Obama taps Leon Panetta to run CIA...

[palehorse]

This thread is off track, and has had more than enough personal attacks. Please get back on topic and stop going after each other.

Hayabusa Rider- Senior AnandTech Moderator






OK, to caveat the following, please note that I voted for Obama and still have high hopes that he can turn some things around, even during his first term.

That said, some of his appointments for high office make me ask "WTF?! "

The first strike I gave him was his selection of HRC as Secretary of State. During his campaign, he described Clinton as completely lacking experience in real foreign affairs. So, at worst I imagined her as the HHS czar, or perhaps the Interior Secretary. But SoS??! That was my first "WTF moment," and Obama's first strike in my book... the selection simply didn't make any sense.

Now this: NBC: Obama picks Panetta for CIA director...

Again, WTF!??

NBC News has confirmed that President-elect Barack Obama has chosen former Clinton White House chief of staff Leon Panetta to run the CIA.

Panetta was a surprise pick for the post, with no experience in the intelligence world. An Obama transition official and another Democrat disclosed his nomination on a condition of anonymity since it was not yet public.




Panetta was director of the Office of Management and Budget and a longtime congressman from California.

He served on the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that released a report at the end of 2006 with dozens of recommendations for the reversing course in the Iraq war.

Panetta currently directs with his wife Sylvia the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy, based at California State University, Monterey Bay a university he helped establish on the site of the former U.S. Army base, Fort Ord.

Seriously, what was he thinking?! Panetta will be received by the Intelligence professionals at the CIA like a flaming paper bag of dogshit. The man is a total outsider and knows next to nothing about running global Intelligence operations.

What I need you fine folks to do is help me understand Obama's possible motive(s) for selecting an inexperienced outsider to run what is perhaps the nation's most critical intelligence agency... Why would he do something like this? What's he getting at?

One theory at my office is that he may have selected this outsider to purposely scare off the veterans at the agency. IOW, he hopes the appointment will lead to a slew of retirements -- those who might otherwise resist changes Obama may have planned for the Agency.

What do you guys think?

/discuss

 

[jpeyton]

If this pick pissed you off, Obama must be doing something right.

 

[OrByte]

I agree Panetta is an odd choice.

On first glance I can't figure this out.

 

[her209]

I personally was hoping he'd pick Valerie Plame.

 

[cumhail]

The constant stream of clintonite appointments is disheartening... particularly the apparent selection of someone with no intelligence background to run the CIA. Given what we've seen, over the last eight years, of intelligence failures and of unqualified people screwing things up in their appointed positions, I'd have hoped that more thought would have gone into filling this spot.

 

[dartworth]

perhaps an outsider is what the CIA needs..

 

[spidey07]

While I don't think it's the reason I can see why he's appointing somebody with no knowledge or experience - setting up a scapegoat for intelligence failures that are bound to happen as the focus on national security is lost.

 

[frostedflakes]

This does seem like an odd pick. Does the guy have *any* qualifications for the position?

Of course, since the inception of the DNI, the role of director of the CIA has really been downplayed. Maybe Obama intends to further strengthen the DNI, but even so, I'd still think the head of the CIA would need some knowledge of the intelligence community to be an effective leader.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: palehorse
OK, to caveat the following, please note that I voted for Obama and still have high hopes that he can turn some things around, even during his first term.

That said, some of his appointments for high office make me ask "WTF?! "

The first strike I gave him was his selection of HRC as Secretary of State. During his campaign, he described Clinton as completely lacking experience in real foreign affairs. So, at worst I imagined her as the HHS czar, or perhaps the Interior Secretary. But SoS??! That was my first "WTF moment," and Obama's first strike in my book... the selection simply didn't make any sense.

Now this: NBC: Obama picks Panetta for CIA director...

Again, WTF!??

NBC News has confirmed that President-elect Barack Obama has chosen former Clinton White House chief of staff Leon Panetta to run the CIA.

Panetta was a surprise pick for the post, with no experience in the intelligence world. An Obama transition official and another Democrat disclosed his nomination on a condition of anonymity since it was not yet public.

Panetta was director of the Office of Management and Budget and a longtime congressman from California.

He served on the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that released a report at the end of 2006 with dozens of recommendations for the reversing course in the Iraq war.

Panetta currently directs with his wife Sylvia the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy, based at California State University, Monterey Bay a university he helped establish on the site of the former U.S. Army base, Fort Ord.

Seriously, what was he thinking?! Panetta will be received by the Intelligence professionals at the CIA like a flaming paper bag of dogshit. The man is a total outsider and knows next to nothing about running global Intelligence operations.

