Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Leon Panetta Tapped To Head CIA  
User currently offlineWindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2722 posts, RR: 8
Posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1553 times:

Bill Clinton's former chief of staff Leon Panetta has been tapped to head the CIA in President-elect Barack Obama's administration, causing surprise and a bit of consternation by several individuals involved in the intelligence community.

Panetta is a surprise pick since he has no experience in the intelligence world

Taken by surprise was Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., incoming chairwoman of the Select Senate Intelligence Committee.

"I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director. I know nothing about this, other than what I've read. My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time," Feinstein said in a written statement


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...netta-tapped-head-cia-sources-say/

Another surprise. I really do not understand how a 70 plus year old man with no intelligence experience gets picked for this job. And it sounds like even some dems in congress got surprised by the news. And what do the Clintons have on barack to keep picking their people? And what happened to change.????


OMG-Obama Must Go
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1530 times:

Panetta is a hardcore Clinton operative . That said I dont know that he is a bad guy, I beleive he is very smart and probably a good administrator. No intelligence background , so I guess we will have to see. Seems to me a little snuggy with the Clintons , but I am giving the PE some lattitude. This goes back to Sen Obama's lack of freinds and cooperatives at high level in the governemnt.. he is relying on the Clintons too much.

Richardson drops out of the position ??
Well Richardson did leave the Clinton farm in the election , I am sure Hillary had the testy shears waiting for Mr. Richardson. To coincidental ?



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineCharles79 From Puerto Rico, joined Mar 2007, 1331 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1510 times:



Quoting AGM100 (Reply 1):
I beleive he is very smart and probably a good administrator.

I've only been involved with the DoD but from my experience sometimes a good outsider with little subject experience but excellent management skills is far better than a subject matter expert who can only rule his cubicle. That said, I do hope that they keep some intelligence experts under him as backups.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 1):
Richardson drops out of the position ??
Well Richardson did leave the Clinton farm in the election , I am sure Hillary had the testy shears waiting for Mr. Richardson. To coincidental ?

Conspiracy theorist eh? Although knwoing the Clintons you're probably right!

Quoting Windy95 (Thread starter):
Taken by surprise was Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., incoming chairwoman of the Select Senate Intelligence Committee.

Not sure if this says more about Feinstein's position within the party than it says about the new administration. Obama's team must have had a really good reason why they decided not to consult the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.


User currently offlineStasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3280 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1498 times:

When it comes to the intelligence agencies, some of the most horrid political controversies have stemmed from the interaction between the intelligence agencies and the Bush administration. It seems to me that what's needed at this time is a person in charge of the intelligence service who can manage and oversee the policy - not the intelligence details of the agency. Leon Panetta is a former chief of staff under the Clinton Administration, understands exactly what the President will need in terms of intelligence for solid decision making, and thus, Panetta seems to be quite a good selection IMO.


"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21569 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1480 times:



Quoting Charles79 (Reply 2):
I've only been involved with the DoD but from my experience sometimes a good outsider with little subject experience but excellent management skills is far better than a subject matter expert who can only rule his cubicle.

True. As I understand it, intelligence is all about a process. One of the big problems with the Iraq intelligence was that the process was interfered with by those who wanted a particular outcome. It might not be so bad to have someone who will just make sure that the process works, and not try to direct where it leads.

So, while it would be nice to have guy with an intelligence background, I'm not sure that this is a bad pick. Time will tell.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineUAXDXer From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 765 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1464 times:



Quoting Windy95 (Thread starter):
I really do not understand how a 70 plus year old man with no intelligence experience gets picked for this job.

He must of bought it from the Il governor.



It takes a bug to hit a windsheild but it takes guts to stick
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13554 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1434 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I find it amusing that President-elect Obama campaigned on "not allowing a third Bush term," yet he's hell-bent on giving us a third CLINTON term.


"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineElite From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2006, 2796 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1430 times:



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 6):
I find it amusing that President-elect Obama campaigned on "not allowing a third Bush term," yet he's hell-bent on giving us a third CLINTON term.

