Political Hack to Run CIA

[GreyICE]

Grey, you're not getting it. His military experience was exceptionally limited. Later experience is far more relevant. (At the same time, it's also limited.) He's not an intelligence wonk. He's someone who directed policy.

And in the end, that might just be what's needed. He's not a political hack. He's also not above reproach, either, so that needs to be cleared up, too, but at the same time, he's nowhere near as dishonest as most of those we hear about in Washington. He's a decent guy who could probably help the CIA get itself back on track.

The key problems with the CIA right now, as I see it:

1.) With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, there's been no clear direction given as to CIA's mission.

2.) Security within the agency is decreasing, in part because of the number of outside contractors being brought in, and partly because of the culture the agency has created for itself. (Re: Aldrich Ames, et al.)

3.) Clear and realistic outlines of what the CIA can and cannot do simply don't exist.

4.) Inside politics have damaged operational capabilities, and will continue to degrade them.

Panetta's term of service under Clinton demonstrated that he can deal with these issues. The problem many have is that he's taking over as the nation's spymaster, and he has little, if any, intelligence gathering experience. He's never been in the field as a CIA officer, nor has he even worked as an analyst. As has been shown earlier, his experience was utilized to keep his CO in the loop on the Vietnam build-up. And while in later years, he has shown an aptitude and understanding for the high security bureaucracy he'll be running, there's still the question of whether or not Panetta will understand the subculture of the agency he'll be responsible for. No one wants the man to fail. Cleon has yet to say that Panetta's not qualified, just that at this juncture, he has serious questions. Most of us do. Hell, if you don't you're not paying attention.

This is not an epic fail. It's a rational response to the evidence at hand. It's what I expect from Cleon.

And having said that, I'm neither for nor against Panetta. But, if he's confirmed, I want him to do a good job. That's all, Folks!

We're basically violently agreeing, except that you don't think he has much intelligence gathering experience. I think that between serving as Chief of Staff and serving on the Iraq Survey Group, he has about as much relevant experience to the position as anyone outside of the current intelligence community could have.

But yes, failing to do basic background research, to the point where you make several factually wrong statements, in a thread where you throw them out there like they're gold, and expect us to not bother to even double check them while launching an indirect attack on our president-elect and a direct attack on the man he appointed?

Yeah, pretty much epic fail. Frankly, I expected a lot better.

 

[Roadtoad]

We're basically violently agreeing, except that you don't think he has much intelligence gathering experience. I think that between serving as Chief of Staff and serving on the Iraq Survey Group, he has about as much relevant experience to the position as anyone outside of the current intelligence community could have.

But yes, failing to do basic background research, to the point where you make several factually wrong statements, in a thread where you throw them out there like they're gold, and expect us to not bother to even double check them while launching an indirect attack on our president-elect and a direct attack on the man he appointed?

Yeah, pretty much epic fail. Frankly, I expected a lot better.

Somehow, I feel a bit like a Red Skelton character, the Mean Little Kid... ("He don't know very well, do he?")

The Iraq Study Group was utilizing intel that had already been gathered. Panetta was not out there in the field gathering that information. Radical difference. Panetta himself has never claimed to be involved in the business of spying. And as Chief of Staff, he was in the business of informing the President. Having access to intelligence is not the same as gathering it. THAT'S the difference.

Clearly, your reading something into this that I'm not saying.

Hell, on the Wikipedia page, Panetta explained what it was he did.

Sorry, Grey. If you have information that I don't have, which I got from Wikipedia, Panetta's own website for his institute, and other areas, (I decided to pass on anything Rush Limbaugh of Fox News had on him), I'm more than willing to see what you have, and admit I'm wrong if that is the case.

But, no. I'm not attacking either Panetta or Obama. If you'll reread what I've said, you'll realize this. I've said that I think he might actually do a good job. WE DO NOT KNOW, YET. This is actually not a bad apppointment, as I've said before. Frankly, if Panetta were coming into this with the same experience as Porter Goss, I might actually be worried. (Considering the mess Goss made of the CIA, I'm worried that any CIA experience is suspect.)

