Obama picks Leon Panetta to head CIA

[BMT (RIP)]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95H6QJ00&show_article=1


BMT

[Team Sergeant]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95H6QJ00&show_article=1


BMT

Brilliant, this will be the second obama pick I know of where the individual has zero experience for the position he/she was selected.

Should be very amusing the next few years.

Team Sergeant

[The Reaper]

Klinton White House strikes again.

What job will Sandy Berger have, classified documents custodian?

TR

[zuluzerosix]

Brilliant, this will be the second obama pick I know of where the individual has zero experience for the position he/she was selected.

Should be very amusing the next few years.

Team Sergeant

Well...Maybe he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express recently...That should be good enough for the Obama Team; right?

[rubberneck]

What an incredibly stupid and reckless decision. To nominate an appointee with zero relevant work experience to run the CIA during a time of war is like appointing asking a dentist to run the Treasury department during a severe economic crisis. If Panetta had a single ounce of integrity he would politely refuse the appointment citing his glaring lack of any experience.

[f50lrrp]

Leon Panetta is a very moral individual with tons of government experience!

He started off working for the Government under Reagan and Bush (Senior) After he became a deputy district attorney with the Monterey County D.A.'s Office and then went into private practice. He ran against a strong Republican for a Congressional seat and beat him out. Three terms later, Bill Clinton won the Presidentcy and selected Panetta to be his Chief of Staff. Leon resigned his post a couple of years later, just before the Monica L. scandals.

He and his wife established an Institute at CSUMB and he spends most of his time running it.

Leon Panetta may be a Democrat, but he worked for two different Republican Administrations. He has Leadership and guts...He won't fail as Director of the CIA.

[The Reaper]

Leon Panetta is a very moral individual with tons of government experience!

He started off working for the Government under Reagan and Bush (Senior) After he became a deputy district attorney with the Monterey County D.A.'s Office and then went into private practice. He ran against a strong Republican for a Congressional seat and beat him out. Three terms later, Bill Clinton won the Presidentcy and selected Panetta to be his Chief of Staff. Leon resigned his post a couple of years later, just before the Monica L. scandals.

He and his wife established an Institute at CSUMB and he spends most of his time running it.

Leon Panetta may be a Democrat, but he worked for two different Republican Administrations. He has Leadership and guts...He won't fail as Director of the CIA.


What experience does he have with intelligence operations?

TR

[KW9598]

Intelligence? Oh yea, thats the second word in CIA
Good Times article from today:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/panetta-to-be-named-cia-director/

[olhamada]

Brilliant, this will be the second obama pick I know of where the individual has zero experience for the position he/she was selected.

Should be very amusing the next few years.

Team Sergeant

Not counting Obama, of course.

[Penn]

One word: Sabotage

I hate this nomination, its stupid and counterproductive. A party hack who must have been owed big time.

[KW9598]

George HW Bush's intel experience prior to being appointed DCI by Pres. Ford:
. 3 years in the USN (R)
. 14 months in China as the Chief of the US Liaison Office in the People's Republic of China.
. 355 days in office at the Agency

[mcarey]

Leon Panetta is a very moral individual with tons of government experience!

He started off working for the Government under Reagan and Bush (Senior) After he became a deputy district attorney with the Monterey County D.A.'s Office and then went into private practice. He ran against a strong Republican for a Congressional seat and beat him out. Three terms later, Bill Clinton won the Presidentcy and selected Panetta to be his Chief of Staff. Leon resigned his post a couple of years later, just before the Monica L. scandals.

He and his wife established an Institute at CSUMB and he spends most of his time running it.

Leon Panetta may be a Democrat, but he worked for two different Republican Administrations. He has Leadership and guts...He won't fail as Director of the CIA.

How, exactly, is any of the background you outlined support his being selected as director of the CIA? He has no (ZERO) intelligence or covert operational experience. He wouldn't know the difference between information, rumor or intelligence. He even lackks budgeting and management experience! The CIA is an agency that deserves good leadership, not political officers with poor management skills. :eek:

[Roguish Lawyer]

I don't think you guys get it. Panetta's instructions will not be to improve the gathering or analysis of intelligence or the efficacy of covert and clandestine operations. He'll be tasked with making sure this terrible, terrible agency respects human rights and the rights of the accused. Obama supporters hate the CIA and everything it stands for -- Panetta's job will be to "reform" it.

[KW9598]

Conversely, shouldn't we as a country be concerned with human rights? Would we not want/demand the same from other countries that might have control of our citizens and soldiers? Think for a moment what the reaction/retaliatioin would have been if it would have been Americans with underwear over their heads, waterboarded, etc.

[Sigaba]

It seems that the president-elect believes that managing one shop in the executive branch is much like managing another shop. I respectfully disagree with this assumption.

Although I'm far from pleased with the selection of Panetta because the country is at war and he has no experience in the field, the selection could end up being okay if Panetta's deputies are seasoned and trustworthy professionals who will not exploit his inexperience. :eek: I really would have preferred a more experienced person getting this position.

There's a transcript of an interview Panetta did for PBS's Frontline here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/interviews/panetta.html). For what it is worth, the transcript provides some insight into how Panetta conceptualized one of the toughest jobs in Washington: chief of staff to the president.

[Q:] So were you tough as hell? What did you do to clean up what sounded to you like a pretty loose shop?

The best thing I did was to really try to focus on three problems that I thought needed to be addressed. One was the problem of organization within the White House. There really was no organization chart, which is basic to any a staff operation, or a corporation, or business. You've got to have at least a chart that describes the basic stuff I learned in the army -- here is the boss, here's the second in command, and under them are certain people.

So I had to establish an organization chart that . . . that there was a chain of command in the White House, that it wasn't just a case of anybody wanting to wander in and talk to the president, but that they'd have to go through a chain of command. So that was number one.

Number two was better discipline within the place, because there was a tendency for people just to wander and walk into meetings. You'd suddenly wind up on Air Force One with a lot of people that had no business being on Air Force One going to different events. So we clearly limited that. I said, "I will approve who goes on Air Force One with the president. I will determine who sits in those meetings in the Oval Office, so that we don't have people coming out of the wall sitting there, and those meetings are tight and organized. If there is a briefing to be presented to the president, I want to go over that briefing first, to make sure that it's structured when it's presented to the president."

And then, thirdly, it was focus, because there were so many things happening that it was pretty clear that the president really needed to have clear focus. If there is an event, say, an education event, you don't combine it with an event on crime, or an event on research and development, or an event on something else on the same day. So we set up a scheduling operation with the help of my deputies, to set up a scheduling operation that looked at the next three months. I could not have done it alone. I had a lot of cooperation, obviously, from the president, as well as from my deputies and other members of the staff.

And the other thing that I had to look at was the staff itself. The president kind of said to me, "Look, you've got to just clean house with some of these people." I said, "Whoa. I'm just walking in. Let me get a few months to see what they're like and what they can do." And, frankly, I found that a lot of them were actually pretty good people with a lot of experience and a lot of commitment. But what they didn't have was the structure to work within. They just did not know what the process was like.

