Leon Panetta head of CIA ? Can Dee Dee Myers far behind?. Jamie Gorelick as FBI Director ? Sandy Berger to head the National archives ?

Here's the scoop . When Panetta was head of OMB and later Chief of Staff for Bill Clintoon he had an almost constant adversarial relationship with CIA Chief James Woolsey ;with his desire for deeper budget cuts being the running theme. CIA Director Woolsey had to form alliances with the Defense Department to fend off these deep cuts, as well as to ensure that the CIA retained some ability to track an expanding number of threats . We all know how well that worked out. Was Panetta wrong about the threats the U.S. faced in the 1990s ?

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/directors-of-central-intelligence-as-leaders-of-the-u-s-intelligence-community/chapter_12.htm

This is a new low in the Bambi's judgement . Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein, incoming chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, indicates she might oppose the pick.

Could Obama have succumbed to lefty bloggers ? Evidently his first selection ;John Brennan withdrew from consideration after liberal bloggers mounted an opposition campaign against his possible appointment.

Brennan's 25-year service in the CIA included stints as a station chief in Saudi Arabia, chief of staff to George Tenet, and first director of the National Counterterrorism Center.But lib bloggers opposed him out of hand because of his service during George Tenet's tenure .

Obviously operational experience is not high on the check list of qualifications.He got his hands dirty and they are looking for a CIA director who is pure as the driven snow . Who could Barack Obama appoint to the critical position of Director of Central Intellignce without offending these people ? A bean-counter . Panetta is the perfect choice under those guidelines .

Barky's ineptitude is astounding to put it mildly. My dog would be a much better pick than good old Leon. Who fell out of bed on their head to make him pick Leon? Don't see it happening, sorry.

Much more propaganda than depth on the liberal bench.

Hello tom:

Here's the thing... The CIA is tainted with torture... Obama needed to make certain that he didn't hire a torturer... And, he didn't. That's GOOD!

Bet you guys didn't think about that. I don't know why. Guess you missed it.

excon

He will neuter the CIA just like what happened after the Church Committee and when Senator Torch Torricelli led efforts to handcuff the agency close down ops.

Hello again, tom:

If you mean by neuter, that he'll STOP torture and extraordinary rendition, and START obeying the law, then I'm cool with that. I know, I know. You righty's LIKE that stuff..

excon

PS> (edited) Apparently, you think that anybody who worked for Clinton shouldn't work for Obama?? Why?

If McCain had won, would you be saying the same things about people who worked for Bush?? No, of course you wouldn't.

If McCain had won, would you be saying the same things about people who worked for Bush??? No, of course you wouldn't.Bingo.

I would expect that McCain would've picked some Bush people .Obama is going out of his way to pick Clintonoids. Yesterday he picked Sanjay Gupta ANOTHER Evita confidant for Surgeon General .

He's going to have an easy term. Evita calling the shots and Obama giving daily press briefs that he'll have plenty to say about(fill in the issue) in the future.

Panetta at age 70 with no experience in the intelligence community, is not the right person to manage the CIA, a band of tough people used to doing things in the shadows . I've had plenty of beefs with the agency as you know but a bean counter is not the person to reform them.

(edit : don't forget the whole concept of "rendition " to 3rd party states for interogation was a Clintoon executive order )

Obama is going out of his way to pick Clintonoids. Yesterday he picked Sanjay Gupta ANOTHER Evita confidant for Surgeon General .

He's going to have an easy term. Evita calling the shots and Obama giving daily press briefs that he'll have plenty to say about(fill in the issue) in the future. Hello tom:

That should make you happy, given her "experience" and all. And, weren't you supporting her over him?? I think you were.

In terms of the Surgeon General, would you rather have another Rear Admiral Steven K. Galson, M.D. M.P.H.? In case you didn't know, and I'm sure you DIDN'T, he's our present Surgeon General...

Soooooo, if health care reform was on your agenda, wouldn't you like a Surgeon General who knows about television and can put two sentences together?? I think you would...

