White House Slaps Down Feingold’s Criticism Of Obama’s “Czars”
Dems watched in puzzlement last month as Senator Russ Feingold announced plans for hearings into the Obama administration’s use of alleged “czars.” Feingold claimed his constituents were worried about the czars and formally asked the White House to “identify these individuals’ roles and responsibilities,” applying bipartisan legitimacy to an attack largely waged from the hothouses of the right.
Now the White House is slapping back at the criticism. In a lengthy letter to the Senator, White House counsel Greg Craig politely lays out the reasons why he thinks the “czar” line is ridiculous, saying none of the alleged czars “raises any valid concerns.”
Translation from the lawyerese: Stop trafficking in crazy.
Craig runs through 18 of the “czars” that critics have targeted. He argues that eight of them “reside within federal agencies whose employees tesify regularly before Congress,” and that documents of the eight are all available through FOIA.
Another four, he says, are national security positions that are no different from the advisory positions that have long existed within the national security bureaucracy. Still another four are essentially senior advisers to the White House — hardly controversial. And so on:
In sum, none of the positions described above raises any valid concerns about accountability, transparency, or congressional oversight. It is true that the president has created a small number of new White House positions to assist him in addressing important matters of great public concern, in critical areas such as the environment and health care. Neither the porupose nor the effect of these new positions is to supplant or replace existing federal agencies or departments, but rather to help coordinate their efforts and help devise comprehensive solutions to complex problems. Every President has structured his staff in this manner…this is, and always has been, the traditional role of White House staff.
If Feingold’s office responds, I’ll let you know.
Update: Michael Scherer has Feingold’s response, in the form of an opening statement at today’s hearings, as well as some interesting thoughts about the “czar” standoff.
Update II: Feingold’s opening statement accuses the White House of wanting to fight the czar attacks “on a political level rather than a substantive level,” asking: “If there are good answers to the questions that have been raised, why not give them instead of attacking the motives or good faith of those who have raised questions?”
Hard to argue that Craig’s letter didn’t do just that, though. Unclear what Feingold is playing at here.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Well I would think so.
I’ve been upset with Feingold before, but this really was outrageous.
He’s just pushing me away from the left as hard as he can.
@Greg:
Typo in the second paragraph…”things” instead of “thinks”
What the hell is wrong with Feingold? That’s a classic Fox News, Beck-driven, 9/12 nutjob position. First off, doesn’t anyone remember that Bill Bennett was the first “Drug Czar?”
C’mon, Russ, how about a little more work on getting your colleagues to vote for a meaningful public option and a little less attention to the crazies?
“If Feingold’s office responds, I’ll let you know.”
Please let us know what Byrd thinks, too.
It’s a show. Feingold is offering them the rope….
thx BBQ…fixed
sbj why don’t you tell everyone why you are against using drones to kill Al Qaeda?
“Feingold is offering them the rope….”
What, you mean to the GOP?
I sure hope so.
I think it’s pretty damn funny that the Democrats turned the Defund Acorn bill into a general Defund All Groups Who are Guilty of Corruption bill. That’s filed under “Be Careful What You Wish For” for the GOP.
Ethan, you have a devious mind, I like it.
“sbj why don’t you tell everyone why you are against using drones to kill Al Qaeda?”
Because they kill too many innocent civilians and because they turn the native population against us when they kill innocent civilians and because we are not at war with Pakistan and because they deny innocent civilians their rights and because many military experts are also opposed to their use for some of these same reasons and because many humanitarian groups are opposed to their use for some of these same reasons.
Greg — You DARE pass along criticism of Saint Russell the Good, Protector of Our Constitution? Many Kossacks will now consider you an enemy. What next? You risk your life getting between Feingold and a microphone, when he sees a chance to slam a Democrat?
Feingold was brainwashed by Ranting Teabaggers at his townhall meetings. He folded, under the pressure. I have always wondered why so many progressives though that he was Presidential timber. He just showed that he can be chopped down by just a few right wing termites.
“I have always wondered why so many progressives though that he was Presidential timber.”
Don’t look at me. And don’t wave Dennis Kucinich at me as presidential material either.
Liam – if Josephcast appears out of nowhere, duck fast. He won’t brook criticism of Russ Feingold. I know – I got thoroughly flamed for daring to do that. And he’s posting here once in awhile.
I too am upset with Feingold. This czar nonsense is exactly that, NONSENSE and Feingold is playing into Beck’s hands.
SBJ
Since we are not at war with Pakistan, then you surely must be calling for us to not kill anyone who is in Pakistan territory. Isn’t that what you are calling for.
