Obama taps Leon Panetta to run CIA...

[sandorski]

Might be a good choice. One does not need to know the inner workings of an Organization in order to be a good Leader. They need good Management Skills and it sounds like Panetta in fact has good Management Skills. Time will tell if this is a good choice.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: 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

LOL! Well, the FEMA guy had been head of some horse association, but had given big bucks to the Republicans. He had no government experience. Panetta's been around government a long time and won't make those mistakes. But, it was actually mostly the ineptness of that bonehead Chertoff (and Bush) that led to the disaster that was Katrina.

-Robert

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: chess9



LOL! Well, the FEMA guy had been head of some horse association, but had given big bucks to the Republicans. He had no government experience. Panetta's been around government a long time and won't make those mistakes. But, it was actually mostly the ineptness of that bonehead Chertoff (and Bush) that led to the disaster that was Katrina.

-Robert

Of course the Bushbots know this and yet continue their little whinefest.... Like a bunch of bitchy children....

and I have more faith in Leon Panetta's abilities than I do in the prognosticating talents of the "conservatives" on this board....

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: 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.

This is exactly why we need more forward thinking men than you or past CIA leadership running the show.

 

[m1ldslide1]

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.

Don't forget pursuing a course that led to the radicalization of Iran (cold war) and various SE Asian countries (installing dictators). Maybe the whole idea is to finally acknowledge that the US approach to foreign policy (and the CIA's role in implementing said policy) needs to change dramatically. There's only so long you can wave the flag and hope the sheep keep their heads in the sand...

Like others have said, I look forward to his explanation, because I feel like I'm reaching. It could be a very good explanation, or very dubious - I have a hard time seeing an in between in this case.

 

[sandmanwake]

You're just assuming he has no experience in the intelligence world. That's just how good he is.

The real reason the US won the Cold War? Leon Panetta. The reason we've been able to replace both Castro and Kim Jung with exact android replicas? Yep, Leon Panetta. And these are just some of the lesser accomplishments by Mr. Panetta while working undercover.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: sandmanwake
You're just assuming he has no experience in the intelligence world. That's just how good he is.

The real reason the US won the Cold War? Leon Panetta. The reason we've been able to replace both Castro and Kim Jung with exact android replicas? Yep, Leon Panetta. And these are just some of the lesser accomplishments by Mr. Panetta while working undercover.

:Q :laugh:

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: 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.

:thumbsup: haha good one, i'm gonna start using that one.

 

[First]

I have no explanation for this pick either. I'm waiting for Obama to justify it, assuming this is actually true of course.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: 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.

This is exactly why we need more forward thinking men than you or past CIA leadership running the show.

I'd say that the great men appointed by Presidents Truman thru Bush who set this nation's anti Communist policy were quite forward thinking, at least until 1993.

Of course, those were not modern Democrats.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: 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.

This is exactly why we need more forward thinking men than you or past CIA leadership running the show.

I'd say that the great men appointed by Presidents Truman thru Bush who set this nation's anti Communist policy were quite forward thinking, at least until 1993.

Of course, those were not modern Democrats.

They had tunnel vision.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I call this choice a well thought out choice!!

"This is an inspired choice by the Obama-Biden administration. Leon Panetta is renowned nationally and around the world for his knowledge, insight and integrity. I expect his leadership will establish a new standard of excellence for our intelligence services."

 

[Genx87]

There has only been a couple picks that I havent been happy with. But this made me go wtf? I cant figure out how he has any qualifications for the role nor how he fits in that position.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse
[ ... ]

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 ...

While I agree your concerns have validity, I don't think you're being honest if you're suggesting Brown is comparable to Panetta. Brown not only lacked Emergency Management experience, as far as I know he had no government experience at all beyond the local level. Panetta has substantial federal government experience. Moreover, as far as I can tell, Brown was not especially competent or capable as a manager and leader, whereas Panetta appears to be highly capable (though I don't know much about his leadership ability). Finally, Brown appeared to be too arrogant (or clueless) to listen to his highly-qualified professional staff. A great leader doesn't need to know the nuts and bolts of his field; he just needs to be smart enough and have the good judgment to know when to listen to his people who do.

That said, I agree Panetta seems a risky choice based on what we know about him. Maybe Obama just ran out of good candidates, maybe he lost a bet, or maybe he bumped his head and will rue this decision for the next 'n' years. Or, maybe Obama has inside insight we lack making him confident Panetta is the perfect choice, the right man to put the CIA on the path Obama envisions for it.

We may get a better sense of what Panetta brings to the table during confirmation. Hopefully he'll surprise us.

