Replies

"Does anyone know (1) if Bush personally had anything to do with this appointment;"

I would assume that, at some level, the President has some involvement with a Presidential appointment, but I haven't claimed he ever even met this guy. More than likely, people like this are chosen by people who work in the administration and the President, trusting their judgement, simply signs off on them. It's probably not feasible for the President to do his own research on every single appointee (he certainly has bigger fish to fry), but he should really work hard to ensure those telling him to appoint people are doing their jobs properly.

"(2) what this guy's role actually was? Was he upper-level, mid-level, low-level? How prominent was his position at NASA?"

He was apparently prominent enough to rile up some people over at NASA, including a certain climatologist who got slapped around a bit the other day here on FR. It doesn't sound like he was anyone directly high-level, but he obviously has to be known by someone to get the appointment consideration at all. Ergo, even if he had little official authority, he probably had the ear of a few higher up on the food chain. As such, when he starts making demands (the changes to the website and such), it's not necessarily possible to simply ignore him.

I can understand a thorough vetting of a Supreme Court nominee or the head of an agency, but this guy sounds very mid-level. I've been involved in many job hires over the years, and I've never called a college or university to confirm that an applicant actually attended or graduated from there. We assume people are telling the truth on theire resumes, although we also assume that some things are padded and made to look like a bigger deal than they were. Generally, if not always, the interview process will give you all you need to know about whether a person is actually qualified.