Obama's made some appointments I agree with, and some I don't. All of which means precisely zip. I don't know how these people will do once they hit the Senate, and from there, once they get into office. When Lloyd Bentsen took over at Treasury, I cringed. But he actually did pretty well once he was in office.

If ignorance is opposition, well, yes, I suppose I do oppose Obama. In the real world, however, ignorance is simply ignorance, and most of us who will admit to it will actually take the time to do some research, which I have been doing and continue to do. I've never claimed at any point, (at least I don't think I have), to know just how good or bad a job Panetta will do. I will, however, reiterate that his experience has been in running large bureaucratic organizations. From what I've read, his goal has been to get the best and most out of his people. If he can do that at Langley, that would go a long way towards fixing what's wrong with the CIA.

Do me a favor: Reread what I've written. Then tell me how I'm opposed to either Panetta or Obama. I've been pretty clear on what I'm against and what I'm for. I've also said, I want Obama to succeed. Maybe if you'd quit listening to Air America for a few minutes, you might realize that just because someone questions what's being put forth doesn't mean that's opposition.

One more thing: I'm not only an Army Brat, but I spent a few years in uniform myself. First and Second looies didn't have much responsibility in the military, simply because they didn't know a whole hell of a lot. They're young, inexperienced, and lack some training. (No, that doesn't mean they're not smart. It means what is says.) IIRC, the life expectancy of a lieutenant in combat was relatively short. Panetta's experience in the military was not long. According to Wikipedia:

In 1964 he joined the United States Army as a Second Lieutenant. There he received the Army Commendation Medal, and was discharged in 1966 as a First Lieutenant.

Two years. That's it. He'll be succeeding a man who is a retired Air Force General. His own website simply lists two years in service. That, sir, is not a lot of experience in the military. (Harry Truman didn't exactly have a high opinion regarding military experience, so maybe Obama's following in Truman's footsteps. Which might not be a bad thing.)

He's not been involved in the business of spycraft. What he got was the intel that had been gathered, which someone else had interpreted, based upon whatever criteria they thought the White House wanted. That's been part of the problem with the CIA. Maybe Panetta can fix this. I hope he can. The CIA's glory days really have yet to be. (Considering Nixon used it as a political tool, and Johnson ignored it until near the end of his term, and Carter never trusted it, maybe this could signal a sea change.)

 

[Roadtoad]

I knew I'd seen this before, so I had to hunt it down...

From the New York Times:

The choice of Mr. Panetta comes nearly two weeks after Mr. Obama had otherwise wrapped up his major personnel moves. It appears to reflect the difficulty Mr. Obama has encountered in finding a candidate who is capable of taking charge of the agency but is not tied to the interrogation and detention program run by the C.I.A. under President Bush.

Aides have said that Mr. Obama had originally hoped to select a C.I.A. director with extensive field experience, especially in combating terrorist networks. But his first choice for the job, John O. Brennan, had to withdraw his name amid criticism over his alleged role in the formation of the agency’s detention and interrogation program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

As President Clinton’s chief of staff for two and a half years, Mr. Panetta regularly attended daily intelligence briefings in the Oval Office, and he has a reputation in Washington as a skilled manager and power broker with a strong background in budget issues. But he has little direct intelligence experience, and did not serve on the House Intelligence Committee during his 16 years in Congress.

In disclosing the selection, Democratic officials said Mr. Panetta’s gravitas and ties to Mr. Obama would give the C.I.A. a powerful voice within the administration, particularly in bureaucratic jockeying with the Pentagon, which has a much bigger budget and more bureaucratic clout.

If confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Panetta would take control of the agency most directly responsible for hunting senior leaders of Al Qaeda around the world. He would also become the oldest director in the agency’s history, as well as the second politician and former lawmaker in recent years to take it over. Porter J. Goss, the former Republican congressman from Florida, ran the C.I.A from 2004 to 2006, though Mr. Goss was himself a former C.I.A. operative and the longtime chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Read it here.

