” and called this a signal Obama intends to make “a clean break from Bush administration policies.”

A clean sweep would be a good idea if American intelligence policies had not worked since 9/11 but they have. Further, the most objectionable tactic, waterboarding, was rarely used and has already been discarded. Can America really afford to sweep out qualified candidates and useful policies simply because, at some point, they were connected to the Bush Administration?

Apparently so.

I hope Joe Biden was wrong when he warned “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy” and “Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.” With novices in charge of U.S. intelligence, it may be much harder for the Obama Administration to respond.

UPDATE: More here on Admiral Blair:

“US officials say that this past April [1999], as militia terror escalated, a top US officer was dispatched to give a message to Jakarta. Adm. Dennis Blair, the US Commander in Chief of the Pacific, leader of all US military forces in the Pacific region, was sent to meet with General Wiranto, the Indonesian armed forces commander, on April 8. Blair’s mission, as one senior US official told me, was to tell Wiranto that the time had come to shut the militia operation down. The gravity of the meeting was heightened by the fact that two days before, the militias had committed a horrific machete massacre at the Catholic church in Liquiça, Timor. YAYASAN HAK, a Timorese human rights group, estimated that many dozens of civilians were murdered. Some of the victims’ flesh was reportedly stuck to the walls of the church and a pastor’s house. But Admiral Blair, fully briefed on Liquiça, quickly made clear at the meeting with Wiranto that he was there to reassure the TNI chief. According to a classified cable on the meeting, circulating at Pacific Command headquarters in Hawaii, Blair, rather than telling Wiranto to shut the militias down, instead offered him a series of promises of new US assistance.”

Excerpt from the 1999 The Nation article U.S. Complicity in Timor.

H/T Dana aka The politically incorrect Dana.

– DRJ

The AP reports:

The state Canvassing Board was posed to certify the results of the recount in Minnesota’s grueling Senate election in Al Franken’s favor — but that doesn’t mean the race is definitely over.

I think they mean “poised” but it’s bad either way.

Michelle Malkin has an incredible roundup of original journalism done by conservative bloggers, here. She says her purpose is to debunk the “ill-informed and self-serving myth” that “conservative bloggers don’t do reporting.”

I am honored by Michelle’s inclusion of this site among her examples of conservative sites doing original reporting. The list she has compiled is truly impressive, and it was a pleasant surprise for this site to be mentioned. The post is worth a read and a bookmark; there’s a great deal of worthy material there.

Thanks very much to Michelle for the kind words.

This is not the Bill Richardson I knew.

Thanks to Joe.

From the “Things I Missed While on Vacation” File: L.A. Times Readers’ Rep Jamie Gold eventually did publish some critical comments about Michael Hiltzik’s return to column writing. (She did so only after I published a post noting the lack of critical comments; note that Marc Danziger’s comment, cited in that post, was never approved.) Gold apparently wrote editor Russ Stanton to get his take on why Hiltzik should get his column back. Gold writes:

The essence of the response from editors: Hiltzik has redeemed himself.

Russ Stanton, now editor of The Times, was Business editor when Hiltzik’s popular column for the Business section was discontinued. As the editor’s note published at the time said, Hiltzik had been found to be violating The Times’ ethics guidelines by using pseudonyms to post comments on the Web that dealt with his column and other issues involving the newspaper.

Readers were also told in the 2006 editor’s note, “Mike did not commit any ethical violations in his newspaper column, and an internal inquiry found no inaccurate reporting in his postings in his blog or on the Web.”

Hm. An external inquiry has. Try this, as one example. But then, external inquiries tend to be a bit more vigorous than L.A. Times internal inquiries. Back to Gold:

Since his column was pulled in 2006, writes Stanton, Hiltzik “has been an invaluable asset to the paper. He has earned the right to return as a columnist.” In those two years, more than 35 news articles written by Hiltzik have been published on the front page. Stanton says editors believe that what readers can learn from Hiltzik the columnist will be as trustworthy as what he’s delivered in his news reports.

So, you know, rest easy.

Thanks to a reader.

P.S. As with my last post, I think this warrants inclusion in my recent Year in Review, which I will be updating.

You miss things when you go on vacation. Like this blog entry from L.A. Times opinion blogger Lisa Richardson, about the Chip Saltsman/Barack the Magic Negro flap:

It’s a given that Republicans are done trying to appeal to black voters, but are they really ready to give up everyone else who isn’t white? Because if not, here’s the thing: it’s not much of a stretch for Latinos and Asians — who also voted overwhelmingly for Obama — to imagine how a president-elect of their ethnicity also could be the target of such lighthearted Republican fun. “Mike the Magic Jap” and “Maria the Magic Mexican” probably wouldn’t go over that well either.

Indeed; anyone who used the phrase “Barack the Magic Negro” must certainly be a racist. So says the L.A. Times.

Now, there’s just one nagging thing . . . where did I first see that phrase used? Oh, yes — in the L.A. Times. In an op-ed written by black liberal David Ehrenstein.

Thanks to Xrlq. And to Trained Dog.

I may have to add this to last year’s Year in Review. Because I’m all about the thoroughness.

[Guest post by DRJ]

The Israeli military initiated a naval blockade and sent tanks and troops into Gaza in a ground operation intended to end the rocket attacks on Israeli citizens:

“A few hours ago Israeli forces went into Gaza as part of the ongoing operation there. From the beginning, I said that the operation would be broadened as necessary, and now it is necessary,” Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said last night in a televised press conference from Tel Aviv.

