Tweet
Rahm Emanuel–The first to leak should be the first fired.
Photo from Rahm’s home planet, the DLC.
In an interview with CBS News’ Chip Reid, President Obama said that leaks about the developing policy on the war in Afghanistan are firing offenses:
Reid says he asked the president if he’s as angry as Defense Secretary Robert Gates about all the leaks coming out of his administration about the Afghanistan decision.
"I think I’m angrier than Bob Gates about it," Mr. Obama replied. "We have deliberations in the situation room for a reason; we’re making life and death decisions that affect how our troops are able to operate in a theater of war. For people to be releasing info in the course of deliberations is not appropriate."
"A firing offense?" Reid inquired.
"Absolutely," Mr. Obama responded.
Who in the Obama administration is best known for leaks? Here’s Marcy Wheeler with advice for Obama back in September:
Dude! President Obama? Let me help you out here. It took five days–five days!!–for the extraordinary discipline of your campaign to go to shit after you picked Beltway leaker extraordinaire Rahm Emanuel to be your Chief of Staff.
In that bit of advice, Marcy linked this story where she documented Rahm’s carefully orchestrated leak on the auto industry bail-out policy after only five days as Chief of Staff.
Mr. President, I beg you. Please follow through on your statement and fire the person in your administration most responsible for leaks (not just on Afghanistan, but leaks on all issues): Rahm Emanuel. His failed strategy of DLC-style false centrism and continued feeding of the Blue Dogs that bite our asses is leading your presidency to ruin. Fire him and get on with the business of the country.
23 Comments
hey jim, wasn’t the first leak curtesy of the general trying to pressure obama into an afghan surge?
he should be first, rham second
Lots of details of McChrystal’s plan did emerge early. I don’t know if that’s been definitively pinned on McChrystal or not. Note that Rahm would be one of the first to read the plan, so he’d be very high on the suspect list for that leak along with McChyrstal.
I think that there already is enough evidence for McChrystal to be facing multiple charges for torture and other war crimes, so the leak would be just another reason to get rid of him if he is the source.
Right on.
I seem to recall a certain former president from Texas promising to Handle The Situation if anyone in the WH outed a CIA agent. Never happened, did it? Hope our new president is better at keeping his promises.
Good point. Obama seems to be following the Bush script on many fronts, so this could be another one–announce firing offense and then overlook it when it is traced to a key aide.
Didn’t mean to put the kibosh on your wish for it to be Rahm, tho. Can you think of a time when a Key Aide to a president was thrown out? Halderman? I don’t know. Wasn’t paying attention to this stuff as much before as I am now.
Thanks for your posts, Jim. Yesterdays was exceptionally well done, I thought.
Thanks. I don’t expect Obama to fire him. The post is meant more as a tweak to Obama to show yet again how his rhetoric and actions don’t line up.
[Of course, I'll be happy to lead a conga line in the streets if Rahm is fired...]
Great point whether it’s Rahm or McChrystal I hope both get nailed Obama cannot risk any comparison with Bush in the Public Mind. Moderates and Hard Core Obama fans will not be able to stomach that.
Come on, shake your body baby,
do the conga
I know you can’t control yourself any longer…
Great morning exercise.
See this McClatchy article for more on the leaks on the Afghanistan policy. This part traces Rahm to the beginning of the battle of leaks:
Also see this comment from Marcy in her current thread.
Oh, I’m with you on the firing, but I also think Rahm is with us on the issue. I suspect he’s against escalation because he perceives it, rightly, to be a big political problem in the near future…
Yes, he may be with us on this one, but his political calculus leaves too many in the dust. In the end, Rahm is only with Rahm.
Totally with you there.
Rahm,Rahm,Rahm. I don’t care about Rahm. If you get rid of Rahm he will be replaced by somebody just as bad or worse. Because the buck stops NOT at Rahm, but O-BAH-MA. And no amount of sentimentality left over from election night is going to change that.
Exactly right! Rahm was hired by Obama and stays in the administration because Obama wants him too. To me, this whole thing shows Obama is getting as tetchy as W. and Nixon were. That’s not good company to be in. The problem is not so much Rahm, it’s with the guy who hired him.
Thanks for pointing that out.
alright, I admit it – I have waaay too much time on my hands this morning :D
That’s great! Thanks for sharing.
And remind me not to get on your bad side…
Been thinking about who goes first – may have to just put names in a hat and draw one out. *g*
Rahm is the best thing this country has going for it at the moment.
Why doesn’t He fire His economic teams that Has F#*Ked up so bad. Leaks are minor, but their policy should be a death penalty offense.
you wish. how do you know he isn`t talking about Eikenberry?
Couldn’t help myself, I just had to tweak an aide (Rahm?) of the president who does not use Twitter, by tweeting this post to @BarackObama!
It felt so good!!!
recommended