What I need you fine folks to do is help me understand Obama's possible motive(s) for selecting an inexperienced outsider to run what is perhaps the nation's most critical intelligence agency... Why would he do something like this? What's he getting at?

One theory at my office is that he may have selected this outsider to purposely scare off the veterans at the agency. IOW, he hopes the appointment will lead to a slew of retirements -- those who might otherwise resist changes Obama may have planned for the Agency.

What do you guys think?

/discuss

He's a loyal Democrat.

He has significant policy credentials and knowledge.

He's a moderate Democrat, so he won't scare many of the CIA people. (The idea of scaring the spooks is an interesting one. )

He's probably tough enough, but sophisticated enough to move the culture towards the center right, rather than the far right where it has been for 10 years at least.

Obama is sending a strong message that it won't be business as usual at the CIA, however. He could have appointed any number of seasoned professional CIA types to this post, but went with a new face. This usually means a lot of changes are coming.

Panetta is not a yes man, like Paulson, or the limp piece of shit who gave the ok to Bush on the CIA Iraq War intel. (Tenet)

He's the kind of guy who won't be shy about blowing the whistle on past CIA abuses. This may be the one area where conservatives and CIA hard liners will be concerned. I would expect some possible indictments, a few high profile firings, and some startling disclosures under Panetta.

I think he's a great pick!

Clinton's ok for SoS. She would have been better at HHS, perhaps. But, I don't like Clinton....

-Robert

 

[JS80]

Hey, finally some promise of change. Especially after he's proposing cut tax and spend like W.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I agree Panetta is an odd choice.

On first glance I can't figure this out.

x2

Fern

 

[nageov3t]

Obama got elected on a campaign platform of experience not mattering; why would this surprise you?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: chess9
He's a loyal Democrat.

Hasn't the main complaint against Bush and his appointments is his reliance on 'loyalty' ??

Everything you guys complain about Bush and his picks is apparent in this pick.

He is loyal and has no experience. Sounds a perfect recipe for failure.

BTW the best pick would probably have been some former military intelligence officer.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
If this pick pissed you off, Obama must be doing something right.

Deep Thoughts, by Jpeyton....

Speaking of which, how did that Hamas propaganda video post work out for you? :laugh:

now, back on topic...

Originally posted by: dartworth
perhaps an outsider is what the CIA needs..

How'd that work out for FEMA after Katrina hit?

Picking completely unqualified personnel for very critical positions should not be "OK" just because Obama does it, so let's try to remain intellectually honest people...

Originally posted by: spidey07
While I don't think it's the reason I can see why he's appointing somebody with no knowledge or experience - setting up a scapegoat for intelligence failures that are bound to happen as the focus on national security is lost.

While that is a perfectly valid theory, it sure as hell flies in the face of the whole "Change" concept, doesn't it? I sincerely hope this theory is the wrong one...

Originally posted by: chess9
He's a loyal Democrat.

He has significant policy credentials and knowledge.

He's a moderate Democrat, so he won't scare many of the CIA people. (The idea of scaring the spooks is an interesting one. )

He's probably tough enough, but sophisticated enough to move the culture towards the center right, rather than the far right where it has been for 10 years at least.

Obama is sending a strong message that it won't be business as usual at the CIA, however. He could have appointed any number of seasoned professional CIA types to this post, but went with a new face. This usually means a lot of changes are coming.

Panetta is not a yes man, like Paulson, or the limp piece of shit who gave the ok to Bush on the CIA Iraq War intel. (Tenet)

He's the kind of guy who won't be shy about blowing the whistle on past CIA abuses. This may be the one area where conservatives and CIA hard liners will be concerned. I would expect some possible indictments, a few high profile firings, and some startling disclosures under Panetta.

I think he's a great pick!

Clinton's ok for SoS. She would have been better at HHS, perhaps. But, I don't like Clinton....

-Robert

all good points... I'll have to agree that most of them make sense. oh, and I also don't like Clinton very much, but at least she would have had some real experience with HHS issues... SoS, on the other hand, requires a certain amount of charisma and experience I simply don't see in her (uhg!)

hmmm... this choice of Panetta really bothers me.

damnit.

 

[winnar111]

Obama really doesn't care a whole lot about national defense. Kind of like Clinton, who didn't even talk to his CIA director.

 

[JJChicken]

The New York Times article on this is interesting (as always):

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...ctor/?nl=pol&emc=pola1

Update | 4:55 p.m. President-elect Barack Obama has selected Leon E. Panetta, the former congressman and White House chief of staff, to take over the Central Intelligence Agency, an organization that Mr. Obama criticized during the campaign for using interrogation methods he decried as torture, Democratic officials said Monday.