Infantry, tanks, engineering forces, artillery and intelligence units are taking part in the ground offensive, backed by the air force, navy and other security agencies, the army said. A naval blockade was imposed at 20 nautical miles off the Gaza shore, it added.”

The action was supported by the Bush Administration, a Czech EU leader, and even California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, among others. However, French President Sarkozy condemned the Israelis while Barack Obama has been silent, citing his post-election policy that there is “one President at a time.” A Hamas leader objected to Obama’s silence, comparing Israel’s incursion to the November 2008 terrorist attack on Mumbai that Obama condemned.

In today’s New York Post, columnist Ralph Peters speculates Israel’s actions are due in part to a concern that the Obama Administration will “undercut Israel’s counterterror offensive before its goals have been reached.” Whether or not that’s true, Hamas had to know the Bush Administration would support Israel and it’s mystifying to me why the Hamas leaders didn’t wait until Bush was out of office to commence these rocket attacks.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

The political story getting the most attention today is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, urged Illinois Governor Blagojevich not to appoint three black candidates to take over Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat although he encouraged the selection of two white candidates (*see Foo Bar’s comment*):

“Reid urged Blagojevich to appoint either Illinois Veterans Affairs chief Tammy Duckworth or Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Saturday, citing anonymous sources.

Reid reportedly opposed the appointments of Democratic Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. and Danny Davis because the Democratic leader feared they would lose the seat to a Republican in the 2010 general election. Reid also allegedly opposed Emil Jones, the powerful black leader of the Illinois Senate, on the same grounds.”

In Reid’s defense, a spokesman confirmed Reid also called the governors of New York and Colorado to discuss the vacancies created by Obama’s appointment of Hillary Clinton and Ken Salazar to Cabinet positions:

“[In an e-mail to The Associated Press, Reid spokesman Jim Manley confirmed] Reid also spoke to the New York and Colorado governors about openings created when senators from those states accepted Obama administration jobs.

“It is part of his job as majority leader to share his thoughts about candidates who have the qualities needed to succeed in the Senate,” Manley said.”

Do governors and the public need to know Harry Reid’s opinion of candidates in order to select or elect a Senator? I understand that might be part of his role as a leader of the Democratic Party but I don’t think the Majority Leader’s job description includes identifying worthy candidates.

On the other hand, if it is part of his job, why didn’t he call the folks in Delaware about Biden’s replacement? I’m guessing it has something to do with the fact it’s a safe Democratic seat.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Last October, 88-year-old Ohio resident Edna Jester decided she had enough of her neighbor’s children leaving toys on her property, so she refused to return a $15 football that landed in her yard. As Jules Crittenden eloquently explained, she ended up arrested for petty theft:

“Cranky old dear gets tried [sic] of kids’ ball landing in her yard. OK, these things happen. Cranky old dear takes ball, refuses to give it back, even when cops ask her repeatedly. Cranky old dear gets arrested.”

Neighbors said there were two sides to the story and the prosecutor may have agreed since the case was later dropped. Now Edna has sued her neighbors:

“An 89-year-old Cincinnati area woman famously arrested for holding on to a neighbor kid’s football is now suing the boy’s parents. The lawsuit filed by Edna Jester’s attorney in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court claims she has suffered emotional distress because the next-door family’s footballs and other playthings keep landing in her yard.”

The neighbors, Paul and Kelly Tanis, say they have 5 kids and can’t afford a lawyer.

It’s a shame these neighbors can’t find a better way to resolve their disputes but I guess filing a lawsuit is better than some alternatives people choose. If possible, I’d send the case to mediation. They need to deal with the current issues but they also need a framework to avoid problems in the future.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

The Bush Administration is implementing a surge in southern Afghanistan:

“Afghanistan’s southern rim, the Taliban’s spiritual birthplace and the country’s most violent region, has for the last two years been the domain of British, Canadian and Dutch soldiers. That’s about to change. In what amounts to an Afghan version of the surge in Iraq, the U.S. is preparing to pour at least 20,000 extra troops into the south, augmenting 12,500 NATO soldiers who have proved too few to cope with a Taliban insurgency that is fiercer than NATO leaders expected.”

The article states that, since 2006, U.S. forces have concentrated in eastern Afghanistan along the Pakistan border while the south was “policed by 8,500 British troops, 2,500 Canadians and 2,500 Dutch.” The plan is to surge additional American troops into southern Afghanistan that will ultimately be under the control of U.S. Brig. Gen. John Nicholson.

As in Iraq, the goal is to establish security in the area followed by a system of government as well as economic and humanitarian aid. Also like Iraq, the situation may initially be more dangerous for American troops:

“If we get the troops, they’re going to move into areas that haven’t been secured, and when we do that, the enemy is there, and we’re going to fight,” said Nicholson, who spent 16 months commanding a brigade of 10th Mountain Division troops in eastern Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007.

That fighting should eventually clear the way for security and governance to take hold, he said. “If you want to summarize that as it’s going to get worse before it gets better, that’s exactly what we’re talking about,” he said.”

The Iraq surge started with the Sunni Awakening in western Iraq, one of the hotbeds of the insurgency. But the eastern provinces near Pakistan — not the south — have been the problem in Afghanistan. Difficulty engaging the eastern tribes is one reason experts believe a surge won’t work in Afghanistan.

Perhaps this is a variation of the surge where the goal is to isolate the eastern provinces. If security, government, and improved conditions can be established in the south, NATO forces will have a base to expand east. Maybe that will encourage the people of the eastern provinces to accept the benefits realized by their southern neighbors.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Happy New Year!