Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/05/panetta.cia/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...dex.html</a> He's picked Leon Panetta, who was Clinton's Chief of Staff at one time, an eight term Congressman before that, and the head of the Budget Office for a time as well. No intelligence experience at all, and that's what is so puzzling. Some Democratic senators are already registering their displeasure (Dianne Feinstein, head of the Intelligence Committee), not so much at Panetta the person but for his lack of expertise in the area. At the outset here, this would appear to be one of Obama's first missteps. (The other arguably is Bill Richardson, unless no one knew about that probe until now.) The only way Panetta makes sense is as a caretaker until someone else comes along, but to start off that way, what with all that is going on in the world right now, doesn't make much sense. It will be interesting to see how this is explained. Obama will take some heat, and rightfully so.
Originally Posted By Mr X I would think that being a White House chief of staff alone would count towards "intelligence experience", wouldn't it? Isn't that sometimes referred to as "the second most powerful position in Washington"?
Originally Posted By markymouse Its not unheard of a non-specialist to be brought into a situation because of their management skills. I've read that Chief Justices aren't always the strongest jurists, but instead someone who can direct the court as a leader. I think that is what is going on here. Choosing someone from the intelligence community, especially someone who has been involved in the past eight years, would be too much business as usual. Bringing in a critic or reformer would be too anti-CIA (see where that got Jimmy Carter). So they're bringing in an outside who won't shake things up as bring a focus on accountability and professionalism. I think I can see the reasoning behind the choice. But my first reaction was a definite "what the?"
Originally Posted By Mr X I'm starting to like this choice..a lot. ***Panetta spoke out against distortion of intelligence and use of torture in an editorial on "fear tactics" last March. Fear exacts a terrible toll on our democracy. Five years ago, America went to war in Iraq over the false fear that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Even though we now know that there were intelligence officials who questioned the assertion, few leaders were willing to challenge this argument for war because they knew it might undermine public support for the president's decision to invade Iraq. More recently, President Bush vetoed a law that would require the CIA and all the intelligence services to abide by the same rules on torture as contained in the U.S. Army Field Manual.*** <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/05/leon-panetta-obamas-cia-d_n_155338.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...338.html</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I would think that being a White House chief of staff alone would count towards "intelligence experience", wouldn't it?" In and of itself, not even close. There's some intel that is so sensitive it's on a very strict need to know, and that often does not include the Chief of Staff. It's one thing to possibly ear briefings (it's my understanding the daily security briefing from CIA to POTUS is usually just those two people) and quite another to direct the agency itself. Good management skills or not, he's got to know more than a little bit about the CIA. Whether he does or not is up for debate.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, that's certainly understandable. But on the other hand, what you seem to be suggesting is that no-one but a high-up insider within the agency itself (or similar) would qualify. That certainly narrows the field an awful lot, and most of THOSE folks are deeply embroiled in Bush's tainted and questionable policies I would think.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "But on the other hand, what you seem to be suggesting is that no-one but a high-up insider within the agency itself (or similar) would qualify." And therein lies the rub. While someone with Bush ties would not represent "change", you still need someone who knows where the restroom is, so to speak. Whether that's someone from previous Democratic administrations or someone like Panetta, who knows? Obama has already kept gates as Sec Def, which makes the choice of Panetta all the more curious.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Time will tell. I will say that I hold Leon Panetta in high esteem and think he's trustworthy and has demonstrated his integrity over his long career. Since we never really know what these spooks are up to at any given time, we have to operate on trust and whatever track record the director may have built up throughout their time in politics. I also tend to trust Feinstein and if she's opposed then there may be reason for concern. Panetta and Feinstein have been colleagues for decades now - she's from SF and he's from nearby Monterey. She wouldn't be speaking out against him out of partisanship or bad blood. We'll see.
