# oh oh, first step into deep poop



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Penetta may know what he is doing in some arenas, but not the CIA. This position requires a tough guy, and that's not Penetta. Feel good politics has put a wimp in a warrior position. Not good.

For full story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090106/pl_ ... ma_panetta



> Obama defends choice of Panetta to head CIA
> 
> President-elect Barack Obama gave a strong defense on Tuesday of his choice to lead the CIA, Leon Panetta, in the face of criticism that Panetta lacks experience on intelligence matters.
> 
> Two senior Democrats, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, raised questions on Monday about Panetta's limited intelligence expertise after word leaked out that Panetta had been picked by Obama for CIA.


Another story: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1



> WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday that President-elect Barack Obama apologized to her for not notifying her ahead of time that Leon Panetta was his pick for CIA director.
> His name leaked to the press before Obama informed Feinstein, a California Democrat and incoming Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, who will oversee Panetta's nomination hearing.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Even Dipstick Feinstein thinks he's not qualified. Hopefully he'll be nixed in the hearings.

huntin1


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Hey Plainsman, when was the_ l*ast*_ time you and Feinstein agreed on something? !!!!!!!!!! :lol:

:beer:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

When I read this article yesterday and saw that crooked Feinsteinn was against this I was automatically for it. What does she care? it doesn't involve military contracts for her husband's company.

One thing this article does leave out is that Obama wanted Panetta because of his ability to organize and lead. It would be very difficult for any of us to pass judgement on this one because this would be the one part of gov't the citizens and media know nothing about.

On the glass is half-full note, this is another example of Obama bucking the super liberals. Maybe, hopefully, wishfully this will carry on the weapons bans, but I am not going to hold my breath.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

It does not matter how good this guy is at organizing and leading. To lead the CIA effectively you really need both knowledge of, and contacts within the Intelligence community, this guy has neither. He is a poor choice and I believe this is but one illustration of how out of his league Mr. Obama is.

That would be understandable and forgivable if he would listen to and take the advice of those with more exerience, in this case he didn't even seek that out.

I have trouble believing that there aren't better qualified individuals within the intelligence community.

huntin1


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I am not sure how you know who Obama is talking to. He has already kept Gates as defense secretary. I would think that there must be some organizational/communication/bureaucracy issues in the CIA that would warrant placing a business type leader in that postion.

I am not that sure of this either, but there has to be a good reason(s). I highly doubt the CIA job is one that you would use to return a favor. It is a little to vital for the president, especially right now.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Csquared said:


> Hey Plainsman, when was the_ l*ast*_ time you and Feinstein agreed on something? !!!!!!!!!! :lol:
> 
> :beer:


The last time????? Heck, I'm waiting for the first time. :beer:



> I am not that sure of this either, but there has to be a good reason(s).


Your sure there has to be a good reason???? You have a lot of faith in this guy. I reserve my faith for God. Really, he isn't the messiah. Ooops, I had to come back and add a  so you know the last part was a joke. I'm sure you know he isn't the messiah. Some don't know that though.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

TK33 said:



> I am not sure how you know who Obama is talking to. He has already kept Gates as defense secretary. I would think that there must be some organizational/communication/bureaucracy issues in the CIA that would warrant placing a business type leader in that postion.
> 
> I am not that sure of this either, but there has to be a good reason(s). I highly doubt the CIA job is one that you would use to return a favor. It is a little to vital for the president, especially right now.


Oookkayyy then. 

huntin1


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Thanks a lot plainsman, now I am confused about the messiah again. :beer: 
There is a picture of the messiah at my church, and well, I don't see the resemblence.

I get a kick out of the hypocrisy at Obama. On one hand he is slammed for picking a lot of old schoolers for his cabinet/advisory positions and then he also gets slammed for bringing in a different type of leader to the CIA. Keep in mind the CIA has a less than stellar record over last several years, including the Clinton years. There have been overblown reports of bad intelligence in both wars, al-qaida, and russia. The people under panetta(if he gets the nod in hearings) will be the hardened intel and counter intel gurus but will have to report to more of an executive type of a leader, a decision maker. It may not be a bad idea, we all learned what happens when leaders don't make decisions on 9/11


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Actually, he's a manager, not a leader. In it's role on the front line of protecting this nation against global terrorism, the CIA does not need a manager, it needs a strong decisive leader. That is something that Panetta is not, he is however, a career politician.

Lets not forget that Panetta was the White House Chief of Staff under Clinton, and during this time Al-Qaeda grew exponentially. Carter and Clinton both brought in outsiders and gutted the CIA. You speak of bad intelligence, it's a bit tough to develop reliable inteligence when your organization has been effectively neutered.

Is that the plan here again? Obama seems to be following right in the footsteps of former Democratic leaders, so at this point that would be my guess. And if so, it is a very dangerous time to do so.

huntin1


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Couple things, I do not like NObama's positions and views on most important issues, but he has not taken office as of yet. The picking of Pinto Bean shows not so much that he is bucking the Liberal wing, but that his ego is so big that he simply feels that he has no need for input IMHO!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

TK33, like huntin1 said our CIA has been gutted. I think it will take 30 years to get it back to where it was in the late 1980's. Do you remember the stink the liberals made of Noriega? Maybe your not old enough to remember that, but I'll fill you in.

