Im willing to give BHO the benefit of the doubt on this pick. Its not like Mr panetta just aimlessly wandered into Obamas transition office and Obama turned, looked and immediately said "your hired" ! The man has a background. Do any of you people think being Chief of Staff for a US president is a cakewalk? He may not have actual intelligence experience but he has MANAGEMENT experience and even so... he knows the system as he has been present at most of the daily intelligence briefings when Clinton was president and he was COS. I actually am glad an outsider was brought in .. I don't think the Administration wants the same old CIA... and that's exactly what your gonna get if you promote an insider.
As for Dianne Frankenstein and her tactless tirade about not being informed. Ok ... anyone who studies political science knows that the home senator for an appointee is usually consulted for an impending appointment by the president and if the home senator disapproves strongly on the appointment usually the rest of the senate will follow and deny the appointment. HOWEVER .. if the damn appointment wasn't told to you yet Why the flying F#%^K are you going to whine to the press about it for especially since it was a leak and the president is from your own party? Whats it going to get you apart from a very cold reception from the president elect? Whats so hard for you to pick up the phone and call the transition team? Can this woman Waaaaaaah some more ?
I was elated the Dems got power .. but im starting to wonder if they are starting to fall into the traps that the Republicans got themselves into when they had the Majority of the balance of power.
As for Dianne Frankenstein and her tactless tirade about not being informed. Ok ... anyone who studies political science knows that the home senator for an appointee is usually consulted for an impending appointment by the president and if the home senator disapproves strongly on the appointment usually the rest of the senate will follow and deny the appointment. HOWEVER .. if the damn appointment wasn't told to you yet Why the flying F#%^K are you going to whine to the press about it for especially since it was a leak and the president is from your own party? Whats it going to get you apart from a very cold reception from the president elect? Whats so hard for you to pick up the phone and call the transition team? Can this woman Waaaaaaah some more ?
I was elated the Dems got power .. but im starting to wonder if they are starting to fall into the traps that the Republicans got themselves into when they had the Majority of the balance of power.
No, I'm actually saying that Bush was a likely worse chose than Panetta is now. Bush had little relevant experience, a negative association with the recent Watergate scandal, was a Nixon defender, was accused of trying to use the position of DCI as a stepping stone for a Presidential or VP bid, and tied up in China at the time of his nomination. Some of those criticisms were legitimate, others less so. Despite all of these knocks against him when he was nominated, Bush eventually did what is regarded to be an extremely good job as DCI.
Obama has been hamstrung trying to find an appointee with Intelligence experience that hasn't been tainted by the Bush administration's use of water boarding, torture memos, and extraordinary renditions. We can't possibly know how well Panetta will do as head of the CIA. Disparaging his pick by pointing out he was as inexperienced as Bush probably isn't the best argument against his choice.
Better than them leaving because the executive branch was so hostile when they had anything to say other than 'Saddam has WMD', Cheney breathing down their neck.
We haven't been attacked on our soil for 7 years, comes to the top of my head.
Had the CIA or any intelligence agency declared that on September 12th, I would not have believed them.
Obama fvcked up with this pick. Just another pick that shows that he is WAY over is head on national security.
:laugh:
You guys are drinking Rush Limbaugh propaganda again, aren't you?
And for the most part this thread is just plain Fail.
1) The DoD controls 80% of intelligence funding;
2) Dennis Blair is Obama's choice for director of national intelligence;
3) The director of national intelligence has control over CIA's planning and its role in overall intelligence strategy - in addition to overseeing the 16 overall intelligence agencies of the good ol' USA; and
4) The 'Know-It-All' dumb-arse posters in this thread have no clue .... as usual.
See above.
And tell me .. who was President when we were attacked on Sept. 11 and what exactly did they do in the 8 months prior to protect us ?
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,360
- 126
As far as your Blair comment goes, IMHO if he gets the seat that trumps the CIA seat. Blair is SO qualified to run things I think it could work out.
As far as your 9/11 comment goes, without derailing the thread, the "who was president when it happened" argument is as asinine as, if not more so, than 7 years with no attacks. Its absurd, and frankly Im embarrassed for you for even saying it.
From LL, part of a really solid post-
Well, he did characterize dealing with OBL and AlQ as "swatting at flies"...
Well, he did characterize dealing with OBL and AlQ as "swatting at flies"...
To confront a Dillweed sometimes you have to be a Dillweed
(kinda like Ric Flair, "To be the man you have to beat the man" LOL)
I'm suffering from a serious problem with AT BS and their typical misdirection and obfuscation. All those for reasonable discussions (on anything) raise their hands ...