Yet the choice encountered early opposition on Capitol Hill, with some senior Democrats questioning why the president-elect would pick a C.I.A. chief without a deep reservoir of intelligence or counterterrorism experience.

?My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time,? said Senator Dianne Feinstein who, as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, would be in charge of Mr. Panetta?s confirmation.

Senator Feinstein said that she had not been notified by Mr. Obama?s transition team about the selection.

Mr. Panetta has a reputation in Washington as a competent manager with strong background in budget issues, but has little hands-on intelligence experience. If confirmed by the Senate, he will take control of the agency most directly responsible for hunting senior Al Qaeda leaders around the globe, but one that has been buffeted since the Sept. 11 attacks by leadership changes and morale problems.

Given his background, Mr. Panetta is a somewhat unusual choice to lead the C.I.A., an agency that has been unwelcoming to previous directors perceived as outsiders, such as Stansfield M. Turner and John M. Deutch. But his selection points up the difficulty Mr. Obama had in finding a C.I.A. director with no connection to controversial counterterrorism programs of the Bush era.


Aides have said Mr. Obama had originally hoped to select a C.I.A. head with extensive field experience, especially in combating terrorist networks. But his first choice for the job, John O. Brennan, had to withdraw his name amidst criticism over his role in the formation of the C.I.A?s detention and interrogation program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Members of Mr. Obama?s transition also raised concerns about other candidates, even some Democratic lawmakers with intelligence experience. Representative Jane Harman of California, formerly the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was considered for the job, but she was ruled out as a candidate in part because of her early support for some Bush administration programs like the domestic eavesdropping program.

In disclosing the pick, officials pointed to Mr. Panetta?s sharp managerial skills, his strong bipartisan standing on Capitol Hill, his significant foreign policy experience in the White House and his service on the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan panel that examined the war and made recommendations on United States policy. The officials noted that he had a handle on intelligence spending from his days as director of the Office and Management and Budget.

Mr. Deutch, now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said Mr. Panetta and Dennis Blair, who was selected by Mr. Obama to become director of national intelligence, were an ?absolutely brilliant team,? and called Mr. Panetta a ?talented and experienced manager of government and a widely respected person with congress.?

He said that given global environment, there are indeed good reasons for Mr. Obama to select a C.I.A. veteran to lead the C.I.A. But he said that two of the agency?s most successful directors, John McCone and George H.W. Bush, had little or no intelligence intelligence experience when they took over at C.I.A.

?He will bring a wealth of knowledge of the government to the C.I.A. post and an outside perspective that I think might be helpful at this juncture in the C.I.A.?s history,? said Lee Hamilton, the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group.

As C.I.A. director, Mr. Panetta would report to Mr. Blair, a retired admiral. Neither choice has yet been publicly announced. The C.I.A. has settled down from years of turmoil after the Sept. 11 attacks and fallout from flawed intelligence assessments about Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction programs.

At the same time, it faces uncertainly about where it fits in the constellation of spy agencies operating under the director of national intelligence. In recent months, Michael V. Hayden, the current C.I.A. director, has clashed with Mike McConnell, the current director of national intelligence, about Mr. McConnell?s efforts to fill top intelligence jobs overseas with officers from across the intelligence community, not just the C.I.A.

Mr. Panetta, a native of Monterey, Calif., served eight terms in the House representing his home region before becoming the chief budget adviser to President Bill Clinton in 1993. He then served as Mr. Clinton?s chief of staff from July 1994 to January 1997.

Given the focus on the intelligence apparatus in the wake of the terror attacks and the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr. Obama?s selections in the intelligence field are expected to be closely examined.

Mr. Hamilton said that if confirmed, Mr. Panetta will have the advantage of moving to the agency headquarters in Langley, Va. with a strong relationship to Mr. Obama, which can translate into influence within the broader intelligence community. He said Mr. Panetta?s lack of hands-on intelligence experience can be supplemented by others.

?You have to look at the team,? he said. ?You clearly will want intelligence professionals at the highest levels of the C.I.A.,? he said.

Looks like the Obama team would have preferred someone with more experience, but also had the dual criteria that the candidate be not be considerably linked to the Bush administration or support its policies. Panetta seemed to be the best of the bunch.

 

[theeedude]

What was so wonderful about CIA insiders running the show?

 

[jonks]

I don't get this pick, I'd like Obama to explain his thinking.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: senseamp
What was so wonderful about CIA insiders running the show?

The defense of our nation and the end of the Cold War?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: senseamp
What was so wonderful about CIA insiders running the show?

The defense of our nation and the end of the Cold War?

Accomplished by radicalizing Afghanistan and Pakistan, leading to 9/11. Not to mention the actual tactical failure to stop 9/11, capture UBL, get a grip on Iraq's lack of WMDs, etc. Plus Cold War is starting over.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: jpeyton
If this pick pissed you off, Obama must be doing something right.

