Obama taps Leon Panetta to run CIA...

[chucky2]

palehorse: My take is that

1. Obama knows with a past Clintonite, he'll get someone that will toe his/Hillary's/Dem's line.

2. Having zero ties to anyone in the CIA, he'll be free to perform whatever house cleaning/policy changes the Dem's want to get done.

3. The dude is old...he won't be there long. It's a last bone thrown to him for all his faithful service to the Dem's over the years.

4. If some situation gets to the point where the Dir. of the CIA needs to resign, not a big loss. As aforementioned, he's old...he could announce retirement/"retirement" at almost any time, and no one would think anything of it.

5. Sends a message to the current CIA establishment that their new boss has zero F'ing clue, so, there will likely be house cleaning, scrutiny of past and present efforts, and new policies enacted...i.e. stay on your toes and make sure you're CYA'ing^2.

Chuck

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I was surprised by this, but in retrospect Panetta could be a good pick.

First, everyone in the CIA knows that Director is a political position. As such, Panetta's job would be administrator, not collecting intelligence. Senior CIA analysts will bring him up to speed as far as how things work. They've been so beaten by Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld and their ilk, that if they get a fair deal, they'll back Panetta whether he's ever read an intel report or not. Panetta's job will be to make sure that the agency operates effectively, and is able to pass along intel that is politically unfiltered (a complete 180 over what's happened over the last 8 years).

If he does that, a lack of experience isn't too great a handicap and not having a past history could be a real benefit. A clean slate as it were.

And just how do you wrap your head around the idea that a political appointment like Panetta is/can "pass along intel that is politically unfiltered"? It just doesn't compute. If the guy isn't an intel guy and is just a political leftover from the Clinton era - where does your optimism about this come from?

It's not hard to grasp at all. Bush had an agenda, and Cheney and others browbeat the CIA early on. Perhaps you've forgotten all the resignations of CIA senior analysts because they couldn't be heard?
All Panetta has to do is pass up the material. Of course Obama could order an agenda like Bush did, however that's seldom been done, and not likely to happen again unless you have specific information to the contrary. What makes you think that Tenet was immune from pressure from Bush and Cheney? He certainly was not. Further I will remind you that another President also named Bush was able to get information out as it was intended. It all depends on who is above the Director, and how resistant the Director is to pressure. Few could withstand such a punishing onslaught as handed out by the lesser Bush.

So your answer is basically "blind faith" if you ignore the "but Bush" aspect.

I found you what I believe is a reasonable explanation. I cannot find you an understanding. I might ask a similar question and bring in "blind faith" on any of them. I have little faith in political parties of any stripe however as I have already said Panetta could be a decent choice. On the other hand he could be awful. I'm trying to look at the situation as it exists, and if blind faith means giving the benefit of the doubt then I'm guilty. I voted for GWB the first time around and I did the same thing. It turns out that I was to be disappointed, but at least I waited to see what he did in office before rendering judgment.

As cynical as I am about some things I choose not to decide in advance that either party has screwed the pooch before they've done so.

Another consideration is that the CIA took the bullet because of Iraq. Panetta not having a connection with the CIA automatically removes the possibility of him being under any cloud due to associations.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Zebo
I would have liked to see Michael Scheuer. I have not read a more intelligent book than his plus he was chief of counter terror unit. How much more applicable can we get in these times? Course these types of jobs are hardly ever filled by most qualified it's the system of hook ups and revolving door politics at work. This is why I say not a dimes worth of difference between parties.

Scheuer is the worst sort of narrow-minded immoral son of a bitch, I place him below the Bush people, and that's saying something.

I've seen a transcript of him arguing with a colleague demanding that they implement a policy that cannot be defended morally but only as 'pro-US', by screaming at the guy that he doesn't know if the other guys gets a paycheck from the human race, but his is signed by the US taxpayer. Exactly the sort I do not want in power.

The reason you don't like Scheuer is because he rightfully points out all of your hero Clinton's inadequacies -- especially his complete impotence in battling terrorism during the 90's.

Scheuer likes to hear himself talk; but, most of what he says concerning these half-fought wars and the lack of decent leadership is absolutely on point.

 

[Lemon law]

I have to love it, palehorse arrogance, as a known proponent of an idiotic and failing Afghan policy, palehorse presumes to have a right to call some number of strikes, with the implied assumption that when they get to three or some other number he does not like, they will be out.

While I hope that new and wiser policy will lead the US military to toss out palehorse and his ilk out of the military on their butts. As they are nothing but triple dipping ripoffs of US taxpayers. And replace them with smarter people who understand that alienating everyone in the region does not get the job done. Something palehorse somehow misses as the policy he advocates delivers worse and worse results for six out of six years running.