Noriega had been cooperating with our CIA. However, the guy was not an employee, simply an informant. I am sure he used us as much as we used him. He was an unsavory fellow that was also a drug runner.  Things became so bad that we went to Panama and took him out. I think he is still in a U. S. prison if he hasn't died. I have not kept track of that.

OK, so much for history. Because the guy was so bad the liberals in congress said we can no longer deal with people like this. We give up at least 1/3 of our intelligence when they passed legislation that forbid the CIA to have anything to do with bad people. That was like taking a hot poker and poking out one of our own eyes. Intelligence fell of rapidly and it will take years to replace if it can ever recover.

Guys like Panetta have that same mindset. America and other free nations are in a struggle for our very existence. Hundreds of thousands of lives may hang in the balance, but these guys want to follow some unwritten rule that it isn't nice to pay nasty people for intelligence. I don't like guys like Noriega, but if he can tell me something that will save thousands of people what is it worth?

The liberals don't want us putting phone taps on people who are known to associate with terrorists. Lets see in the future if they mind putting phone taps on people who may own AR15's. They see gun owners as more dangerous than radical Islam.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

If you don't like Panetta who do you think would be better or the best for the job? I'm not involved just curious who you guys want.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I hope Panetta does well

My big concern will be if they try to change the structure of the CIA and FBI and Homeland security so far its been successful and they have cought many bad guys in the last 8 years. Bush did a lot of things wrong but this is something he fixed.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Actually has Homeland Security caught anyone?

I nominate Fletcher Prouty. Google him for info. Oops he's dead.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

My only concern with Panetta is that he may bring an attitude to the CIA that weakens it. Such as I described in my previous post. Sometimes if you want to catch really bad people you have to crawl through the mud with some unsavory characters. What we really lost under the Clinton administration is our infiltration of dangerous groups. The human asset was lost.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I definitely agree with that and I also don't like that hes against torture

heres some more good analysis IMO

no minor appointment when the country is involved in two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) and a third, over-arching War on Terror. Of course, some of the president-elect's most ardent supporters may consider that last war just a figment of the Bush administration's imagination. For it's been almost eight years since September 11, 2001, and no nation forgets the lessons of history as quickly and regularly as good ol' amnesiac America.

If we've avoided another major terrorist assault on these shores, there can't have been that much of a terrorist threat in the first place, right? Or if there had been, it must be gone by now.

(Forget London, Madrid and now Mumbai). :******:

Those attacks were just coincidences and no business of ours.) Surely this nation's escaping a repeat of September 11th can't be due to the active vigilance of an administration that the next president spent so much of his campaign deriding.

Who needs someone experienced in counterintelligence to head the CIA?

What's needed is a mover-and-shaker, a party strategist and long-time congressman popular with the Democratic establishment, a chief of staff with exceptional organizational skills -- even enough to keep a notoriously disorganized president like Bill Clinton in vague control. In short, a nominee who knows a lot about Washington and isn't tainted by any connection with this CIA. Who else but ... Leon Panetta! 
*
He's got the right priorities: politics first and last, national security an afterthought. If that*.

Barack Obama's choice of the Hon. Leon Panetta to preside over Langley says a lot about his own priorities: When it comes to getting the economy out of the ditch it's in, to heck with partisan politics. The next president wants an experienced financier who's been in the thick of (messy) things, never mind that he'll be a holdover from the Bush team. Much like the respected secretary of defense whom Barack Obama chose to keep on.

*After all, the economy, like the military, is important, indeed crucial. Politics be damned. Experience counts. Especially if these key officials are going to be working for a largely inexperienced president and commander-in-chief.*

But who cares about the CIA? Why would the next president insist on experience in that job? *What counts most in filling that portfolio is his party's prejudices against anyone associated with the current administration, especially anyone who believes in spying on terrorists, ferreting out their bank accounts, tracing their international calls and all the rest. That kind of experience may be a disqualifier when it comes to directing Barack Obama's new-age CIA. * uke:

Leon Panetta may know more Democratic pols and less about counterintelligence than anyone else Barack Obama could have chosen for this job. Which ought to make him a shoo-in for confirmation by this Senate. :eyeroll:

As for protecting the country, well, who says the age of miracles is past? With an amateur in charge of the CIA, it'll be a miracle if the country gets through the next few years as safely as it has the years since September 11th. Keep the faith.

They say God looks after fools, drunkards and the United States. Let's hope so.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I barely remember Noriega, but I have seen the documentaries. They are not bad, but not as good as "killing pablo" that one was great.

In the time I can remember, Clinton was the one who seriously F-d the CIA, NSA, and the operations of navy seals and delta and other groups including the israelis. I agree with Bobm that that is something bush did right.

My only reason for somewhat seeing this is that there are many examples of great managers, leaders, and the like that bounce from job to job and industry to industry because of their capabilities and do a good job. Granted we haven't seen that for a while.

Keep in mind I don't all the way agree with this. I am hoping there is something better than returning favors going on here.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

TK 33 Carter was the real villain in destroying our intelligence capabilities.

These guys :roll: I just don't know if we can trust Obama, on the one hand he seems pretty realistic. I sure hope its not an act, these Islamic goons get up everyday and the first and only thing on their minds is killing innocent people everywhere they can.

The fact that so much of his governement is Clinton reruns doesn't give me much hope. I was realy hoping his "change idea" would be real, so far its not happened.

My hope is that his sense of the importance of being the first black president will make him strong enough to not allow these blind liberal fools to shade his judgement. He has been wrong on virtually everything he has said about Iraq.


----------