And so that helped a great deal. There were some personnel changes that we made as well to try to improve the operation, to bring a little more people of experience into the White House with a so-called "grownup factor," to make sure that we had more people that could basically provide the kind of experience that was needed in those jobs.

[Paslode]

Panetta might end up being good fall guy should we have another 'lapse' in intelligence that results in carnage on US soil.

Just a thought.

[zuluzerosix]

What experience does he have with intelligence operations?

TR


Sir, one would think that folks with experience in intelligence operations would be the ideal source for someone like the POTUS-Elect to go to for advise on potential candidates to run our intel gathering agency.

I guess it just doesn't work that way.

[The Reaper]

Conversely, shouldn't we as a country be concerned with human rights? Would we not want/demand the same from other countries that might have control of our citizens and soldiers? Think for a moment what the reaction/retaliatioin would have been if it would have been Americans with underwear over their heads, waterboarded, etc.

On the contrary. I think we are overly concerned with the rights of these stateless terrorists.

You take up arms against the US, and kill soldiers, you should die.

I am sure that any number of Americans who have been captured or taken hostage by the AQ, Taliban, or various and sundry militias, cults, etc. would be more then happy to have been humiliated by fraternity pranks, or even waterboarding, rather than the horrific way they were tortured (real torture, with permanent physical injury, not "humiliation") and murdered. Forcing someone to stay in stress positions hardly compares to sawing off someone's head with a dull knife on camera now, does it?

IMHO, if you do not have a uniform, leadership, or adhere to the Conventions in your treatment of US and allied POWs, you have no rights, period. You could be interrogated, killed, and your remains fed to the hogs. It would not bother me in the least.

If you want to be treated as if you have rights, follow the rules yourself first.

TR

[Sigaba]

Said one observer of the selection:

“My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time.”

The source (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/panetta-to-be-named-cia-director/?hp)? Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the chairperson of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The New York Times on line version reports (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/panetta-to-be-named-cia-director/?hp):

Senator Feinstein said that she had not been notified by Mr. Obama’s transition team about the selection.


I believe the president-elect made a mistake not to consult with Senator Feinstein on this selection.

[Dozer523]

Number one. The problem of organization . . . the basic stuff I learned in the army -- here is the boss, here's the second in command, and under them are certain people. . . . that there was a chain of command . . . . . . that there was a chain of command That sounds pretty good to me. But so does a 24/4 ParTee in DeeCee!
Number two was better discipline . . . tendency for people just to wander and walk, . . . and those meetings are tight and organized. If there is a briefing to be presented to the president, I want to go over that briefing first, to make sure that it's structured when it's presented to the president." That sounds pretty good to me. But so does a 24/4 ParTee in DeeCee!
Thirdly, it was focus, because there were so many things happening that it was pretty clear that the president really needed to have clear focus. . . .We set up a scheduling operation . . . That sounds pretty good to me. But so does a 24/4 ParTee in DeeCee!
Fourth. I could not have done it alone. I had a lot of cooperation, obviously, from the president, as well as from my deputies and other members of the staff. That sounds pretty good to me. But so does a 24/4 ParTee in DeeCee!
Fifth, frankly, I found that a lot of them were actually pretty good people with a lot of experience and a lot of commitment. But what they didn't have was the structure to work within. They just did not know what the process was like. That sounds pretty good to me. But so does a 24/4 ParTee in DeeCee!

I'd be worried if he was talking about how he was going to run black ops.

[Sigaba]

Number one. That sounds pretty good to me. But so does a 24/4 ParTee in DeeCee!
Number two That sounds pretty good to me. But so does a 24/4 ParTee in DeeCee!
Thirdly That sounds pretty good to me. But so does a 24/4 ParTee in DeeCee!
Fourth. That sounds pretty good to me. But so does a 24/4 ParTee in DeeCee!
Fifth, That sounds pretty good to me. But so does a 24/4 ParTee in DeeCee!
.

Sir, I take it you'll be in DeeCee for a 24/4 ParTee?:)

[tst43]

On the contrary. I think we are overly concerned with the rights of these stateless terrorists.

You take up arms against the US, and kill soldiers, you should die.

I am sure that any number of Americans who have been captured or taken hostage by the AQ, Taliban, or various and sundry militias, cults, etc. would be more then happy to have been humiliated by fraternity pranks, or even waterboarding, rather than the horrific way they were tortured (real torture, with permanent physical injury, not "humiliation") and murdered. Forcing someone to stay in stress positions hardly compares to sawing off someone's head with a dull knife on camera now, does it?

IMHO, if you do not have a uniform, leadership, or adhere to the Conventions in your treatment of US and allied POWs, you have no rights, period. You could be interrogated, killed, and your remains fed to the hogs. It would not bother me in the least.

If you want to be treated as if you have rights, follow the rules yourself first.

TR


Well said, sir, well said. Those that cry for due process should first try dispensing a little.

[Team Sergeant]

I believe the president-elect made a mistake not to consult with Senator Feinstein on this selection.

I disagree, not consulting with Feinstein might be the smartest thing Obama has done yet.;)


Something the media will soon be reporting, resignations. I see a few big ones on the horizon, Homeland Security and the CIA.

[Ret10Echo]

Something the media will soon be reporting, resignations. I see a few big ones on the horizon, Homeland Security ......


So we get to give Janet back...???? :D

[Dozer523]

Sir, I take it you'll be in DeeCee for a 24/4 ParTee?:)

Yeah, actually. My 15 year old Obama-fan is begging me to take her to the Inauguration. we will watch it from the Mall . . . With luck we can stand near the Smithsonian! Or the Lincoln Memorial. Oh well, she was "involved" and I guess I have to understand. . . I was a big McGovern fan at her age:eek:
It will be a good excuse to see an old buddy and renew our annual roadtrip. Oh MY GOSH! I forgot . . . She has her learner's permit.:eek::eek: . . . She will want to drive on the Interstate!
Better dig the St Christopher and St Michael holy medals from the deployment box. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh dear. . .

[Guy]

Keep your enemies CLOSER!

"I'd hire every person with, the potential too run for POTUS in 2012 also...":lifter

I think Bill Richardson may have caught on...:munchin

Stay safe.

[BMT (RIP)]

Look's like there might be trouble in paradise!! :D


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-cia-panetta6-2009jan06,0,5514283.story

BMT

[kellyeod]

What experience does he have with intelligence operations?

TR

Maybe Pres. Obama sees Leon as a balance to his National Intelligence Director who is OVERLY qualified? Other than that I am failing to see the benefit Leon's leadership will bring to the most critical Agency in our government.

[Team Sergeant]

Maybe Pres. Obama sees Leon as a balance to his National Intelligence Director who is OVERLY qualified? Other than that I am failing to see the benefit Leon's leadership will bring to the most critical Agency in our government.

You're kidding right? You ever read material from or worked with the CIA? :rolleyes:

The CIA didn't even know Kuwait was about to be invaded by the 4th largest military in the world until it happened.

Do you remember who caught Saddam and where the intel came from, an Army Maj.