Damn... +1.

Leon Panetta.... strong background in economics?


User currently offlineUAXDXer From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 765 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1423 times:



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 6):
I find it amusing that President-elect Obama campaigned on "not allowing a third Bush term," yet he's hell-bent on giving us a third CLINTON term.

.... and he also seeme to be all about expanding the Bush Tax cuts now after campaigning to raise taxes.



It takes a bug to hit a windsheild but it takes guts to stick
User currently offlineElite From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2006, 2796 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1423 times:



Quoting UAXDXer (Reply 8):
.... and he also seeme to be all about expanding the Bush Tax cuts now after campaigning to raise taxes.

Oh well. The guy is a politician after all...


User currently offlineUAXDXer From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 765 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1417 times:



Quoting Elite (Reply 9):
Oh well. The guy is a politician after all...

Obama a Politician!?!??!?! The Chosen One? The Messiah? I was beginning to think that he was Superman, God or Allah himself.




It takes a bug to hit a windsheild but it takes guts to stick
User currently offlineElite From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2006, 2796 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1414 times:



Quoting UAXDXer (Reply 10):

Haha, nice picture. But it does reflect Obama's hype - and it's ridiculous. People expect him to do amazing things in 4 years - and they will be sorely disappointed.


User currently offlineWindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2722 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1375 times:



Quoting Elite (Reply 11):
People expect him to do amazing things in 4 years - and they will be sorely disappointed.

The question is does he really expect team Clinton to help him for that four years. After seeing the Clinton's body of work I think the messiah is in trouble.

Quoting UAXDXer (Reply 8):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 6):
I find it amusing that President-elect Obama campaigned on "not allowing a third Bush term," yet he's hell-bent on giving us a third CLINTON term.

.... and he also seeme to be all about expanding the Bush Tax cuts now after campaigning to raise taxes.

And not taxing big oil, not taxing the rich..... Sounds like a third term for Bush and Clinton combined



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11586 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1343 times:

John Bolton as ambassedor to the UN on a recess appointment and everyone said: Oh, just give it a chance. The guy might actually do good!

Rumsfeld on Dept of Defence: Well, he has no experience, but give him a chance. You never know. He might actually do good!

Any of Obamas picks: They are all scum and the United States is destined to fall apart!

Unbelievable.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineCharles79 From Puerto Rico, joined Mar 2007, 1331 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1328 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 13):
Any of Obamas picks: They are all scum and the United States is destined to fall apart!

Care to elaborate on this statement? Painting with such a wide brush without explanation seems a bit odd. Surely there are some picks that may not live up to their expectations but to claim that they are all "scum" and then expect the fall of the US is a bit extreme, don't you think?

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 12):
And not taxing big oil, not taxing the rich..... Sounds like a third term for Bush and Clinton combined

Wait but wasn't he the devil for suggesting the tax on the rich? Now he reverses his decision and he's still the devil? I don't get it, isn't that what the right was so afraid of, higher taxes? Shouldn't they be celebrating instead?

This is why I don't patronize either party or blindingly follow their ideologies. They are all politicians and are determined to say whatever to get elected and flip flop faster than you can switch the lights on.

Quoting Elite (Reply 11):
But it does reflect Obama's hype - and it's ridiculous. People expect him to do amazing things in 4 years - and they will be sorely disappointed.

Agreed. I didn't care much for Mr. Obama when he first entered the race and even though I voted for him I'm still cautiously optimistic. I certainly didn't buy all of his promises of change, but I get the feeling that many of his supporters did. Those are the ones who will cry "traitor" once he starts to govern based on reality rather than fantasy.


User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11586 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1326 times:



Quoting Charles79 (Reply 14):
Painting with such a wide brush without explanation seems a bit odd.

It just seems anyone who is staunchly in the corner of Republicans is so against Obama that not one of his choices, unless they come from the right, is the worst choice ever. Also, anyone who disagrees with any appointments by Bush is a terrorist and trying to bring down the United States, so says the staunch supporters of the Republican party.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1295 times:



Quoting Charles79 (Reply 2):
Not sure if this says more about Feinstein's position within the party than it says about the new administration. Obama's team must have had a really good reason why they decided not to consult the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

And there is one. Feinstein's record as chair of the Intelligence Committee shows her to be largely on board with the Bush administration's position on torture, domestic wiretapping, etc. Not surprisingly, the guy that she and Jay Rockefeller (outgoing intel chair) wanted, Deputy CIA Director Steve Kappes, was in the chain of command that approved interrogation protocols. Panetta is on record as a staunch torture opponent, and a supporter of constitutional restrictions on wiretapping. This pick, and the fact that it was made over Feinstein's head, helps to show that Obama is committed to ending some of the gross excesses of Bush's war on terror.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently onlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1281 times:



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 6):
I find it amusing that President-elect Obama campaigned on "not allowing a third Bush term," yet he's hell-bent on giving us a third CLINTON term.



Quoting UAXDXer (Reply 8):
and he also seeme to be all about expanding the Bush Tax cuts now after campaigning to raise taxes.

Your surprised? Come on did your really believe all of that? He did it to get your vote and get the power. Now he has to do what a right center president must do if he wants another 4 years.

It was about time for Obama to start to pacify codepink and moveon.org. Panetta will do away with wiretapping etc. This is a risk though because if we get attacked while Obama is in his first term his re-election bid is done.


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1280 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 17):
This is a risk though because if we get attacked while Obama is in his first term his re-election bid is done.

We got attacked during Bush's first term, and he got reelected just fine...



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently onlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1266 times:



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 18):
We got attacked during Bush's first term, and he got reelected just fine...

Bubba as well, what's your point? The objiect is not to decrease the checks and balances Bish have put into place to keep us from listening to our enemies and getting attacked again. Which Obama has just erred. Trust me I hope we don't get attacked but our enemies have to be rejoicing now. As has already been predicted we may get attacked within a year. Let's hope Obama is up to the task. He is off to a shaky start with this pick. That's for sure.


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1264 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 19):
Bubba as well, what's your point?

Point is, some Republicans like to ignore the fact that the biggest terrorist attack on American soil in history occurred on Bush's watch. Your comment about Obama not getting reelected if another attack occurs seemed to show that ignorance.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 19):
The objiect is not to decrease the checks and balances Bish have put into place to keep us from listening to our enemies and getting attacked again.

What checks and balances? The Bush Administration has consistently argued that the executive branch can do pretty much whatever the hell it wants in the name of "defending national security" - that's the exact opposite of checks and balances. The rule of law must remain supreme. When executive branches start thinking that laws don't apply to them, that's called tyranny, which is precisely what we should be trying to avoid.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently onlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1229 times:



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 20):
Point is, some Republicans like to ignore the fact that the biggest terrorist attack on American soil in history occurred on Bush's watch. Your comment about Obama not getting reelected if another attack occurs seemed to show that ignorance.

Yea just like the Dems like to forget the first time the WTC was attacked under Bubba and the second time was planned way before GWB took office. With that said Panetta is a terrible pick.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 20):
What checks and balances? The Bush Administration has consistently argued that the executive branch can do pretty much whatever the hell it wants in the name of "defending national security" - that's the exact opposite of checks and balances. The rule of law must remain supreme. When executive branches start thinking that laws don't apply to them, that's called tyranny, which is precisely what we should be trying to avoid.

So what is wrong with that? You are seriously going to care that some guy is listening to phone conversations in the name of keeping you alive? Come on man, this isn't Japan in 1940. It's a whole new game and the people trying to kill us don't believe in rules. Exectuive branches are not trying to operate outside the law. They are trying to keep you safe and they have to do so against terroists that prey upon the fact the liberals would rather have the liberties like not risking their phone being tapped instead of giving the people on their side the tools to catch some intelligence that would prevent an attack. It's totally insane. Obama blew this one and even his own people think so too.


User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6577 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1224 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 21):
Yea just like the Dems like to forget the first time the WTC was attacked under Bubba and the second time was planned way before GWB took office.

What kind of "intelligence" given to President Bush by the CIA leading up to the invasion of Iraq? During that time was the CIA lead by someone with "experience"?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11586 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1221 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 21):
Yea just like the Dems like to forget the first time the WTC was attacked under Bubba and the second time was planned way before GWB took office

Conservatives like to forget the first WTC bombing happened in the first few months of Clinton's watch but planned during the administration of Bush I. During his second term, Clinton had intel on a massive attack by al-Qaida, but the Republican Congress just had to try to remove him from office for lying about recieving oral from a consenting female. Clinton actually wanted to take out select targets in Afganistan. Per the Constitution, he went to Congress to ask for authoization. They said no because he had to stand impeachment. Never mind Oliver North even said UNDER OATH how Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida are a threat. Then, the Republicans turn around and start shouting about how they are defenders of America and all her ideals blahblahblah....



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6577 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1220 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 21):
They are trying to keep you safe and they have to do so against terroists that prey upon the fact the liberals would rather have the liberties like not risking their phone being tapped instead of giving the people on their side the tools to catch some intelligence that would prevent an attack

You realize that what you said could be Chinese Government propaganda,, right?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 16
Reply 25, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1201 times:

It is a complete enigma to me as to why we have not been hit again. Dont get me wrong , I appreciate the hard work of our security personel, (all of them) and I know of the extensive operations they undertake. But I also do not beleive that we can stop them 100% of the time ..even if Gen.Patton is the DCIA.

Everytime I hear a GOP defender talking about how President Bush has "kept us safe " for 8 years I cringe. I remember the 7 years between WTC1 and 911..our enemy waits and watches.
I do not necessarily give the President alot of credit for our short term security , I give him credit for hitting the terrorists in the jaw and exposing terror thoughout the world. If you spend time reading defence journals from around the world , you will see clearly that Anti Terror weapons and technology is front and center. The advanced nation of the world know that AQ and the terror groups are the enemy of our way of life. I will give President Bush credit for enhanceing our defences and those of our Allies around the world. The truth is our enemy can not be contained by hightech weapons .. it really is a matter of time until we are hit again.

Pentta is the equivelent of me hiring a seasoned CFO to run my engineering operation. He may not have ever done engineering but he most likly understands people and the overall mission of the operation. He should be able to perform general organization and management to bennifit the overall company. The unsettleing thing to me about Mr.Panetta is his left wing leanings . I dont know alot about him , but his association with some liberal groups and his roots in the Clinton wing are a reason for my concern. My only hope is that he does not come into the job with the idea that our enemies are overstated , I only hope that he understands that there are snakes in the bedroom and he needs to be vigilant and agressive in there demise.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Paulison Nominated To Head Fema posted Fri Apr 7 2006 11:56:48 by ANCFlyer
Lucia Newman To Head Al-Jazeera's New Bureau? posted Sun Mar 26 2006 05:41:58 by Derico
Good News For The EU: Pascal Lamy To Head The WTO! posted Sat May 14 2005 12:45:47 by Sabenapilot
Kerik Chosen To Head Homeland Security posted Fri Dec 3 2004 00:21:48 by Rjpieces
Porter Goss: "I Am Not Qualified To Run Cia" posted Sat Aug 14 2004 05:09:26 by Alpha 1
UN Picks Libya To Head Human Rights Commission posted Mon Jan 20 2003 22:01:57 by Cfalk
Georgia Lets It Go To Their Head? posted Tue Feb 19 2008 14:54:04 by BR715-A1-30
Bush To Blame For CIA Leak, Says Ex-Press Sec. posted Tue Nov 20 2007 15:02:05 by Aaron747
Ex-CIA Analyst Hits The Nail On The Head! posted Thu Aug 24 2006 00:23:44 by Schoenorama
Man Survives 12 Nails To The Head posted Sat Apr 22 2006 00:31:34 by Bushpilot