Originally Posted By Mr X That's a ******* excellent point. Everyone is so worried about the credentials of the CIA chief and what it means. What about the credentials of the idiot that was elected twice and was in charge of defending the country (and failing, resulting in the deaths of thousands...and then ripping apart the constitution, invading other countries, destroying our international reputation, torturing, etc...)? Would CIA chief Panetta be worse than HIM? I think not. But let's give him crap about not knowing where the bathrooms are, shall we?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "But let's give him crap about not knowing where the bathrooms are, shall we?" Back off, cowboy. All I've said is this is a curious choice, and we'll have to see how this plays out. Obama will rightfully take some heat on this because up until now, Panetta has had zero practical experience in this area, especially running the organization. Comparing him to Bush is apples and oranges. Panetta might very well turn out fine, but there's noting on his resume right now to strongly support that notion.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Wasn't the battle cry to make sure we get better information that we got before the gulf war on WMD. Yep- someone with no experience here is an issue inmy opinion also. We already have a president elect with little experience in most things - but I have a better feeling about that role as a 'general manager' - thana guy running the CIA whose opinion can be the difference between another WMD witch hunt or not. Sorry, this is a bad choice.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Back off, cowboy. All I've said is this is a curious choice, and we'll have to see how this plays out. Obama will rightfully take some heat on this because up until now, Panetta has had zero practical experience in this area, especially running the organization. Comparing him to Bush is apples and oranges. Panetta might very well turn out fine, but there's noting on his resume right now to strongly support that notion.< this ispart of the issue - if anyone brings up the fact that Obama's every word may not be perfect or gospel- or that God help us the man might make a mistake- we're back to Bush bashing. Sorry, questioning an appointment made by Obama is not heresy for Christ sake ...members of his own party are doing the same today. The man is human - he is going to make some mistakes - some obviously won't be able to deal with that without a reference to W or Rove or neocon's or whatever.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Wasn't the battle cry to make sure we get better information that we got before the gulf war on WMD. Yep- someone with no experience here is an issue inmy opinion also.<< No, it was that the Bush administration was determined to see the intel a certain way, so that no matter what we were going to war with Iraq. Don't forget Dick "So What" Cheney's response when asked if we'd still go to Iraq without WMDs. The Panetta pick is important for more than just intelligence experience. It's a clear repudiation of the appalling tactics used under the Bush administration. Panetta's a quick learner and an intelligent person. He'll essentially be a manager to people who have been in the CIA for a long time. I do understand why some eyebrows are raised, since he does have no experience with the CIA, but I'm not too concerned.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>this ispart of the issue - if anyone brings up the fact that Obama's every word may not be perfect or gospel<< Wow, we're still on this issue? Seriously? No one's said Obama's word is gospel or perfect. On the flip side, there seem to be people determined to find fault anywhere they can find it. That's fine I suppose, if people just have high standards. But what's appalling is that most of the people finding fault have been quick to excuse or defend the Bush administration. They've reluctantly agreed that he's been bad for the country, but they'll still occasionally pop up to defend him when certain issues arise. After 8 years of total incompetence, inept leadership, the fact that Obama's from Illinois and picked Leon Panetta is trumpeted as real concerns. It's a total joke and sadly, exposes people's true colors and their total unwillingness to give the new President a chance, despite their lip service insisting their doing just that.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I think maybe some here are being a bit too sensitive about this. No one's saying Panetta is sure to bomb and no one is knocking him in general, or his integrity, or anything like that. It's just that for a job like the CIA, what's he done top show he can run the place? That's all that's being said here. And to bring up Bush is really irrelevant. Move on and away from that already. Obama's going to get criticized from all sides. Let's just all agree on that.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Wow, we're still on this issue? Seriously? No one's said Obama's word is gospel or perfect. < yeah, we're still on this for good reason - some who criticized people for supporting Bush in anything also areguilty of doing the same for Obama now. With very few exceptions here most of us moved on long ago in this issue. I have been critical of somethings and complimentary of others Obama has done.I think he has been infused with a huge doseof reality in the last 30 days and is making decisions based onthat vs. campaign rhetoric- and glad to see that. This is a curious choice to be sure.IfBush would have picked someone with this level ofbackground- the comments would have been about how he'd fit right in with those who know nothing - let's be honest here. If Obama had chosen Bugs Bunny,there would be some defense here about how maybe his large ears would hear at a further distance. It just appears to me to be a double standard. It just appears to me,andmany others across the board - that after the huge lapse in info on the gulf war- we would have chosen someone with much more insight and experience here.
Originally Posted By gadzuux The 'lapse of info' on WMD wasn't that huge - it was suppressed. As we should all know by know, the invasion of iraq was never about WMDs - they just exploited that as a rallying cry. Meanwhile hans blix was saying all along that there was no evidence to be found, the claims were doubtful, and that he was mere weeks away from conclusively determining that it wasn't true. That's why bush yanked him outta there. Even at the time, british intelligence was publicly saying that the bush administration was "fixing the intelligence" around the agenda. And at the time, then CIA director george tenet was doing everything he could to get bush to pay attention to al qaeda and bin laden - to no avail. So it's wildly revisionist - and conveniently self-serving to their current efforts to reshape bush's "legacy" - for the bushies to come back years later and try and fob the entire boondoggle off as "bad intel". But some people will buy into it anyway. The problem was in the white house, not the CIA. As to people defending obama, I'm as big a supporter as they come, and I posted earlier that although I have high regard for leon panetta generally, this may be a cause for some concern.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <So it's wildly revisionist - and conveniently self-serving to their current efforts to reshape bush's "legacy" - for the bushies to come back years later and try and fob the entire boondoggle off as "bad intel". But some people will buy into it anyway. The problem was in the white house, not the CIA. < was the problem in the Kremlin also - Putin had the exact same info - so who's revisionalist ? I could give a rat's behind about Bush's legacy.....you seem for more concerned with it...his time is up - history will judge over time- and whatever that is - it is. With the possible exception of 1 poster - does anyone here really care- except those who want to ensure it is horrid ? Ifitis horrid,and deserves to be- so be it.