The most critical department in our government has recently failed and this failure will cost the American people Trillions. There is not an enemy out there that could ask for more.

[The Reaper]

I would expect Panetta to introduce a "kinder, gentler" CIA which is not allowed to aggressively interrogate captured terrorists.

This policy can be expected to last until a terrorist group again manages to kill several thousand Americans, at which point the American people will ask why we are treating those who operate without rules or compassion for anyone with kid gloves and giving them lawyers and access to the American court system, which releases them from interrogation and detention.

TR

[Defender968]

Maybe Pres. Obama sees Leon as a balance to his National Intelligence Director who is OVERLY qualified? Other than that I am failing to see the benefit Leon's leadership will bring to the most critical Agency in our government.

Balance??? I'm not following your logic, that's like saying well your company’s board of directors is really, really good so we're going to hire a 3rd grader to be the president and run the company? Where else in the world besides DC does that happen?

Bottom line is the guy is a political hack, he has a sum total of 0 qualifications to be running the CIA, least of all while we are a country at war and will be for the foreseeable future as others have said. As we speak there are people in this country and in foreign lands seeking our destruction and the CIA is part of the shield that is supposed to keep that from happening, why on earth would anyone in their right mind cripple such an important agency by putting someone with NO experience in charge. At best this is irresponsible and shows a complete lack of good judgment by B0 at worst it is a power play that has some scary implications for our country long term. :mad:

Let's look at this from a different angle, say you have a life threatening medical condition that requires surgery, you have a great team of doctors who are going to take care of you and perform the surgery, under B0's CIA theory, that team of doctors would be lead by a Golf pro, who would have the ultimate say on how your care and the surgery was carried out, would you let them go through with the surgery under those conditions?

[Surf n Turf]

I have to believe that Dulles, Helms, Colby, and Casey are spinning in their graves, with the apparent appointment of Leon Panetta to become DCI.

Regardless of opinions of the Agency, it is our Central collection and analysis point for Foreign Intel.
Bringing in any amateur as DCI is not only stupid, but is a threat to our national security.
Additionally, the Director of National Intel is both redundant and counterproductive – In 1946, The DCI was designated to coordinate all intelligence activities among and between the entire United States intelligence community. If the DCI isn’t up to the job, FIRE HIM, and get someone who can do the job.

That being said, speaking only as an informed citizen, I can make these observations
Is the collection as good as it can be – probably not.
Is the analysis worth what we pay for – absolutely NOT.
Is the action we take on intel timely, appropriate, and effective – No

Does the entire Intel community need to be reviewed / revamped – In some areas definitely. In some other areas, I understand we are doing a pretty good job.
The internecine warfare has got to stop – but not necessarily the competition.
Roles have to be sorted out, and fiefdoms eliminated – both within the main Intel participants, and their associated departments.

But someone who has no grounding in the community cannot accomplish this.
DCI is not a position where “On the job” training will suffice.

SnT

[alright4u]

Brilliant, this will be the second obama pick I know of where the individual has zero experience for the position he/she was selected.

Should be very amusing the next few years.

Team Sergeant

This jerk does not even know what F6 Intel is.

[Razor]

Do you remember who caught Saddam and where the intel came from...

Yep, SSG Eric Maddox--just ask him. :rolleyes:

[Longstreet]

IMHO, if you do not have a uniform, leadership, or adhere to the Conventions in your treatment of US and allied POWs, you have no rights, period. You could be interrogated, killed, and your remains fed to the hogs. It would not bother me in the least.

If you want to be treated as if you have rights, follow the rules yourself first.

For some time I have considered how to deal with enemy insurgents. I do not like the idea of just killing anyone who looks like one as I fear it will be self defeating and will only lower us to 'their' level; however I do not agree that such people should be treated with the same 'honour' or rights that previous enemy soldiers were shown. TR, after reading your 'qualifiers' of what makes you nothing more than an armed scumbag, I think the rules of battle need to be modified.

[Sigaba]

George HW Bush's intel experience prior to being appointed DCI by Pres. Ford:
. 3 years in the USN (R)
. 14 months in China as the Chief of the US Liaison Office in the People's Republic of China.
. 355 days in office at the Agency

Conversely, shouldn't we as a country be concerned with human rights? Would we not want/demand the same from other countries that might have control of our citizens and soldiers? Think for a moment what the reaction/retaliatioin would have been if it would have been Americans with underwear over their heads, waterboarded, etc.

Sir--

Your points are well taken. With respect, I would suggest that there are at least three key differences between Bush the Elder's appointment as DCI and Panetta's.

First, Bush the Elder's work in the PRC came after he had served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Both posts at least got the man's feet wet in issues of national security policy. By way of contrast, Panetta's national security policy experience is limited to his tenure as President Clinton's chief of staff and his work for the Iraq Study Group. While I'd not go so far as to suggest to say that these experiences are negligible, I do not believe that they are sufficient to prepare him for the job. If Panetta is tasked to curtail all the activities that you and others find objectionable, will he have the expertise to know what and who to ask to make sure the job is done? Metaphorically, will he have any idea where the bodies are buried?

Second, Bush the Elder's tenure as DCI came during an interval in which Congress and President Ford were intent on checking the CIA's activities. <LINK> (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/agency-and-the-hill/04-The%20Agency%20and%20the%20Hill_PartI-Chapter1.pdf) This bipartisan environment for reform of the intelligence community was significantly different than today's. Then, the aftermath of Watergate and spirit of detente could justify politically (if not excuse strategically) a decline in the CIA's vigilance. (IMHO, the declassified NIE's I've seen from this time period paint the Soviet's as more amiable than they actually were.*)

A third reason is speculation on my part. As the late Robin W. Winks, a historian, pointed out in Cloak and Gown (http://www.amazon.com/Cloak-Gown-Scholars-Secret-1939-1961/dp/0300065248/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231284499&sr=8-1), Yale University was a popular recruiting ground for the CIA. I would not at all be surprised if it turns out that Bush the Elder's tenure as DCI was not the first time he worked for the agency.:munchin

_________________________________
* For example, National Archives RG263 Records of the Central Intelligence Agency, National Intelligence Estimates Involving the Soviet Union, Second Set, Box 6, Fldr 36, NIE 9 October 1975, “The Soviet Assessment of the U.S.” This document is available at NARA II (http://www.archives.gov/dc-metro/college-park/).

[Team Sergeant]

It would be refreshing to see some humility in DC for once. If you lack the knowledge and experience, even if appointed, VW.

Howard,

Go here now:

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3452

When you're done reading comply with the rules. This is not a request.

Team Sergeant

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

Great reading so far. This is not just the second 0 qualified person. But just remember "We can" and "Change, change, change".
No shit, Blitzzz

[Box]

I have a real bad tummy-ache...

[Sigaba]

Transition Team Defends CIA Choice, Reaches Out to Senate Chairwoman
By Matt Korade, CQ Staff <<LINK TO SOURCE (http://tinyurl.com/5u5pyv)>>

The incoming chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee softened her critique of the choice of Leon Panetta to head the CIA after being contacted by President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Now, says Dianne Feinstein , D-Calif., she is looking “forward to speaking with Mr. Panetta about the critical issues facing the intelligence community and his plans to address them.”

