Cyber-Security Czar To Be Named

The Washington Post and everybody else is reporting that on Tuesday President Obama will name Howard A. Schmidt as cyber-security czar. Schmidt was an advisor to President Bush on cyber-security matters. The Post rehearses the reasons why the Obama administration has had difficulty in finding someone for the post, and notes that the turf battles did not start in this administration: "Schmidt was chosen after a long process in which dozens of people were sounded out. Many declined the post, largely out of concern that the job conferred much responsibility with little true authority, some of them said. Meanwhile, the cybersecurity chief at the National Security Council, Christopher Painter, has served as the de facto coordinator, trying to push ahead the 60-day cyberspace policy review plan unveiled by Obama in May. That plan's formulation was led by Melissa Hathaway, who resigned in frustration in August after delays in naming a cyber-coordinator. She had been a contender for the position... Schmidt served as special adviser for cyberspace security from 2001 to 2003 and shepherded the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, a plan that then was largely ignored. He left that job also frustrated, colleagues said."

Comments

Re:A first

[SEWilco]

The first non-socialist, non-tax-cheat appointed by the administration!

Someone else already said he's not a Democrat.

Re:Where are all those libertarians of convenience

[Mashiki]

You know, the ones who got all up in arms when Booosh!!! went berserk with "warrantless wiretaps"?

Oh I guess you can call me a libertarian. More like a conservative libertarian but whatever, but living in Canada I wrote off the US when you idiots elected Obama. You're fucked. He's Trudeau 2.0 and you couldn't even see it despite the saner heads of your northern neighbors. I'm just waiting for him to start flipping the public off and telling them: "they'll take what I give them and like it." to paraphrase Trudeau.

Re:(smacks forehead)

[Shakrai]

Except we aren't getting "universal healthcare". We are getting a mandate to do business with private entities. I would not be making this argument against a single payer system. Do you have any idea what freedom of association means? Look it up. Then tell me how it's compatible with a mandate to do business with private entities. You've also completely ignored the troubling implications for the free practice of the religion of your choice. Gonna trample all over that right in your quest for universal healthcare that isn't?

Somehow I doubt you'll be able to come up with a good argument. You've yet to respond with anything more meaningful than "you simply don't understand". That's not a dialogue, that's you sticking your head in the sand and refusing to think critically.

As far as your "intellectual growth" insult, allow me to respond with this quote: If you aren't a socialist by age 25 you have no heart. If you still are at age 40 you have no mind.