Obama taps Leon Panetta to run CIA...

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From LL, part of a really solid post-

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 ?

Well, he did characterize dealing with OBL and AlQ as "swatting at flies"...

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.

Sounds like revisionist history to me. It's been a while, but what I remember reading were plenty of examples of how the Bush administration didn't take the risk of terrorism seriously. They were fixated on the toys of traditional warfare. They made organizational changes and cuts that undermined our anti-terrorism focus, and had proposed additional cuts ... before 9/11.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: CPA
Out with the old, in with the old.

That's the new definition of "change".

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.

He's obviously a troll, just ignore him.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Hell I voted for Obama which makes me a loyal subject. I wonder if he still has any cool cabinet position things left to fill? It would be totally cool if I could be like Secretary of War or something awesome like that!!!! lol!!!

/ridiculous

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: winnar111

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."

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.

You mean because its both bad form and bad policy to badmouth your incoming boss? Yeah, current CIA officials are going to shut their mouths.

Is this culture of the CIA the culture that wants success and results without being tossed around like a political football or shut off in a corner?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From LL, part of a really solid post-

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 ?

Well, he did characterize dealing with OBL and AlQ as "swatting at flies"...

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.

They were so busy working on it that the antiterrorism task force didn't hold a single meeting in the 8 months leading up to 9/11. Sounds like they were really sweating it.

 

[brxndxn]

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

Fully agree...

If anything, the US Intelligence has been a complete failure under Bush.. First they couldn't prevent the largest attack on US soil.. Second.. they couldn't tell us whether or not Iraq had WMD.. Third, they're annoying the living piss out of the American people by crapping all over civil liberties..

To pick anyone with 'intelligence experience' is to pick someone that contributed to the complete and utter embarassment that 'government intelligence' has become..

Perhaps new leadership at the top could better be formed with 'outsiders' anyway.. across all areas of government. Maybe an outside would be appalled at the disregard our own 'intelligence' (which happens to trickle down all the way to the citizens through the police force) shows for individual rights.

Good for Obama.. Anyone leader he changes in government is a good move, imo.. Because the vast majority of them are awful.

 

[Lemon law]

Take heart all you righty tighties, the same questions you ask will be asked in Panetta's confirmation hearings, and if either the Senate oversight committee dealing with intelligence matters regarding the Panetta choice agrees with you, his nomination will fail. And then Panetta will have to achieve a vote of 50 or more Senators to meet the official Senate advice and consent clause to be elevated to the position if he gets the committee approval.

The US Senate will be the deciders here, Panetta will have no problem finding many CIA insiders to bring him up to speed, and since the GOP forgot to win POTUS in 2008, the appointment is an Obama call.
The Senate confirmation is a joint US Senate call, and history and results will be the judge of how well Panetta does if he gets the job.

As for quite a few insiders in the CIA, they are probably a hoping they get a Pardon from GWB, because many of them probably belong in jail, and their actions have done tremendous damage to the USA because they motivated so many terrorists and advocated so much national stupidity.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

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

Fully agree...

If anything, the US Intelligence has been a complete failure under Bush.. First they couldn't prevent the largest attack on US soil.. Second.. they couldn't tell us whether or not Iraq had WMD.. Third, they're annoying the living piss out of the American people by crapping all over civil liberties..

To pick anyone with 'intelligence experience' is to pick someone that contributed to the complete and utter embarassment that 'government intelligence' has become..

Perhaps new leadership at the top could better be formed with 'outsiders' anyway.. across all areas of government. Maybe an outside would be appalled at the disregard our own 'intelligence' (which happens to trickle down all the way to the citizens through the police force) shows for individual rights.

Good for Obama.. Anyone leader he changes in government is a good move, imo.. Because the vast majority of them are awful.

Yes, nice thinking, mate!

The problems I have with government are too numerous to detail here, but a few of the biggies are:

1. Outsiders quickly become insiders and become poisoned by the same 'virus' that is infecting everyone else in the agency;

2. Our Congress doesn't read legislation, yet it votes on it based almost solely on whether it is politically expedient to do so. Who read all the Patriot Act before it was voted on? Uh, would you believe ZERO congressmen/women? Who read the NIE in its entirety before the vote authorizing Bush to engage in war? A few Senators. How many Congressmen understood what Paulson was doing with the bailouts? How many of them actually read the full legislation? (Over 100 pages, and I read all of them!) Simply put, our legislators are swanning around in limos and chauffered cars, attending parties, pressing the flesh of rich constituents, but they don't have to time to think about and read what matters most for our country-the legislation they vote on!