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Well you're right, you don't know. People seem to forget that Panetta was Chief of Staff under Clinton so he's familiar with the goings on with the CIA and the Head of the CIA is more of an Administrative position which is Panetta's forte. Admiral Blair seems well qualified as his assistant plus anybody that water ski's behind a Destroyer has some serious balls.
What does being Chief of Staff and handling Clinton's Hillarycare and gays agenda have to do with intelligence and protecting our nation?
If this is someone who Obama wants to stick in a corner, and ignore him for years, thats another story.
I guess leaving the people who have kept our nation safe for 7 years is a bad thing.
Here comes the backlash:
Paul Pillar, a former senior counterterrorism official at the CIA, said he did not have an opinion on Panetta's choice, "who seems to have excellent leadership skills and a relationship with the president," however, he would have preferred to see Hayden remain in charge.
He said he thinks it is "unfortunate" that the Obama transition team "felt the need to replace him ... just like any Cabinet post, because of the controversies surrounding the rendition issue or the interrogation of detainees."
To correct this in the future, Pillar said he favors making the post of CIA director similar to that of the FBI, where the position is not dependent on the political cycle. Changing directors under a new administration is not necessarily the best way to bring in new ideas or ensure continuity of knowledge at the agency, he said.
But former CIA official Michael Scheurer was more direct in his criticism of choosing someone outside the intelligence community to head the agency.
"I think many at the CIA will think they're trading a silk purse for a sow's ear," he said.
In an interview with ABC News, Scheurer, who headed the CIA unit that hunted Osama bin Laden, labeled Panetta "a Democratic Party apparatchik" who "may be a talented bureaucrat," but who has little in his resume to suggest he "has any talent for this particular job."
Scheurer predicts that Panetta's leadership could have a chilling effect on the agency and that "morale won't be good" as he "bends" to Congress and "harasses agency officials who ran the rendition and secret prison program."
A senior intelligence official said that during his tenure Hayden has boosted morale at the agency and "done a lot of good over there at CIA."
"If in fact such a decision has been made, Mike will leave the place in far better shape than he found it. That's for sure," the senior official said.
"Hayden takes pride in what [the] CIA has accomplished since he has been there," the official said. "Morale is higher than it has been in years, there is a clear focus on the mission and there have been some notable successes. Playing offense against terrorists and countering weapons proliferation are among those successes. Those efforts have saved lives and helped keep the country safe."
The spin has been that as Chief of Staff, Panetta has sat in briefings and had interactions with the CIA in the past. Also, the DCI is now a sub-cabinet level position and having a former cabinet member in that position could give the CIA more weight in meetings. That's what they're saying his cabinet experience gives him.
Obama's pick is a clear indication that he wants to move away from warrantless wiretaps, spying on Americans, and having the CIA torture their prisoners or torture by proxy. Many recognize that torture is very unreliable as a source of intel and will be happy for this move. Just as we should wait and see what Obama does before proclaiming him the messiah or decrying him as the anti-Christ, we should wait to and see what Panetta does as DCI before praising him or blasting him.
Considering the number of them that were involved in violating the constitution and torturing people, I'd say throwing them out is a good thing.
I've got a rock that keeps away tigers. I haven't seen any tigers around me since I got my rock.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
so how old are you?
Do you even know who Leon Panetta is?
Well let me tell you that he is one of the few people around who will immediately restore integrity to the CIA!!
He has been around washington and is a no nonesense lets do it right kind of guy!!
Now BigJelly if you hurry and slip back into bed your parents won`t find you on their computer making an ass out of yourself!!
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
I think your quote here says more about the culture within the CIA than it does about Panetta.
It is not surprising that some within the organization will like the change, and some will not. I imagine those that still hold positions within the organization will keep their criticisms muted for now. Which is why we are only hearing from "former" CIA officials. shrug.
rudder
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2000
- 19,441
- 86
- 91
Bush was president. But tell me what he could have done in 8 months what took 8 years to accomplish? Tell me how Bush could have developed a reliable middle east intelligence network like the one the CIA had behind the iron curtain in 8 months? What happened to the CIA the 8 years prior to 2001? Do tell.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Wait a second. This guy is drawing flack for NOT being one of the "good old boys" from within the CIA or the intelligence community. So how is your statement relevant at all?
Obama wants to shake up the CIA, so it's not surprising that the CIA isn't happy with the pick. It's clear that the President-elect does not like the direction the agency has taken in the past eight years and wants that changed. Hence, he's bringing in a guy who doesn't have friends or buddies in the agency -- someone he hopes can turn things around.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Give me a break.
Bill Clinton had 8 years to fight terror.
Bush had 8 months.
Kind of hard to hold them equally accountable.
Also, if you read the 9-11 or other reports you will see that Bush was in the middle of reviewing our terrorism policy and was working on a stronger policy prior to 9-11.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter