Comments on: PANETTA WILL HAVE OBAMA’S BACK AT CIA

By: lokidog

lokidog — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:09:42 +0000

“The bottom line is despite his faults, there were no terror attacks of note after 9/11 on el W’s watch.”

No, just one huge attack on 9/11, the incompetent Bush’s watch. Those pesky facts can be conveniently ignored by the wingnut right all they want.

Thinking America remembers.

By: Ron Russell

Ron Russell — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:46:03 +0000

Leon Panetta was Clinton’s chief of staff and helped cut the CIA’s connections to the FBI. It was the old democratic party fear of the CIA snooping on americans–I thought 9/11 ended that frame-of-mind, but now I wonder.

By: bs jones

bs jones — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:34:39 +0000

obamathered,

The CIA failed to get bin Laden on Clinton’s watch.
We got 9/11.

The CIA failed to get bin Laden on W’s watch.
When bin Laden attacks again on Obama’s watch, W’s CIA will bear some responsibility.

The “Empty Suit in Chief” will share responsibility with W for this CIA failure.

By: obamathered

obamathered — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:29:53 +0000

The bottom line is despite his faults, there were no terror attacks of note after 9/11 on el W’s watch. Obama has chosen a clueless pre-9/11 CIA director who happens to have blood on his hands from the Clinton Administration’s willful ignorance. The tiny man who will soon occupy the White House will be solely responsible for any terror attack. The Empty Suit in Chief will be responsible for who he chose to prevent such an attack.

I’m sorry, Rick, but those of us who have not consumed the Kool-Aid await
the moment to kick the shit out of the next president. And the day draws nigh.

By: Dave Heller

Dave Heller — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:16:38 +0000

Actually, Panetta isn’t going to “ride herd” of the competing elements of the intelligence community at all. He’s going to be responsible for the CIA alone… and he will not give the daily briefing to the President. The new Director Of National Intelligence (DNI) will “ride herd” on the competing elements of the Intelligence community, and he gives the Daily Presidential Briefing. Rick Moran - - your ignorance is showing…., and Mike Scheurer was dead-on….Panetta is a partisan hack who’s appointment makes as much sense as having your Pool Boy providing financial advise. He’s a really good Pool Boy so he’ll probably be a good financial advisor — - plus he’s loyal and will watch your back.

Since you are such an expert, you already know that the CIA still prepares the PDB. And given your vast knowledge of politics, perhaps you could inform us why Panetta is a “hack” - if you even know the meaning of the word - and not a competent manager whose post congressional career has been a distinguished one in both academia and at his own think tank.

Oh, and you’re right. What was I thinking! There are no “competing interests” at the CIA! Curse me for my ignorance.

I will say for the third time since it is evident that reading is not one of your stronger skills that yes, Obama could have and probably should have chosen someone from inside the community. For reasons I explain above (echoed by many analysts after I had posted) it wasn’t possible.

Hence, Panetta is the probably the best choice he could have made under the circumstances.

ed.

By: for parity

for parity — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 03:47:02 +0000

What does this mean? “…stated reasons – Panetta was not involved in the rendition or torture programs – are good, sound reasons ..” Panetta was there when President Clinton, Al Gore, Berger and Clark ordered the CIA to set up the Extraordinary Rendition program. The Clinton administration, according to the CIA, did about as many renditions as did the Bush admin. The program really was not needed one Gitmo was up and operating, so in effect, Bush ended Clinton’s program of sending these folks off to Egypt or where ever so that they could be tortured by others, their way, for information. As Clinton was quoted as saying, “I don’t care what you do with them.” And Panetta did what?

By: Roger

Roger — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:27:28 +0000

Panetta is surely a better choice than the brainiac, Joe the Plumber, who would likely have been the McCain selection.

By: jackson1234

jackson1234 — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:12:28 +0000

Obama said a few things yesterday that indicate he doesn’t think his Panetta choice was particularly inspired. Will Panetta go under the bus? With Obama, that always is a possibility when the president-elect begins to list someone’s good points and none of them pertain to the issue at hand. I’m certain the response from Langley has been less than positive. Obama may have second thoughts on this one. We’ll see. The more I consider it, he chose poorly and that could be the opinion of some of those who can make his four years hell through leaks and the drip drip drip of bureaucratic infighting. In other words, an appointment that was supposed to curtail infighting may increase it dramatically to Obama’s detriment.

By: Bald Ninja

Bald Ninja — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:04:59 +0000

“PANETTA WILL HAVE OBAMA’S BACK AT CIA”

Who will have your back?

By: the Fly-Man

the Fly-Man — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:15:56 +0000

Panetta is the anti- Cheney bromide beyond.I’d be curious to see how well Panetta gets along with Prince Bandar.