What ever Panetta does, its almost impossible for him to be as stupid and as clueless as palehorse.

Maybe we should wait for the results before we jump to conclusions.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I have to love it, palehorse arrogance, as a known proponent of an idiotic and failing Afghan policy, palehorse presumes to have a right to call some number of strikes, with the implied assumption that when they get to three or some other number he does not like, they will be out.

While I hope that new and wiser policy will lead the US military to toss out palehorse and his ilk out of the military on their butts. As they are nothing but triple dipping ripoffs of US taxpayers. And replace them with smarter people who understand that alienating everyone in the region does not get the job done. Something palehorse somehow misses as the policy he advocates delivers worse and worse results for six out of six years running.

What ever Panetta does, its almost impossible for him to be as stupid and as clueless as palehorse.

Maybe we should wait for the results before we jump to conclusions.

You have some sort of compulsive fixation with palehorse. How's therapy going?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I have to love it, palehorse arrogance, as a known proponent of an idiotic and failing Afghan policy, palehorse presumes to have a right to call some number of strikes, with the implied assumption that when they get to three or some other number he does not like, they will be out.

Listen you arrogant know-nothing little twit, I've asked you 100 times to stop misrepresenting my take on Afghan policies, yet you continue to lie and slander me in every single post you write on that subject.

Second, I have the "right" to call it anything I fucking want to call it. The only thing that may happen once Obama hits a certain number of strikes is that I may write him off as a shitty President and no longer openly support him, or vote for him -- just as I've done with many other politicians who let me down over the years, including Bush and Clinton.

I had simply hoped that Obama would be different...

While I hope that new and wiser policy will lead the US military to toss out palehorse and his ilk out of the military on their butts. As they are nothing but triple dipping ripoffs of US taxpayers.

wtf?!

The nice thing about you and your girlfriend Craig is that we all know where you stand when it comes to your overt hatred of the U.S. military.

On behalf of every brother and sister I have in the entire U.S. military, I'd like to share with you our feelings on the subject, just as I have done recently with Craig.

GO FUCK YOURSELF.

And replace them with smarter people who understand that alienating everyone in the region does not get the job done. Something palehorse somehow misses as the policy he advocates delivers worse and worse results for six out of six years running.

For the last fucking time, my ideas regarding effective Afghan policy have never even been tried, let alone "failed" or delivered "worse and worse results." This is the slander I was referring to above. You really need to stop fucking doing that...

What ever Panetta does, its almost impossible for him to be as stupid and as clueless as palehorse.

Maybe we should wait for the results before we jump to conclusions.

It's about time you brought your inflammatory post back on topic... but, you blew any valid point you might have had by filling the rest of your post with lies and arrogant bullshit.

You're such a douchebag... get the fuck out of my thread.

 

[Lemon law]

Mighty thin skin you have palehorse, at least I do not imply you are a homosexual. And yes as a taxpayer I have every right to point out the failings of a policy you try to implement partially, but can never fully implement because the resources will NEVER be there.

 

[zinfamous]

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.

he learned from "the best." This is exactly what happened in 2000-2001.

...and we all know where that lead us.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Zebo
I would have liked to see Michael Scheuer. I have not read a more intelligent book than his plus he was chief of counter terror unit. How much more applicable can we get in these times? Course these types of jobs are hardly ever filled by most qualified it's the system of hook ups and revolving door politics at work. This is why I say not a dimes worth of difference between parties.

Scheuer is the worst sort of narrow-minded immoral son of a bitch, I place him below the Bush people, and that's saying something.

I've seen a transcript of him arguing with a colleague demanding that they implement a policy that cannot be defended morally but only as 'pro-US', by screaming at the guy that he doesn't know if the other guys gets a paycheck from the human race, but his is signed by the US taxpayer. Exactly the sort I do not want in power.

The reason you don't like Scheuer is because he rightfully points out all of your hero Clinton's inadequacies -- especially his complete impotence in battling terrorism during the 90's.

Scheuer likes to hear himself talk; but, most of what he says concerning these half-fought wars and the lack of decent leadership is absolutely on point.

Palehorse, you are a liar. You can't face the statements in my posts, and so you make up lies as straw men and attack them instead.

You were asked long ago not to respond to my posts when I recognized that you lack any capability for any useful interaction. You refused to butt out where you're unwelcome.

But you do show, with your continued cluelessness and dishonesty, why you are not someone to interact with. You don't understand the first thing on morality, for example.

I need not repeat and answer the countless lies you tell, pointing out my criticisms of Clinton, pointing out that I'm the one who says what my issues with Scheuer are, not you.