On Jan. 5, Feinstein had expressed annoyance at being left out of the loop on the selection and had reiterated her position that “the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time.”

Biden partially echoed Feinstein’s institutional concern. After being sworn in to serve his last few days as Delaware’s senior senator, he told reporters he thought the transition team’s failure to consult Senate Intelligence Committee members was “a mistake.” But he also called Panetta a “strong figure” for the CIA who would “take it on a new path.”

“I’m still a Senate man and I always think this way,” Biden said. “I think it’s always good to talk to the requisite members of Congress.”

Of the transition team’s failing to consult members, Biden said, “I think it was just a mistake.”

Obama, when asked about Panetta’s selection at a news conference Tuesday, stressed Panetta’s “extraordinary management skills, great political savvy, and impeccable record of integrity” as President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, saying the former congressman was “somebody who obviously was fully versed in international affairs, crisis management, and had to evaluate intelligence consistently on a day-to-day basis.”

In the next breath, Obama said he had not made an official announcement about the Panetta pick.

“When we make the announcement, I think what people will see is, is that we are putting together a top-notch intelligence team that is not only going to assure that I get the best possible intelligence unvarnished, that the intelligence community is no longer geared toward telling the president what they think the president wants to hear, but instead are going to be delivering the information that the president needs to make critical decisions to keep the American people safe,” he said.

That intelligence team would be committed to breaking with past practices that had tarnished the image of the intelligence community and U.S. foreign policy, Obama said, but it would do so in a way that would be forward-looking rather than dwelling on the past.
Selling the CIA

Marvin C. Ott, a former CIA official and deputy staff director of the Senate Intelligence Committee who now teaches national security policy at the National War College, said Panetta’s selection surprised most of the people he knew.

But, he added, there was enough controversy swirling around the use of intelligence in the war on terrorism, including the rendition of prisoners to other countries, that Panetta’s choice might be justified.

“What the CIA needs right now, more than anything, is a leader who has credibility in political circles on the Hill and can speak to the general public and to the media in a way that people will find persuasive and believable,” Ott said. “And my impression of Leon Panetta is, he can do those things better than most.”

This included some “fairly rarefied skills” in conveying believability, authenticity, and forthrightness, Ott said. “I think I would have the sense, if I were at the agency, that this is a man who will probably look after his own people, will do his best to protect them, will be concerned about their welfare, will care about the institution. And that’s not bad, either.”

James Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said judgments about Panetta would depend on what the president wants the job to be.

“If you expect the job to be a hands-on manager, somebody who actually is running the show as an operator, then, yeah, you want somebody with experience, and probably about two-thirds to three-quarters of former heads have come from that kind of background,” Lewis said.

“On the other hand, if you want someone who knows what the president wants, who has some credibility with Democrats and who can shield the agency from the pressure it’s going to feel, on that side Panetta isn’t a bad choice.”

Any inexperience would be mollified by strong cooperation with other seasoned security officials, including a director of national intelligence with a military background in Adm. Dennis Blair, and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates , who is a former CIA director himself, Ott said.

Feinstein said in a news release Tuesday that she intended to move quickly to confirm Blair, after an appropriate review of his record and views during open congressional hearings.

Others focused on Panetta’s management experience and time in Congress and the White House, where he regularly was privy to important intelligence matters: “He values excellence, and when combined with a strong operational deputy and leadership staff, he will be able to continue the CIA’s return to pre-eminence,” said Silvestre Reyes , DTexas, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

I had a few minutes to think about this and the realization that I really liked the Pink Panther movies with Peter Seller's playing Inspector Clouseau, so why not Panette as CIA Chief. Blitzzz

Or better yet Erkual (sp) as James Bond. Blitzzz

[BMT (RIP)]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01072009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/an_awful_pick_148973.htm


BMT

[Defender968]

But the president-elect wanted a clean-slate yes-man, not a person of knowledge and integrity.

This was similar to my first thought when I learned of B0's appointment, I might be wearing a tinfoil hat again but it looks like a basic attempt to consolidate power to me, put a yes man in charge so you can do what you want.

Very, very, scary, if you ask me,



I might be paranoid but that doesn't mean they aren't out to get me :cool:

[ksgbobo]

That's a good article BMT, thanks for posting that.

I would like to know what Barack "Apollo" Obama told Feinstein to make her change her mind on Panetta's appointment to become Director of the CIA. Because she did not approve of it at first, and after having talks with Obama, she suddenly approves of it.:rolleyes:

Just lilke what happened yesterday, when Nancy "The Witch" Pelosi was voted again to be the Speaker of the House for the 111th Congress.:mad: One of the Democrats (do not remember which state he was from) did not want to vote for her, and was going to vote "present" as his vote, but instead the Democrats threatened him that they would take away his committee chair spot if he did not vote for Pelosi, or something like that. Its ridiculous, that people have to threaten others to get what they want in the government.

I just wonder what Obama threatened Feinstein with in order for her to change her mind about her opinion on Panetta.:munchin

[Sigaba]

I would like to know what Barack ... Obama told Feinstein to make her change her mind on Panetta's appointment to become Director of the CIA. Because she did not approve of it at first, and after having talks with Obama, she suddenly approves of it.:rolleyes:

I just wonder what Obama threatened Feinstein with in order for her to change her mind about her opinion on Panetta.:munchin

KS--

After reading the article provided by Surf N Turf, below, I'm as curious as you. Democrats have spent much of the last five years complaining about the alleged excesses of an allegedly unchecked executive branch yet at one of their first opportunities to make good on these complaints, they decide to sit on their hands.

I would think, though, that the president-elect used carrots rather than sticks to secure Senator Feinstein's reversal.

[Beerhunter]

(interesting take on this from the private sector)