Nahhhh, You're just a disgruntled curmudgeon.

excon

And, weren't you supporting her over him?? I think you were.



Support would be too strong a word. What I said was that I thought she would be a better President than he. Frankly I think she has much more testosterone than he . With her in charge it frees him up to ride around on Air Force One ;making speeches, and sneaking smokes behind Michelle's back.

What I said was that I thought she would be a better President than he. With her in charge it frees him up to ride around on Air Force One ;making speeches, and sneaking smokes behind Michelle's back.Hello again, tom:

And, that's BAD?

Sounds like the Bill Gates method of management. Hire very smart people and let them do their jobs. Then you can sneak around a lot, and be successful too.

excon

Got to question where Panetta's loyalties are Obama or madame Defarge don't you ?

What is Obama's goal here ? Reform the agency? Keep the country safe from attacks ? Learn what is happening in hostile regions? Purge rough agents? The spy game has always been played in the mud. You make it sound like we had boy scouts before Bush.

gotta question where Panetta's loyalties are Obama or madame Defarge don't ya ?

What is Obama's goal here ? Reform the agency? Keep the country safe from attacks ? Learn what is happening in hostile regions? Purge rough agents? The spy game has always been played in the mud. You make it sound like we had boy scouts before Bush.Hello again, tom:

I don't know. I've hired a lot of people who used to work for somebody else. If there was any question as to who they worked for NOW, I'd remind them who was signing their paycheck...

I see you have trouble saying the word "torture". You'd rather say things like "enhanced interrogation", or like you said, "rough" agents.

Then you have the gall to rail against political correctness. I don't know what PC is, except to change the name of something objectionable into something politically acceptable... Isn't that what you're doing? I think so.

I think Obama can STOP the CIA from torturing. Don't you? You make it sound as though we can't have a top notch spy agency if we DON'T torture. Of course, you're wrong on that count too.

excon

I really don't want to rehash that debate about what is and isn't torture. The answer to your question is that the Torch did tremendous damage to our intel gathering capablility when Clintoon and his CIA boss John Deutch adopted the Torrecelli principle.

Beginning in 2002, key Democrats leaders and members in both houses of Congress' intel committees were thoroughly, and repeatedly, briefed on the CIA's covert antiterror interrogation programs. They did nothing to stop such activities. If they now decide the tactics they heard about then amount to abuse, they themselves are complicit.
Briefings began in the spring of 2002 and dealt with the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. More than 30 Congressional sessions were specifically devoted to the interrogation program and its methods, including waterboarding and other aggressive techniques designed to squeeze intelligence out of hardened detainees like Zubaydah. Anytime they wanted to they could've pulled the plug on the program with defunding .

The funny thing about this appointment is that Panetta as Clintoons Chief of Staff was fully aware of the rendition program.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alex_spillius/blog/2009/01/06/did_leon_panetta_know_about_extraordinary_renditio ns_under_clinton

You want to know why Obama really selected him ? He thinks Pinheada will be that firewall that protects the administration from CIA leaks to the press.

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alex_spillius/blog/2009/01/06/did_leon_panetta_know_about_extraordinary_renditio ns_under_clinton)

Interestingly enough, Obama has no plans to dump those who oversaw Bush's interrogation policies. Will Panetta have as much success as Admiral Turner or will he get outmanuevered as well?

See below

Soooooo, if health care reform was on your agenda, wouldn't you like a Surgeon General who knows about television and can put two sentences together??

Maybe I should support Gupta after all. John Conyers ,Paul Krugman ,and Michael Moore oppose him.

Conyers;chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (who has no say in the selection),told Democrat Senators in a "dear Colleague" letter it's "not in the best interests of the nation to have someone like this who lacks the requisite experience needed to oversee the federal agency that provides crucial health care assistance to some of the poorest and most underserved communities in America."

He has contacted BO and Harry Reid stating his opposition.

For Moore it is personal. Gupta called Moore a liar in issues related to his movie 'Sicko' after he fact checked the movie.Krugman is just acting as Michael Moore's lackey.