 

[rudder]

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

... if you want a lot of seasoned veterans to resign from the agency. A similar thing happened under Clinton.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: sandmanwake
You're just assuming he has no experience in the intelligence world. That's just how good he is.

The real reason the US won the Cold War? Leon Panetta. The reason we've been able to replace both Castro and Kim Jung with exact android replicas? Yep, Leon Panetta. And these are just some of the lesser accomplishments by Mr. Panetta while working undercover.

your out of your league dude!

 

[palehorse]

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

Too many to count... now, don't you have another fake Hamas video to post up somewhere?

Run along kid...

 

[L00PY]

As mentioned in the NYT article, it's interesting that the last time there was rumblings about an "unqualified" candidate was when Bush was nominated by Ford. The similarities go further, with the CIA wading through a fair deal of controversy back then as it has gone through recently. Bush did quite a good job as DCI and it's a shame he was forced out early by Carter. If he had been kept on, perhaps we would have been able to maintain HUMINT levels that were revealed to be lacking after 9/11.

 

[fskimospy]

Well one real problem with appointing someone with 'intelligence experience' is that there's hard to find many people in the various intel agencies that haven't been somehow tainted by connections to torture, etc. I sincerely doubt Obama wants his administration associated with those policies, so that disqualifies huge swaths of people who have worked around the intel community over the last 8 years of lawlessness.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: 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.

And 9/11 was a direct result...

 

[Jhhnn]

The CIA has suffered rather badly at the hands of the Bush Admin, who basically have sought to make it a propaganda organ of the RNC, and a scapegoat for the "bad intelligence" that came from the OSP in the first place. The beauty of blaming the CIA for the "bad intelligence" was that a purge of upper echelon people who weren't politically reliable was made possible, and that's what happened under Hayden.

Sleazy? Underhanded? Counter productive? Well, yeh, but that's not what mattered- The Bush Admin really had no use for a fact-finding organization, anyway, operating purely on the basis of simulated rationality. They just wanted toadies and yesmen.

In the process of all that, they basically poisoned the well of insiders who would be acceptable to a new Admin who really does want a fact-finding organization. Within that sort of framework, Panetta is a good choice in the sense that he has a reputation for just wanting the job to be done, letting the chips fall where they may. He also has a record of recognizing and rewarding talent and hard work, so the people he promotes within the organization will likely have the characteristics that any honest Admin wants... and what the country needs, as well.

 

[Craig234]

I think some here don't understand what's needed in a position like this.

They think it's nuts and bolts experience in intelligence. There are experts for that who work for the Director.

The ideology that can dominate someone with long experience in the intelligence community can be a bigger hindrance than any nuts and bolts experience is useful.

For examples of someone effectively running a large, key organization with virtually no experience, look at Roberty Kennedy running Justice, or Christine Todd Whitman as the Director of the EPA. But there are many others. Someone like James Baker had skills that allowed him to handle a number of critical assignments he did not have a lot of experience in, to the point he was called the 'assistant president'.

On a side note, I'd like an answer to this from the critics: what were George H. W. Bush's qualifications to lead the CIA when Nixon appointed him director, that exceed Panetta's?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think some here don't understand what's needed in a position like this.

They think it's nuts and bolts experience in intelligence. There are experts for that who work for the Director.

The ideology that can dominate someone with long experience in the intelligence community can be a bigger hindrance than any nuts and bolts experience is useful.

For examples of someone effectively running a large, key organization with virtually no experience, look at Roberty Kennedy running Justice, or Christine Todd Whitman as the Director of the EPA. But there are many others. Someone like James Baker had skills that allowed him to handle a number of critical assignments he did not have a lot of experience in, to the point he was called the 'assistant president'.

On a side note, I'd like an answer to this from the critics: what were George H. W. Bush's qualifications to lead the CIA when Nixon appointed him director, that exceed Panetta's?

You have PM regarding that

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: sandmanwake
You're just assuming he has no experience in the intelligence world. That's just how good he is.

The real reason the US won the Cold War? Leon Panetta. The reason we've been able to replace both Castro and Kim Jung with exact android replicas? Yep, Leon Panetta. And these are just some of the lesser accomplishments by Mr. Panetta while working undercover.

Is he Chuck Norris's brother? :Q

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: Craig234
On a side note, I'd like an answer to this from the critics: what were George H. W. Bush's qualifications to lead the CIA when Nixon appointed him director, that exceed Panetta's?

On a side note to your side note, Nixon appointed Bush as an UN Ambassador and asked him to head the RNC. His "guilt by association" with the Watergate scandal and loyalty to Nixon afterwards are some of the reasons (in addition to his lack of Intelligence experience,) why he wasn't a popular choice when Ford nominated him as DCI.