OBAMA'S CIA DIRECTOR
Imagine the following: You own a sizeable amount of stock in Microsoft. But then Microsoft is bought and taken over by Apple. Apple's boss, Steve Jobs, promises all the Microsoft shareholders that he will take good care of Microsoft and grow it, protect it and thereby protect your interests as a shareholder. But deep down you know that Apple and Jobs have always had it in for their rival Microsoft, so you wonder about the veracity of the promises.
Mr. Jobs then reaches out and hires Amy Winehouse as the new Microsoft CEO. Ms. Winehouse can sing, she can drink, she can do drugs, she's repeatedly said no, no, no to rehab and she can send email, but she has no experience with Microsoft other than owning a computer once.
She does not know the company, its management style, the problems associated with the unique business in which Microsoft competes, nor does she have the education of an engineer or the experience leading a multi-billion dollar corporation as Chief Executive Officer. So...what would you, a shareholder in Microsoft, think after all of this?
Fast-forward to reality - President-elect Obama appointed Leon Panetta as Director of the CIA.
Panetta's qualifications include working as an intelligence officer at one point in his life, right? No. Well then Mr. Panetta has worked at CIA in some capacity, right? No. Okay, then at least he has worked in some part of the intelligence structure for the USA, right? No.
Panetta was a California Democrat in Congress, a lawyer and was Clinton's Chief of Staff for three years and was the Director of the Office for Civil Rights. Oh boy...
Obama's apparent litmus test was not whether a candidate had experience in intelligence matters, but rather whether he or she agreed with how CIA has been fighting the war against terrorism.
In a January 2008 article for Washington Monthly magazine, Panetta expressed his opposition to such methods. Great, then he's qualified for CIA Director.
Oh but wait, Oprah, Madonna, Robert Redford, Hayden Panettiere, Paris Hilton and Arianna Huffington have also opposed fighting terrorism the way CIA has been doing it.
Well perhaps Obama can appoint one of them to the National Security Council - there are a few slots still open I believe. After all, they are apparently as qualified as Panetta to handle intelligence and matters of national security. They oppose counter-terrorism methods other than a couch, a latte' and a friendly set of makeup artists. Perhaps Oprah can conduct the interrogations - I hear she's great at getting people to talk.
On a more serious note, the position of CIA Director is one of critical importance requiring some understanding of how the intelligence community operates how that product is consumed by the President and utilized by the military.
Even liberal California Senator Diane Feinstein sees this as a mistake.
She said via email, "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."
Panetta has never had any experience in the intelligence community and his qualifications are more remote than any other person who has ever held the job.
Leon Panetta is a man of integrity and strong intellect - without question. But the issue isn't whether he's smart, patriotic or honest. The issue is that the CIA post is a tough one and it will probably take him a full year just to find out what's going on in the intelligence community.
For that matter, it will take him half the year just to find his way from Old Headquarters Building (OHB) to New Headquarters Building (NHB).
The bottom line is that as a nation we simply don't have that kind of time to waste when we're in the middle of fighting two wars. Placing someone in that position with no experience is unfair to the American public and as bright as posting Amy Winehouse to oversee Microsoft.

J. SMITH,
CEO

[Surf n Turf]

Hot off the press
Looks like Dianne “changed her mind” – Wow, this is great, after a 20 minute talk he convinces her that he is a good choice.
What would happen if some senior members of this recently gelded organization decided to take early retirement (like the NCS (DDO) or the DDI).:mad:

SnT

WASHINGTON – Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the incoming chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Wednesday she intends to support President-elect Barack Obama's choice for CIA chief, Leon Panetta, despite earlier comments that she had reservations about the choice.

Obama chose Panetta, a former White House chief of staff who has no formal background in the intelligence community, without consulting with Feinstein. Obama later apologized to her for the lapse.

Feinstein said in an interview Wednesday that she spoke with Panetta, a fellow Californian, for about 20 minutes on Tuesday evening and came away reassured.

"I had a good discussion with him. I'm confident that he understands. I am supportive," Feinstein said. "I've known him for 20 years. I know him to be a man of credibility and a man of conscience and a man of talent, and I believe he will surround himself with top-notch staff from the intelligence community."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090108/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_intelligence_21

[LR27]

Whether we like it or not, it appears Obama has chosen Leon Panetta for his judgment, not his experience. This worries me, as Obama seems more occupied with making liberals and the MSM happy, rather than finding someone who is most qualified to protect America.

This is quite contradictory to some of Obama's earlier statements, such as "I will kill bin Laden," and "I approve of more aggressive operations against Pakistan." I don't see how he is going to accomplish this with a reformer in charge of our most important intelligence agency.

The next couple years shall be interesting...

[GratefulCitizen]

B-ho's pick seems like a pre-positioned fall guy.

[alright4u]

Leon Panetta is a very moral individual with tons of government experience!

He started off working for the Government under Reagan and Bush (Senior) After he became a deputy district attorney with the Monterey County D.A.'s Office and then went into private practice. He ran against a strong Republican for a Congressional seat and beat him out. Three terms later, Bill Clinton won the Presidentcy and selected Panetta to be his Chief of Staff. Leon resigned his post a couple of years later, just before the Monica L. scandals.

He and his wife established an Institute at CSUMB and he spends most of his time running it.

Leon Panetta may be a Democrat, but he worked for two different Republican Administrations. He has Leadership and guts...He won't fail as Director of the CIA.

Did you know CPT Beckman?

[The Reaper]

Did you know CPT Beckman?


Take it to PM, please.

TR

[alright4u]

Take it to PM, please.

TR

WILCO.

[civilian]

Leon Panetta is a very moral individual with tons of government experience!

He started off working for the Government under Reagan and Bush (Senior) After he became a deputy district attorney with the Monterey County D.A.'s Office and then went into private practice. He ran against a strong Republican for a Congressional seat and beat him out. Three terms later, Bill Clinton won the Presidentcy and selected Panetta to be his Chief of Staff. Leon resigned his post a couple of years later, just before the Monica L. scandals.

He and his wife established an Institute at CSUMB and he spends most of his time running it.

Leon Panetta may be a Democrat, but he worked for two different Republican Administrations. He has Leadership and guts...He won't fail as Director of the CIA.

What! Are you joking Ranger? You try not once but twice to imply that Neon Leon work either under or for two Republican Administrations. He was never appointed by either Reagan or Bush. He had nothing to do with either administration did he. Neither president knew him from Adam.

He won't fail as Director of the CIA? As Chief of Staff under Clinton, they failed the CIA big time, limiting our ability to know what the hell was going on oveseas in the Middle East and lord knows that came back to bite us in the ass. They let a witch hunt go on at the agency. In the end, we had desk anaylists running ops "so they could get the experiece"! Read Robert Baer's book. I respect him. Putting Neon Leon in charge of the agency is dangerous and very political at a time we can ill aford another breakdown and mass exit or the remaining qualified field officers there. How has he ever displayed guts besides going to bat in public defending a draft dodging president he knew was quilty of giving an intern the juicy meat? God bless Randy Shughart's father for telling Clinton he wasn"t fit to be president when he accepted his son's medal of honor. That's leadership and guts!

What is behind this nomination? Clinton's call in a favor? I knew I wasn't going to agree with a lot, if any of Obama's appointments but this one make no sense and really sucks! Open queers in the rear with the gear?. Closing Gitmo after 61 of 500 or so who have been released have returned to the fight! Change I'm not believing in. Heard he nominated some asshole for Treasury Secretary who owed more than $42,000.00 in back taxes going back years ago and then he finally pays the taxes the day before he is nominated by Obama. Great display of leadership and guts!

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

Good post civilian. Hussen's appointment are all a slap in the face of the Constitution. I say that because there is no "left" or "right of the Constitution. The Constitution is in essence a right wing document and any ifeas that differ are most always "LEFT". Interestingly My 27 year old son told me that BHO meets ALL of the criteria for being the ANTI-CHRIST. It's scary. I'm loading as much as I can in the meantime. Be Prepared Blitzzz

[Gypsy]

Heard he nominated some asshole for Treasury Secretary who owed more than $42,000.00 in back taxes going back years ago and then he finally pays the taxes the day before he is nominated by Obama. Great display of leadership and guts!


