"Uniquely Qualified"

Oh come on.  Yes, if you're okay with the status quo, William Lynn is perfectly well qualified to be the Deputy Secretary of Defense.  But I thought we were supposed to have entered a new day.  In fact, both Obama and McCain were competing as to who was going to be the biggest reformer.  And Obama did come out of the box with what appeared to be transformative ethics and openness standards.

But why balk at implementing them at the Pentagon?  It is ridiculous to argue that the only people qualified to run this agency are those who have come from the military-industrial complex.  Why undermine the weight of these reforms by waiving them when they really matter?  Now that President Obama's giving waivers, how do we know he isn't going to waive his revolving door restrictions when officials leave his Administration, a la Clinton?

Moreover, what exactly makes Lynn "uniquely qualified"?  Being a lobbyist certainly doesn't give one the significant management experience the Deputy Secretary of Defense will need.  And one could argue that anyone who has been in charge of the Pentagon's finances over the past couple of decades should not be asked to come back.

I would suggest that President Obama go outside the typical channels and consider successful business leaders from sectors that actually do have their house in order.  There are people who have run multi-billion dollar companies with good management and accountability track records.  Why not try one of them?

Senator McCain (R-AZ) has slowed the confirmation process by requesting answers from Lynn regarding exactly what his recusal will entail.  (Yes, I saw McCain on the Sunday morning talk show saying that, although he's disappointed, he thinks it's likely Lynn will be confirmed--but a girl can dream, can't she?)

If, in the end, Lynn is confirmed, I hope he and any other future recipients of ethics rule waivers are required to compensate for their pass--maybe a permanent recusal from matters involving their former employer while serving as a public official?

-- Danielle Brian

Comments

[Axel]

Dear Readers, 2/26/2009

It appears unmistakeable and clear that Ann has acted in brilliant, dedicated and forthright manner within this issue. Unfortunately, I am not as familar with this direct issue that is seemingly and coincidentaly one of POGO's adament and/or first and foremost concerns and issues.

Although, please note that in my support of Ann's and POGO's concerns, I would suggest that it would be appropriate and also require President Obama to publically state and/or immediately withdraw his designee from appointment consideration as from my reading of POGO's many reviews on this matter as from this POGO Article this clearly and unmistakeably violates President Obama direct reform order and asks our legislatures to approve him in this overwhelmingly sensetive first 100 days of this presidential term.

As this clear and distinctive controversy has been communicated at all levels and for some time, hopefully President Obama will display some 'get real' and 'change we can believe in' enlightened response(s) and/or to this seemingly great error and/or mistake.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Axel

[Ann]

I just contacted each member of the committee from their Senate websites and asked them to Reject Confirmation. What I am wondering is why both sides have not asked him to withdraw this nominee and asked committee members to reject nomination based on standing firm on his Executive Order because this establishes a precedence and shows that the EO was basically not a real commitment to change.

Here is what I sent:
Please help the Obama Administration stick to their promise and vote against confirmation of William Lynn. It is important that ethics of the incoming administration be held accountable without that, the waiver of his Executive Order sets a precedence that could show Americans the administration is practicing business as usual and the change America voted for is not real. See:

http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/letters/government-corruption/gc-rd-20090123.html