3. Our Congress and President are some of the LEAST creative people on the planet. Yet, we need creative government, and badly. The people we do have in government are, by and large, people we don't want in government. I want to be a software engineer, so should I 'run' for the job? LOL! Imagine Robert's Word!! That's the kind of government we have!!! And this problem is endemic to the human race. THE WORST PEOPLE ARE IN GOVERNMENT.

I have absolutely no faith in government at this stage in my life, but we must rely upon the best of the worst to not fuck up too badly. As the comic said: "What a revoltin' development."

Obama comes from the same JELLO MOLD that made GWB. His maker used a few different ingredients, but he's still JELLO. I wish him well, but expect him to be just as flaccid as the rest of the bastards. Please, Barack, prove me wrong.

-Robert

 

[OrByte]

Leon Panetta is anything BUT an outsider.

He has been in Washington since the late 70s.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: BigJelly

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

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.

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!!

The CIA doesn't need integrity, their job is to protect the citizens of America...PERIOD.

Wow, Panetta sounds like a great guy lets just ignore his lack of intelligence experiance and put him in. You know experiance is over rated anyway :roll: Now if you want change, change, change, you'll get it with an unqualified CIA director. But given our security they provide over the last 6.5 years, I'll take the job the CIA gave us--but then again I value my life.

Note that NO ONE rebuted the most important point that I made in response to needing an outsider: "We have not been attacked on our soil since 9/11"

Act like a child and insert personal attack on JEDIYoda to close post here

 

[Zebo]

Cant do worse than Tenent - but that said this is Black Bush we are talking about and like Bush he has no problem appointing someone with zero experience at an agency to head said agency.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Note that NO ONE rebuted the most important point that I made in response to needing an outsider: "We have not been attacked on our soil since 9/11"

That is because it is a stupid point/argument. Confusing correlation and causation.

You are assuming that we haven't been attacked on our soil since 9/11 because we had an "experienced" administration running our government/CIA offices. When in fact, a great number of things could actually be the root cause as to why there have been no attacks on our soil since 9/11. Unless you are able to back up your point....?

Your point doesn't make that much sense now does it?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Cant do worse than Tenent - but that said this is Black Bush we are talking about and like Bush he has no problem appointing someone with zero experience at an agency to head said agency.

Tenet was appointed by Clinton.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: BigJelly

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

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.

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!!

The CIA doesn't need integrity, their job is to protect the citizens of America...PERIOD.

Wow, Panetta sounds like a great guy lets just ignore his lack of intelligence experiance and put him in. You know experiance is over rated anyway :roll: Now if you want change, change, change, you'll get it with an unqualified CIA director. But given our security they provide over the last 6.5 years, I'll take the job the CIA gave us--but then again I value my life.

Note that NO ONE rebuted the most important point that I made in response to needing an outsider: "We have not been attacked on our soil since 9/11" -- that is one of the most idiotic arguments! sheese......



Act like a child and insert personal attack on JEDIYoda to close post here

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[DealMonkey]

1.) Obama hasn't officially nominated Leon Panetta yet.
2.) Anyone who has intelligence/CIA experience has been tainted by W's retarded policies regarding torture, rendition, etc., and therefore would make an unacceptable candidate. Who else is there?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
1.) Obama hasn't officially nominated Leon Panetta yet.
2.) Anyone who has intelligence/CIA experience has been tainted by W's retarded policies regarding torture, rendition, etc., and therefore would make an unacceptable candidate. Who else is there?

I'd ask William Cohen if he were interested in the position. He'd probably refuse, but it would be worth a shot.

It would be a step down, but there is also Robert Gates, who is pretty much apolitical.

There are other good options. I don't think Panetta is the best choice, however his appointment isn't instant disaster as some would seem to hope for.

 

[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.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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?

Political filtering is a choice. It's not as if political people are incapable of passing along info without adding a political filter. They can add one or not.

It's really not that complicated. If you want to see political, look at the Bush administration trying to force the CIA to say Iraq had WMD. Barak can ask for accurate info.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: palehorse

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 do you guys think?

/discuss

I think that made me laugh.

but It's Change you wanted...

I don't see change I see the past...

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
1.) Obama hasn't officially nominated Leon Panetta yet.
2.) Anyone who has intelligence/CIA experience has been tainted by W's retarded policies regarding torture, rendition, etc., and therefore would make an unacceptable candidate. Who else is there?

Exactly!! Panetta has name and integrity recognition!!