Come on, he's like all those other folks who "mispeak". It was just an accident. :rolleyes:

Geithner's nomination is on hold until after the corona...errrr inauguration. Guess we'll see if it's more of the same in DC soon.

[civilian]

What! Are you joking Ranger? You try not once but twice to imply that Neon Leon work either under or for two Republican Administrations. He was never appointed by either Reagan or Bush. He had nothing to do with either administration did he. Neither president knew him from Adam.

He won't fail as Director of the CIA? As C.O.S. under Clinton, they failed the CIA big time, limiting our ability to know what the hell was going on oveseas in the Middle East. They let a witch hunt go on at the agency. In the end, we had desk anaylists running ops "so they could get the experiece"! Read Robert Baer's book. I respect him. Putting Neon Leon in charge of the agency is dangerous and very political at a time we can ill aford another breakdown and mass exit or the remaining field officers there. How has he ever displayed guts besides going to bat in public defending a draft dodging president he knew was quilty of giving an intern the juicy meat? God bless Randy Shughart's father for telling Clinton he wasn"t fit to be president when he accepted his son's medal of honor. That's leadership and guts!

.What is behind this nomination? Clinton's call in a favor? I knew I wasn't going to agree with a lot if any of his appointments but this one make no sense and really sucks! Open queers in the rear with the gear. Closing Gitmo! Change I'm not believing in. Heard he nominated some asshole for Treasury Secretary who owed more than $42,000.00 in back taxes going back years ago and then he finally pays the taxes the day before he is nominated by Obama. Great display of leadership and guts!

Obama’s Treasury Sec pick was grilled today. Turns out he had an illegal house cleaning lady working tax free so those taxes were not paid either. Amazing! If a Republican had an illegal working in their house, then they would have had to step down immediately. But now because he is a nominee of the second coming of Christ, this guy gets out of trying to avoid paying $42K and change in back taxes. That's a lot of money. They would have run a Republican with this kind of baggage out of politics and every media outlet would be running it using the Republican as the poster child representing the so called greed of the Bush Administration. Hillary as Sec of State? Conflict of interest considering all the foreign money that Bill gets for his foundation. Amazing! John Conyers avoids taxes and gets nothing. Neon Leon who is going to head the CIA has been either a career politician or the head of a liberal think-tank which have been studying the pros of getting openly gay 11 bravos in the fight as tail end Charlie watching your six. Maybe it’s the liberal’s long term plan to get more votes out of the military. Going to be an interesting and sad 4 years.

[ZonieDiver]

Yeah! His Treasury Sec was grilled today. Turns out he had an ilegal hose cleaning lady working tax free at so those taxes were not paid either. Amazing! If a Reuplican has illegal working in their house, then they would have to setp down immediately. But now because he is a nominee of the second coming of christ, the wipper snapper gets out of paying for $42K. That's a lot of freaken money. They would have run a Republican with this baggage out of politics and every medica outlit would being running it using the Rep as the poster child for the greed of the Bush Adminstration. Hillary as Sec of State? Conflict of interest considering all the foreign money that Bill gets for his foundation. Amazing! John Conyers avoids taxes and gets nothing. Neon Leon has been the head of a liberal thinktank. They are pursing was to get open gay 11 bravo in the fight as tailend charlies watching your six.

I thought any and all "hose cleaning" ladies were illegal! :D

[The Reaper]

civilian:

The spell checker is in the upper right hand corner of the Reply to Thread pane.

You are making my head hurt.

TR

[civilian]

civilian:

The spell checker is in the upper right hand corner of the Reply to Thread pane.

You are making my head hurt.

TR

Roger that Sir! Spell check is my friend!

[Slade]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/25/obamas-cia-pick-faces-qualification-questions/?page=2

Sunday, January 25, 2009
Obama's CIA pick faces qualification questions
Donald Lambro (Contact)

Leon Panetta, the son of Italian immigrants, has spent most of his adult life in public service, rising up the ranks from lowly congressional aide to White House chief of staff, and now is poised to command the Central Intelligence Agency in the age of terrorism.

President Obama's surprising nomination triggered opposition in the Senate, the intelligence community and among national security analysts because he has no significant experience in defense and intelligence fields and was seen as a bare-knuckled "political choice" to bring about major policy changes at the CIA — including an end to the sometimes aggressive interrogation of high-value terrorists during the Bush administration.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat and the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and her colleague on the panel, John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia Democrat, immediately criticized the appointment because of Mr. Panetta's lack of national security experience. Mr. Obama talked to Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Rockefeller, and they quickly fell in line behind Mr. Panetta's confirmation.

But the former California congressman, who has dealt mostly with budget matters as chairman of the House Budget Committee and as President Clinton's budget director, has created a sense of uneasiness among veteran national security advisers, even in Mr. Panetta's own party.

"I do have reservations about Panetta as a CIA director. He's a good man with accomplished government service and with some national security knowledge," said Michael O'Hanlon, the ubiquitous foreign policy and military defense analyst in the Brookings Institution who often advises the Democrats on foreign policy issues. "However, he has never had a major job in national security and therefore this seems to be Obama's weakest appointment in that sphere."

The former nine-term congressman often voted against President Reagan on major military issues in the 1980s and was a critic of President Bush's decision to go into Iraq. As a member of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel of distinguished advisers who put together a broad list of recommendations on the war, he supported an early military pullout.

"The Iraq Study Group to my mind did not do a great job in its central recommendation — that U.S. combat forces leave Iraq by early 2008 — and as such I would not emphasize Panetta's experience in that area as a major accomplishment," Mr. O'Hanlon said.

"People can surprise you, but I would begin with a lot of skepticism about this choice."

Still, Mr. Panetta is widely respected for his executive and organizational skills, which were on full display when he became Mr. Clinton's chief of staff in the summer of 1994. His youthful White House staff appeared unfocused and in disarray and, as one of its Democratic critics said at the time, "needed a grown-up to insert some discipline in its ranks."

He won wide praise for negotiating the 1996 budget compromise and bringing a sense of order and focus into the White House. As a no-nonsense chief of staff who put together Mr. Clinton's agenda and day-to-day schedule, Mr. Panetta also oversaw his daily morning intelligence briefing.

"As a congressman, OMB director and White House chief of staff, he has unparalleled experience in making the institutions of government work better for the American people," Mr. Obama said when he announced his nomination to head the nation's far-reaching intelligence organization.

"He has handled intelligence daily at the highest levels and time and again he has demonstrated sound judgment, grace under fire and complete integrity," he said.

The president's appointment was surprising for a number of reasons, not only because Mr. Panetta supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic presidential primaries and considered Mr. Obama unprepared for the job, but also because he was seen principally as a political leader whose career was steeped in political battles, crafting budget deals and legislating domestic issues.

On the other hand, he was in the center of the debate over the war in Iraq as a leading member in the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that reviewed intelligence failures in the run-up to the invasion and had deeply involved himself in intelligence policy as chief of staff when he helped shape the policy known as "extraordinary rendition." That was the then-little-known practice of capturing terrorism suspects and sending them to other countries for aggressive interrogation, sometimes including torture, far from U.S. judicial procedures and oversight.

Mr. Panetta, now considered a senior statesman of his party, has traveled a long road to get where he is today. He was born in Monterey in 1938, went to Catholic and public schools and worked on his family's farm in Carmel Valley before graduating from Santa Clara University, where he also earned a law degree.

After serving in the Army as a first lieutenant, he went to Washington, where he quickly rose up the ladder as a legislative aide in the Senate, special assistant to the secretary of health, education and welfare, and director of the U.S. Office for Civil Rights.

He went to New York, where he was executive assistant to Mayor John Lindsey, and in 1971 returned to California, where he practiced law until his election to Congress in 1976.

Mr. Panetta quickly rose up the seniority ranks as he mastered the legislative rules of the House. He served as Budget Committee chairman from 1989 to 1993, when he left Congress in his ninth term to direct the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget. He was a key figure in the development of the 1993 budget that its supporters said eventually led to a balanced budget and the budget surpluses that followed.

After 2½ years as chief of staff, Mr. Panetta left the administration to found and co-direct, with his wife, Sylvia, the Leon and Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy, a think tank at California State University in Monterey Bay.

But Mr. Panetta has been anything but a quiet think tank scholar content to remain out of the political spotlight, serving on numerous blue ribbon public policy panels and boards of directors, including a six-year term on the board of the New York Stock Exchange.

As a major, high-profile promoter of Mrs. Clinton's presidential candidacy last year, he was not shy about criticizing Mr. Obama, who he said was not ready to handle the presidential reins of power.

"I think the real issue is going to be, again, who has to face the tremendous pressures and crises that a president has to face on walking into the White House," Mr. Panetta told Jim Lehrer of the PBS News Hour on March 5 in the midst of last year's primary battle between the two rivals.

"So can Barack Obama learn what it takes to make those decisions? Of course he can. But is there a margin of error that is involved with somebody who has never been there to make those decisions? You bet there is," Mr. Panetta said.

[civilian]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/25/obamas-cia-pick-faces-qualification-questions/?page=2

Sunday, January 25, 2009
Obama's CIA pick faces qualification questions
Donald Lambro (Contact)

Leon Panetta, the son of Italian immigrants, has spent most of his adult life in public service, rising up the ranks from lowly congressional aide to White House chief of staff, and now is poised to command the Central Intelligence Agency in the age of terrorism.

President Obama's surprising nomination triggered opposition in the Senate, the intelligence community and among national security analysts because he has no significant experience in defense and intelligence fields and was seen as a bare-knuckled "political choice" to bring about major policy changes at the CIA — including an end to the sometimes aggressive interrogation of high-value terrorists during the Bush administration.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat and the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and her colleague on the panel, John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia Democrat, immediately criticized the appointment because of Mr. Panetta's lack of national security experience. Mr. Obama talked to Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Rockefeller, and they quickly fell in line behind Mr. Panetta's confirmation.

But the former California congressman, who has dealt mostly with budget matters as chairman of the House Budget Committee and as President Clinton's budget director, has created a sense of uneasiness among veteran national security advisers, even in Mr. Panetta's own party.

"I do have reservations about Panetta as a CIA director. He's a good man with accomplished government service and with some national security knowledge," said Michael O'Hanlon, the ubiquitous foreign policy and military defense analyst in the Brookings Institution who often advises the Democrats on foreign policy issues. "However, he has never had a major job in national security and therefore this seems to be Obama's weakest appointment in that sphere."

The former nine-term congressman often voted against President Reagan on major military issues in the 1980s and was a critic of President Bush's decision to go into Iraq. As a member of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel of distinguished advisers who put together a broad list of recommendations on the war, he supported an early military pullout.

"The Iraq Study Group to my mind did not do a great job in its central recommendation — that U.S. combat forces leave Iraq by early 2008 — and as such I would not emphasize Panetta's experience in that area as a major accomplishment," Mr. O'Hanlon said.

"People can surprise you, but I would begin with a lot of skepticism about this choice."

Still, Mr. Panetta is widely respected for his executive and organizational skills, which were on full display when he became Mr. Clinton's chief of staff in the summer of 1994. His youthful White House staff appeared unfocused and in disarray and, as one of its Democratic critics said at the time, "needed a grown-up to insert some discipline in its ranks."

He won wide praise for negotiating the 1996 budget compromise and bringing a sense of order and focus into the White House. As a no-nonsense chief of staff who put together Mr. Clinton's agenda and day-to-day schedule, Mr. Panetta also oversaw his daily morning intelligence briefing.

"As a congressman, OMB director and White House chief of staff, he has unparalleled experience in making the institutions of government work better for the American people," Mr. Obama said when he announced his nomination to head the nation's far-reaching intelligence organization.

"He has handled intelligence daily at the highest levels and time and again he has demonstrated sound judgment, grace under fire and complete integrity," he said.

The president's appointment was surprising for a number of reasons, not only because Mr. Panetta supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic presidential primaries and considered Mr. Obama unprepared for the job, but also because he was seen principally as a political leader whose career was steeped in political battles, crafting budget deals and legislating domestic issues.

On the other hand, he was in the center of the debate over the war in Iraq as a leading member in the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that reviewed intelligence failures in the run-up to the invasion and had deeply involved himself in intelligence policy as chief of staff when he helped shape the policy known as "extraordinary rendition." That was the then-little-known practice of capturing terrorism suspects and sending them to other countries for aggressive interrogation, sometimes including torture, far from U.S. judicial procedures and oversight.

Mr. Panetta, now considered a senior statesman of his party, has traveled a long road to get where he is today. He was born in Monterey in 1938, went to Catholic and public schools and worked on his family's farm in Carmel Valley before graduating from Santa Clara University, where he also earned a law degree.

After serving in the Army as a first lieutenant, he went to Washington, where he quickly rose up the ladder as a legislative aide in the Senate, special assistant to the secretary of health, education and welfare, and director of the U.S. Office for Civil Rights.

He went to New York, where he was executive assistant to Mayor John Lindsey, and in 1971 returned to California, where he practiced law until his election to Congress in 1976.

Mr. Panetta quickly rose up the seniority ranks as he mastered the legislative rules of the House. He served as Budget Committee chairman from 1989 to 1993, when he left Congress in his ninth term to direct the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget. He was a key figure in the development of the 1993 budget that its supporters said eventually led to a balanced budget and the budget surpluses that followed.

After 2½ years as chief of staff, Mr. Panetta left the administration to found and co-direct, with his wife, Sylvia, the Leon and Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy, a think tank at California State University in Monterey Bay.

But Mr. Panetta has been anything but a quiet think tank scholar content to remain out of the political spotlight, serving on numerous blue ribbon public policy panels and boards of directors, including a six-year term on the board of the New York Stock Exchange.

As a major, high-profile promoter of Mrs. Clinton's presidential candidacy last year, he was not shy about criticizing Mr. Obama, who he said was not ready to handle the presidential reins of power.

"I think the real issue is going to be, again, who has to face the tremendous pressures and crises that a president has to face on walking into the White House," Mr. Panetta told Jim Lehrer of the PBS News Hour on March 5 in the midst of last year's primary battle between the two rivals.

"So can Barack Obama learn what it takes to make those decisions? Of course he can. But is there a margin of error that is involved with somebody who has never been there to make those decisions? You bet there is," Mr. Panetta said.

I say this post goes into the required reading stack! Great work!

[LR27]

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/remarks-at-swearing-in-ceremony.html

[Sigaba]

Source is here (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=AFF924F1-18FE-70B2-A81505B70A067979).

CIA chief vows to treat Congress better
By: Mike Allen
February 25, 2009 07:26 PM EST

CIA Director Leon E. Panetta says the relationship between the intelligence agency and Congress has “had a lot of problems” under the last administration and “has to be repaired,” which he said is one of his top priorities.

Panetta, a former House member and top White House official who was sworn in Feb. 13, told a media roundtable Wednesday that the “relationship was badly damaged” and that he hopes “to restore the trust between this Agency and Capitol Hill.”

“Frankly, I can’t do my job unless I have their trust.” he said. “And since I’m a creature of the Hill and understand what it means to be a member up there and have this kind of information, I’m prepared to try to do whatever I can to try to repair that relationship.”

Panetta made his comments at a meeting with two dozen reporters who were allowed into his conference room inside the agency’s heavily fortified headquarters compound, the George Bush Center for Intelligence in Langley, Va. Plates piles with big cookies were in the center of a massive conference table in a room a few doors from the director’s office.

The hall is lined with offices with secure doors opened with safe-like dials.

Facing a portrait of President Obama on the opposite wall, Panetta said that under the Bush administration, there was at times “a deliberate effort to not develop firm ground rules” about congressional notification “in order to be able to do this in a haphazard manner depending on what the issues were.”

“ I just think that’s wrong,” he said. “This country has to operate by a set of rules that are in line with our Constitution and in line with the laws of this country. … We swear to support and defend that Constitution in taking these jobs. I think that, unfortunately, there wasn’t a clear set of ground rules her … in terms of how to deal with the Congress.”

Panetta said that on some sensitive matters, the top congressional leaders (the “gang of four,” in Hill paralance) were notified by the Bush administration, while other times the intelligence committees were included (the “gang of eight”).

“One of the things I’d like to do, frankly, is set some ground rules as to when we do notify the Congress and who we do have to notify,” he said. “Do we notify the gang of eight; do we notify all of the members plus their staffs … so that we all know the rules that we’re operating by.”

At his confirmation hearing, Panetta vowed “a clean break” from some controversial Bush-era polices. He told the reporters: “If we stand by our ideals, if we stand by the beliefs that we have about what this country is all about, I think it makes us stronger, not only here but throughout the world.”

For one thing, he said, “We are closing black sites,” a reference to secret prisons abroad used to hold and question suspected terrorist combatants.

The phrase “war on terror,” a hallmark of President George W. Bush’s White House, is rarely used in the Obama administration, but Panetta [said] that “there’s no question this is a war.”

Asked about Predator strikes are being launched from Pakistani airbases, he said: “Nothing has changed our efforts to go after terrorists and nothing will change those efforts. We are continuing at a level of action that is on a par with the challenges we’re confronting. None of that has diminished and none of it will.”

“There’s no question this is a war,” he said. “There are those who threaten us to come here and kill Americans. … CIA is engaged on the front lines to try to develop the intelligence necessary to make sure that that doesn’t happen.”

In his opening remarks, Panetta said: “Al-Qaeda has obviously suffered some key setbacks in recent months and with the …strong support of the president, the vice president, national security director, we are not going to let up on [counterterrorism]. We are going to continue to pursue. We are going to continue to bring pressure.”

Panetta, who will turn 71 in June, is returning to government after a remarkable career in which he was a Democratic House member from California for 15 years, then chief of staff and budget director for President Bill Clinton. Panetta’s formal residence remains in Carmel Valley, Calif., near the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy, which he and his wife started at California State University, Monterey Bay.

Asked about his new life, the director chuckled and said: “I probably should have my wife answer this one.” Then he went on to say: “I can’t go anyplace without a security detail. … Even as Chief of Staff I’ve never been in that situation. But of course that was before 9/11, so it’s a different kind of world.”

“I guess I’m a sucker for challenges and this is one of them,” Panetta said. “When the President called me on this and indicated he wanted me to consider this, he said, ‘Look, I need somebody I can trust, I need somebody who will be independent and will bring honest judgments on intelligence to me.’

“And when I looked at the situation in the world, … I kind of viewed this job as an opportunity to be able to take that kind of challenge on,” he said. “And I don’t regret it. … This is a fascinating and challenging world and there’s a lot of responsibilities associated with it, and I kind of look forward to those challenges.”

Breaking news, Panetta revealed that “at the administration’s request, the intelligence community -- with the CIA in the lead -- is producing a publication each day focusing on global economic issues,” since “what happens in the economy … is affecting the stability of the world.”

“We’ve seen the impact of a worldwide recession occur throughout the world,” he said. “As an intelligence agency, we’ve got to pay attention to that because we have to know whether or not the economic impacts in China or Russia or any place else are in fact influencing then the policies of those countries when it comes to foreign affairs and when it comes to the issues that we care about.”

Asked if any new prisoners would be going into the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, before it is closed on Obama’s orders, Panetta said: “Not that I’m aware of.”

How about that! Maybe the president picked the right man for the job after all.:munchin

[LR27]

Source is here (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=AFF924F1-18FE-70B2-A81505B70A067979).



How about that! Maybe the president picked the right man for the job after all.:munchin
I don't like his comment about being a 'creature of the Hill.'

But he nailed it as far as the War on Terror. Hopefully he follows through. For America's sake.

[ROTCNY]

Panetta is a career politician and has shown extraordinary success in his career to blend in with his surroundings and tell people what they want to hear. Being surrounded by the hard working professionals at the CIA every day hasn't really changed Panetta's personal views or feelings. But as a political creature he realizes that he needs to "seem" to be on the side of his subordinates and that he needs them to "believe" in him so that he can push through his "vision" or "re-imagining" if you will of the CIA.

If Panetta were to come into an organization like the CIA and right off the bat sound like the lunatics from Moveon.org, he would lose all credibility from the get go and be undermined from the bottom on up by his own subordinates. There would be no way for him to gain supporters within the CIA to his planned changes. The first step to any kind of organizational change is to win over key influencers and opinion leaders within the ranks to your side and way of thinking and he can't do that if he sounds like the liberal left-winger he really is. No, he's too astute with social dynamics to make a mistake like that.

Don't let his words fool you, he still is who he is and his comments about closer cooperation with Congress sounds to me that he is more interested in keeping CIA operations "politically correct" than he is in making sure the organization he is leading is doing everything that is necessary and within the law to maintain the security and long term interests of our country.