By the way, what does escalating the number of troops in Afghanistan have to do with what you are complaining about. McChrsystal has not said that if gets more Troops, that we will then end predator drone strikes, so your argument about the deaths of civilians has nothing to do with the merits of the troop escalation.
Time for you to stop with that specious excuse, for why we need more Troops. The drone attacks can be ended now, if that is what you are calling for. Adding more Troops has nothing to do with the use of drones, in fact it would probably increase the use of them.
That is the trouble with you war mongers. You just fall in love with waging war, and then you sit around a make up specious claims to justify your irrational war lust.
Which humanitarian orgs?
How many civilians killed are too many to be considered collateral damage?
How do you propose killing AQ/Taliban inside Pakistan if you object to drones?
Did you support Bush’s handling of Afghanistan for the 8 years in which he was CIC over this war?
Should we close Guantanimo?
Should we stop the use of torture techniques?
Should we allow prolonged detention without trial?
Should we use military tribunals?
Should we use unilateral use of force?
Should we use chemical/nuclear weapons?
Should we use civilian contractors like Blackwater/Xe?
Do un-manned aerial drones kill terrorists at a 90% success rate?
How is Craig’s response not substantive? Feingold is out on a limb here. What is he trying to achieve? Seems like a stunt.
Which military experts oppose the use of drones?
Who is suggesting that drones “deny innocent civilians their rights,” and what do those same people think about the government of Afghanistan and the recent “election”?
I’m going to be checking back to see if you’ve answered any of these questions.
I expect that you will seek to redefine the questions at hand or you will offer a tangential response designed to distract from the subject at hand.
Looking forward to your replies.
Aw jeez – Feingold’s opening statement really pisses me off.
But he’s been looking for spanners to throw in the spokes since the campaign.
” I called this hearing today because I think this is a serious issue that deserves serious study. ”
No Russ, this isn’t a serious issue. It’s a made-up issue based on nomenclature and you’re dancing with Glenn Beck here.
To hell with you, Russ.
Ethan-
I hope you are right but it seems more to me like a waste of time.
I noticed people were discussing drone attacks. I saw this analysis done the other day.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/10/analysis_us_airstrik.php
Looks like the number this year has already gone up substantially, specifically the # of kills of Taliban and AQ with a 41% increase in the total number of intended targets killed. Civilian casualties increase by 38%.
It would be ideal for the civilian casualty rate to remain steady while Taliban and AQ numbers increased.
The McChrystal plan is to withdraw from the badlands regions on the Afghanistan border with Pakistan. In other words, he wants to let Al-Qaeda and The Taliban have that area, as a safe haven . That means that when ever Pakistan goes after them, they will just melt into the Afghanistan region, that McChrystal is withdrawing from.
He wants to concentrate our troops in the larger towns, and leave the countryside to the enemy. The history of fighting insurgents in that manner shows that it almost always fails.
They will launch raid after raid on our troops in the towns, and then withdraw to the safe havens that we are now granting them.
When they attack the towns, then many civilians will be killed. That is what happens when Troops are based among civilian populations, and the enemy attacks, or when the enemy is based among the civilians, and we attack.
Well, SBJ. Looks like you are not really going to be able to protect civilians with the troop escalation that you support. Of course you knew that all along. You just though you could B.S. all of the people all of the time.
Tena, well said. It’s the opposite of a serious issue.
It’s pretty clear what he’s doing. He’s planning a 2012 run against Obama. This way he can get republicans to support him in his run.
Though, I think it may be a little harder than he’s thinking from the left. Especially since he’s against climate change (as it would “negatively” impact WI) and now this.
Feingold’s opening statement accuses the White House of wanting to fight the czar attacks “on a political level rather than a substantive level,”
That would be because there’s very little substance to the criticisms. I’m disappointed in Russ for giving political cover to the GOP on this issue.
Special for Ethan. Sorry this is overly long, please ignore.
Dr. David Kilcullen: Military expert
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/kilcullen-says/
“How many civilians killed are too many to be considered collateral damage?”
“In July 2009, Brookings Institution released a report stating that in the United States-led drone attacks in Pakistan, ten civilians died for every militant killed.[21][22] S. Azmat Hassan, a former ambassador of Pakistan, said in July 2009 that American UAV attacks were turning Pakistani opinion against the United States, and that 35 or 40 such attacks only killed 8 or 9 top al-Qaeda operatives.[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle
“Which humanitarian orgs?”
NY Times backs me up re human rights advocates:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/unmanned_aerial_vehicles/index.html
Also: “California peace activist Father Louis Vitale, who was among those arrested, and with Jeff Paterson of Courage to Resist.
http://www.trueskool.com/forum/topics/protests-obama-using-drones-in
This article backs up my contention about rights (as well as several other points)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/top-judge-use-of-drones-intolerable-1732756.html
“International lawyers also argue that air strikes using drones are state-sanctioned assassinations where the targeted suspected terrorist has no opportunity to defend the case against him.”
Stinging report submitted to UN Human Rights Council:
“The United States has created a “zone of impunity” by rarely investigating private contractors involved in the unlawful killing of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, a U.N. human rights envoy said.”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/06/04/drone.attacks/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Another problem is that the drones operating in Pakistan are controlled by the CIA, not the military, and we have very little idea about the precautions they take. Are you born again and suddenly have new found faith in the CIA?
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175056/filling_the_skies_with_assassins
How do you propose killing AQ/Taliban inside Pakistan if you object to drones?
What am I? Some kind of counter-insurgency strategist?
Did you support Bush’s handling of Afghanistan for the 8 years in which he was CIC over this war?
No.
Should we close Guantanimo?
No.
Should we stop the use of torture techniques?
See Obama, election. We don’t torture.
Should we allow prolonged detention without trial?
Yes – see Obama.
Should we use military tribunals?
Yes
Should we use unilateral use of force?
Depends, doesn’t it?
Should we use chemical/nuclear weapons?
Depends, doesn’t it? Hopefully not.
Should we use civilian contractors like Blackwater/Xe?
If necessary.
You seem to be under the impression that I have to agree with every stand of every human rights group to use them to support my notion that we should avoid the use of unmanned drone attacks whenever possible. I don’t follow your logic.
@ethan: My reply is awaiting moderation because it has too many links.
Thanks for your reply sbj.
It was exactly as intellectually inconsistent as I thought it would be.
It’s good to know that I spent all of that time (whew!) looking up those damn links for you and you don’t even have the decency to read them before replying with your snark.
At least now no one can blame me for not responding to you – you’ve proven that it’s a waste of time.
SBJ,
So you want to increase the Troop strength in Afghanistan Towns, where they will based among civilians, and when attacks occur, civilian will be killed.
You admit that the drone attacks in Pakistan are conducted by the CIA, so there goes your excuse for wanting more Troops, since they will have no influence or control over Drone attacks in Pakistan.
Your rationale grows lamer by the minute.
Well let me just throw out a thanks to sbj for taking the time to answer, as someone who supports drone attacks but not Guantanamo I wonder why your position is the reverse of that.
Civilian casualties are going to occur so long as we have a military operation in the region, and our ability to strike at high ranking Al Qaeda or Taliban is virtually nil without drone attacks (which are endorsed by Pakistan). We cannot invade Pakistan’s territory with our conventional forces, that has already resulted in stand offs between our two militaries.
More troops without a clear mission (by which I mean a strategic mission) seems an even easier way to upset people here in the US as well as fail to follow through on long term strategic security for Afghans. The only way I can see that strategy being worthwhile is if there is a run-off election run with successfully with credible results, or a unitary government established.
Haha, I meant “unity” government. One where a hand goes out to Abdullah Abdullah and transparency is opened up, which means addressing questions by the fired UN official. I don’t know if we are going to convince Karzai to do that tho, and that has got to be factoring in to the prolonged decision making process the WH is going through.
Afghanistan has a population of 33 million, and an Annual GDP of less than One Billion dollars. Most of the people can not read or write. The country has no oil or mineral wealth.
McChrystal says that it will take a standing Afghan Army of 400,000 to be able to resist the Taliban.
How the hell is a stone age society, with a GDP of less than one billion, going to ever be able to afford a national army of that size.
There is no nation of Afghanistan. It is just a vast stone age region of many tribes, and war lords.
We can stay there for a hundred years, and pour more money and blood into it, than we have in Iraq, to date, and we still will not transform Afghanistan into something resembling a cohesive modern nation.
Why are we even thinking about paying for a 400,000 level army for them, for ever. It is absurd.
I didn’t even have to go to your links. You showed enough obvious inconsistency answering certain questions that it didn’t warrant reading your sources on others.
And I DID thank you for your reply, which is more courtesy than you’ve ever shown me.
“And I DID thank you for your reply, which is more courtesy than you’ve ever shown me.”
Ah, my dear – you got the full sbj – he also whines about civility when he’s hardly the most civil person on the board, depending on the day and the sock puppet.
The substantive questions relate to Separation of Powers and the relationship between the Congress and the President under the Constitution. Apparently you don’t speak lawyerese as well as you think you so.
@PaulW:
I feel that when we capture enemy combatants on the battlefield that we should be able to hold them for the duration of the war without charges. Not uniformed soldiers but illegal enemy combatants. I think they deserve a military review to make sure they are properly classified as such. I think what we are doing in Bagram is legal and the problem with Gitmo is that it is not on a “battlefield.”
No one advocates more troops without a clear mission. Obama laid out clear goals and a new strategy 6 months ago. Obama can go ahead and change up strategies but he must level with us and tell us at the same time that he is now changing his goals.
Let’s suppose that some future enemy develops unmanned drone capability. And further suppose that, although they do their best, sometimes American civilians become collateral damage in their attacks on US bases here in the US. I don’t like the idea of robots hovering overhead sometimes killing innocents by mistake.
I’m not sure how we get at al qaeda in Pakistan without unmanned drones – more support for Pakistani military and intelligence efforts, better covert operations? – but there has to be a way to do it. I’m not the expert. I don’t believe any of us can say definitively that there is no way other than drones to accomplish our task.
“I didn’t even have to go to your links. You showed enough obvious inconsistency answering certain questions that it didn’t warrant reading your sources on others.”
That is just a cheap cop-out. You’re about to lose even your allies on the liberal side (Tena excepted) if you don’t start to play a bit more honestly.
Why?
“”"Should we close Guantanimo?
No.”"”
Is all I needed to know about you and your support of human rights.
If you want to call that cheap and dishonest, go right ahead. I call it adherence to intellectual principles.
“If you want to call that cheap and dishonest, go right ahead.”
Thank you. I will. That’s cheap and dishonest.
And that is why you lose every argument. You have no core principle, so everything you say is disingenuous.
If Russ is trying to give them (GOP wingnuts) enough rope to hang themselves, it sure seems like an obtuse way of going about it. Unless the idea would be to say, “here’s a Democrat questioning a Democratic president” and when the practice is shown to be perfectly reasonable, it shuts down another avenue of attack. Is this 11 dimensional chess by Feingold?
Perhaps the White House’s reply gives him cover? Hmmmm…
Ethan – I don’t even understand what you are saying. I don’t believe that housing illegal enemy combatants at Gitmo violates their human rights. Congress and the Supreme court are watching and making sure everything is on the up and up and correcting when need be.
sbj, it’s not that hard.
Your positions lack even the most basic integrity. You are STRONGLY against a military tactic in a war that is NOT denounced by ANY human rights groups, contrary to your lies. I went to all of your links. There are no human rights groups who strictly oppose UAV use.
But yet you take a strong position AGAINST what almost ALL human rights orgs oppose, namely the complex at Guantanamo Bay.
You don’t have a moral compass. Your definition of “human rights” doesn’t exist. And that is exemplary of ALL of your arguments.
“Gabor Rona, international legal director of Human Rights First, a U.S.-based group that advocates universal rights and freedom, said large number of civilians are being unintentionally hit, harmed and killed.
“This is not only a violation of the international laws of war,” he said. “It’s bad policy.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/29/predator-drones-face-legal-challenges-liberals/
“We hope that US people will take a closer look at our belief that peace will come through generous love and through human interaction, negotiation, dialogue and diplomacy, and not through robots armed with missiles.”
http://www.truthout.org/040409Y
Now, ethan – stop calling me a liar.
Your TruthOut link is an op-ed. And this is the section immediately following your quotation from the Fox News link:
“”"The laws of war allow individuals who are engaged in hostilities to be targeted in an armed conflict but strictly prohibit actions against those not engaged.
“Even when you’re attacking a legitimate military objective, you cannot cause civilian casualties that exceed the value of a legitimate military attack,” Rona said.
However, Human Rights First Spokeswoman Brenda Bowser Soder said the group is not currently considering legal action.”"”
———–
Neither link proves that you have even a shred of moral fiber as I have indicated you do not.
NO action is being taken by human rights groups on UAVs. But action IS being taken to close Guantanamo.
Your problem is that you think it is satisfactory to redefine key words to meet your political ideology. But you have no moral basis nor background whatsoever for creating your definitions.
THAT is why you choose not to address the discrepancy between the UAV issue and the Guantanamo issue.
And since you CHOOSE not to address this discrepancy, and since you make a conscious effort to deceive in order to prove the worth of your political ideology, you are a liar.
Dude!
Looks like a little dissension in the house of the Progressives. Attack anyone that doesn’t march to the drum of the Left? No flexibility? Can’t question? The perfect recipe for a defunct nation going down the drain faster than the contents of a toilet bowl.
Hello, just today found your blog but I have to admit that it looks awesome. I fully agree with you. Have a good day, keep up the nice work and I’ll definitely come back.I just got in to the Battlefield Bad Company 2 PC Beta for free, check out this youtube video for instructions on how you can do it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeEGe5fIAXo