 

[Lemon law]

If nothing else, a new report that US goals were unrealistic, short range, and that our military leadership did not understand the ways things work in Afghanistan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...a_st_pe/us_afghanistan

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I am acting as a moderator for the purposes of this particular post.

Everyone please note my edit at the top of the original post before replying further.

Hayabusa Rider -AnandTech Senior Moderator

 

[fskimospy]

I think my favorite part of all the appointment threads, this one included, is that there appear to be only two responses. If Obama picks someone who has spent a lot of time in the intelligence community (which means he has been a CIA insider for quite a while) the correct way to start a post is to say: "LOL CHANGE. I thought we were going to have change!?!". If he doesn't, then we get to have posts that say: "He's totally unqualified! This is BS!"

 

[feralkid]

^ You got that right^

 

[winnar111]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...ca_st_pe/obama_defense


WASHINGTON ? President-elect Barack Obama, who deliberately distanced himself from lobbyists during his campaign and his transition, appointed a defense contractor's lobbyist Thursday to become his No. 2 official at the Defense Department. Obama acknowledged that his choice appeared to break with his self-imposed rules to keep lobbyists at arm's length.

William J. Lynn III, Obama's choice for deputy defense secretary, was senior vice president for government operations at Raytheon Co. and lobbied as recently as last June on issues including missiles, sensors and radar, advanced technology programs and intelligence funding.

"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over," Obama said in November 2007 in Des Moines, Iowa. "I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."



And this guy might be the top guy once Obama cans Robert Gates. Wow, those campaign promises are going thru the shredder.

 

[Lemon law]

Winnar111 has somewhat answered his own question when he notes that " Obama acknowledged that his choice appeared to break with his self-imposed rules to keep lobbyists at arm's length. "

Which somewhat implies that something about William J. Lynn III must have impressed Obama and that may trump his former profession.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I think my favorite part of all the appointment threads, this one included, is that there appear to be only two responses. If Obama picks someone who has spent a lot of time in the intelligence community (which means he has been a CIA insider for quite a while) the correct way to start a post is to say: "LOL CHANGE. I thought we were going to have change!?!". If he doesn't, then we get to have posts that say: "He's totally unqualified! This is BS!"

He's managed to accomplish both simultaneously with this pick.

Someone who isn't change, and is unqualified at the same time.

Panneta is qualified to work on the CIA budget, but tell spies how to spy?

Fern

 

[Arkaign]

^^ I don't know. The CEO of Wal-Mart doesn't tell the store workers how to sell Chinese crap, they leave that to management.

If Leon can give the CIA a fresh global image, and run a tight, efficient ship, things could go well. I'm not holding my breath though. Hide and watch.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Winnar111 has somewhat answered his own question when he notes that " Obama acknowledged that his choice appeared to break with his self-imposed rules to keep lobbyists at arm's length. "

Which somewhat implies that something about William J. Lynn III must have impressed Obama and that may trump his former profession.

Ah, so the no lobbyist rule applies, except when Obama decides it won't apply. Great!

 

[Jhhnn]

Gates probably asked for Lynn.

But, of course, carry on- don't let any sort of deeper considerations interfere with the soundbite sloganeering... Which is pretty rich, coming from the party who had lobbyists and industry groups write the legislation they rubber stamped...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
^^ I don't know. The CEO of Wal-Mart doesn't tell the store workers how to sell Chinese crap, they leave that to management.

If Leon can give the CIA a fresh global image, and run a tight, efficient ship, things could go well. I'm not holding my breath though. Hide and watch.

The CIA is not Walmart. The role of director at the CIA involves much more than standard managerial functions. Panetta's decisions will effect real real lives and deaths. I have a lot of friends over there whose lives hang in that balance, and I'm simply not convinced that he's prepared for such a thing...

bah... I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[alien42]

John McCain just praised Obamas CIA pick on FOX.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: alien42
John McCain just praised Obamas CIA pick on FOX.

That offers me no comfort whatsoever...

 

[Jhhnn]

Please, Palehorse. The Bush Admin has debased and degraded every federal agency by politicizing them in pursuit of a radical rightwing agenda. The only ones who escaped at all were the ones the Bushistas didn't bother with so much. From FEMA to HHS to the National Parks Service to you name it. The CIA was, in truth, assaulted even more rigorously because of their importance and public stature, and because they had the temerity to undermine the Whitehouse in support of the law and the truth, in the Plame affair and in the runup to the invasion of Iraq.

The notion that Panetta could do worse by that agency or by the citizenry than the hatchet men appointed by Bush since Tenet's departure is absurd, and anybody with enough sense to pour piss out of a boot knows it.

Google "Goss CIA purge" and "Hayden CIA purge" for a sampling of how that's worked out...