Deep Thoughts, by Jpeyton...

What happens after "Strike 3"? Are you officially going to declare your annoyance with him? Are you going to remove yourself from his 2012 donor list?

Also, I'm curious. If a questionable appointment is a "strike", how many strikes did you give Bush over 8 years?

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: senseamp
What was so wonderful about CIA insiders running the show?

Yes! Agreed.

The CIA needs some house cleaning, and if the old hands don't like it, too bad. Feinstein is worried that someone soft on terrorism will get the job. But, Panetta has seen plenty of intelligence briefings as Clinton's Chief of Staff, and he's not a left-winger at all (He's actually more of a Blue Dog Dem). But he isn't going to be mindlessly pro-Israel either, which may be what really worries Feinstein? She has Clinton at State, lol, and who could be more pro-Israel other than Netanyahu? Methinks she's overdoing it. And why go public? Too stupid....

-Robert

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: palehorse
OK, to caveat the following, please note that I voted for Obama and still have high hopes that he can turn some things around, even during his first term.

That said, some of his appointments for high office make me ask "WTF?! "

The first strike I gave him was his selection of HRC as Secretary of State. During his campaign, he described Clinton as completely lacking experience in real foreign affairs. So, at worst I imagined her as the HHS czar, or perhaps the Interior Secretary. But SoS??! That was my first "WTF moment," and Obama's first strike in my book... the selection simply didn't make any sense.

Now this: NBC: Obama picks Panetta for CIA director...

Again, WTF!??

NBC News has confirmed that President-elect Barack Obama has chosen former Clinton White House chief of staff Leon Panetta to run the CIA.

Panetta was a surprise pick for the post, with no experience in the intelligence world. An Obama transition official and another Democrat disclosed his nomination on a condition of anonymity since it was not yet public.

Panetta was director of the Office of Management and Budget and a longtime congressman from California.

He served on the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that released a report at the end of 2006 with dozens of recommendations for the reversing course in the Iraq war.

Panetta currently directs with his wife Sylvia the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy, based at California State University, Monterey Bay a university he helped establish on the site of the former U.S. Army base, Fort Ord.

Seriously, what was he thinking?! Panetta will be received by the Intelligence professionals at the CIA like a flaming paper bag of dogshit. The man is a total outsider and knows next to nothing about running global Intelligence operations.

What I need you fine folks to do is help me understand Obama's possible motive(s) for selecting an inexperienced outsider to run what is perhaps the nation's most critical intelligence agency... Why would he do something like this? What's he getting at?

One theory at my office is that he may have selected this outsider to purposely scare off the veterans at the agency. IOW, he hopes the appointment will lead to a slew of retirements -- those who might otherwise resist changes Obama may have planned for the Agency.

What do you guys think?

/discuss

He's a loyal Democrat.

He has significant policy credentials and knowledge.

He's a moderate Democrat, so he won't scare many of the CIA people. (The idea of scaring the spooks is an interesting one. )

He's probably tough enough, but sophisticated enough to move the culture towards the center right, rather than the far right where it has been for 10 years at least.

Obama is sending a strong message that it won't be business as usual at the CIA, however. He could have appointed any number of seasoned professional CIA types to this post, but went with a new face. This usually means a lot of changes are coming.

Panetta is not a yes man, like Paulson, or the limp piece of shit who gave the ok to Bush on the CIA Iraq War intel. (Tenet)

He's the kind of guy who won't be shy about blowing the whistle on past CIA abuses. This may be the one area where conservatives and CIA hard liners will be concerned. I would expect some possible indictments, a few high profile firings, and some startling disclosures under Panetta.

I think he's a great pick!

Clinton's ok for SoS. She would have been better at HHS, perhaps. But, I don't like Clinton....

-Robert

Yeah it worked sooo well for FEMA

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: senseamp
What was so wonderful about CIA insiders running the show?

The defense of our nation and the end of the Cold War?

Accomplished by radicalizing Afghanistan and Pakistan, leading to 9/11. Not to mention the actual tactical failure to stop 9/11, capture UBL, get a grip on Iraq's lack of WMDs, etc. Plus Cold War is starting over.

When the alternative is a powerful Soviet Union with missiles all over the Western Hemisphere? I'll take it.

I figured you'd be in favor of this. CIA insiders allowed Clinton to gut the military and funnel money into the healthcare industry complex. They have a huge lack of mid level managers since nobody was hired in the 1990s.

 

[babylon5]

You know how when you look at job ads, they ask for prior experience?

Obama shows us job experience is overrated, probably unnecessary in any field