 

[Roadtoad]

From Time:

More than a few eyebrows went up when word broke that Leon Panetta would be President-Elect Barack Obama's pick to be the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Panetta has no significant intelligence experience and is known around the capital mainly for his budgetary prowess, bipartisanship and management skills. While these are all important traits for a spymaster, so is some experience with actual spycraft: backlash to Panetta started immediately, with Senate intelligence committee chair Dianne Feinstein noting that she believed "the agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time." The dilemma Obama faced — and perhaps the reason he chose someone from outside the spy community — is that he needs a C.I.A. director untainted by the Bush Administration's policies on torture and its handling of the Iraq War. Panetta is certainly untarred in that respect, but in order to have a chance to manage the country's intelligence-gathering apparatus, he'll have to get through a potentially difficult confirmation process to be headed by Feinstein.

Here.

 

[Roadtoad]

Oh, what the hell...

From FoxNews:

Panetta is a surprise pick since he has no experience in the intelligence world, though as chief of staff he had considerable access to intelligence information and knows how the community operates.

Panetta was a longtime congressman from California who also served on the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that released a report at the end of 2006 with dozens of recommendations for reversing course in the Iraq war.

Read it here.

 

[Roadtoad]

If we need more, no problem.

 

[leftysergeant]

Pannetta is there to reform the agency. There is a serious ethical problem since all the meddling that Bushco did, such as the black site prisons, encouraging barbaric interrogation methods and what have you.

His first task, it seems to me, should be to rid the agency of Bushbots and graduates of Federalist Society-approved administrators.

You don't need to know how the boots on the ground function if you know who the creeps are that have been giving the agency its ethical misdirections.

Fix the top and the underlings will know to go back to what works, rather than what the boss' gonads tell them works.

 

[Roadtoad]

Pannetta is there to reform the agency. There is a serious ethical problem since all the meddling that Bushco did, such as the black site prisons, encouraging barbaric interrogation methods and what have you.

His first task, it seems to me, should be to rid the agency of Bushbots and graduates of Federalist Society-approved administrators.

You don't need to know how the boots on the ground function if you know who the creeps are that have been giving the agency its ethical misdirections.

Fix the top and the underlings will know to go back to what works, rather than what the boss' gonads tell them works.

Why, I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED, I tell you! You mean to say, LS, we AGREE on something!?!?

It seems to me, Amigo, you have just clarified one of the points I had hoped to make in this debate. Review Panetta's past, that he resigned from the Nixon Administration because he couldn't stomach violating the law he swore to uphold, then tell me how long the "Bushbots" (to use your term) will remain in place?

I've said it before: There's a lot I don't agree with Panetta on, but this could be a very good thing. Let's see what he does with it.

 

[GreyICE]

Why, I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED, I tell you! You mean to say, LS, we AGREE on something!?!?

It seems to me, Amigo, you have just clarified one of the points I had hoped to make in this debate. Review Panetta's past, that he resigned from the Nixon Administration because he couldn't stomach violating the law he swore to uphold, then tell me how long the "Bushbots" (to use your term) will remain in place?

I've said it before: There's a lot I don't agree with Panetta on, but this could be a very good thing. Let's see what he does with it.

/agree. He doesn't have the experience to be a spymaster. He does have the experience, IMHO, to watch the watchers so to speak.

My main complaint with the OP is that it did no background research, something that has been very clearly done by multiple people in this thread. Thank you for your contribution, Roadtoad.

 

[INRM]

What I worry about is that considering he has a field in economics and intelligence he will be somehow used to drive us and other nations into some kind of One World Government

Could I be wrong sure, but there are a lot of powerful people out there of various stripes who want a one world government for various reasons (Greed, Power, A misguided belief that a one world government would bring about world peace. The first two are the most prominant.)


Travis,

If I remember correctly Panetta was critical of the CIA sugar coating things and of Clinton not using his intelligence assets enough.

This is not a good sign. This guy in otherwords would be inclined to VERY liberally use the intelligence assets he will have at his command. When I say liberally I mean probably on the American people as well.


GreyICE,

Did absolutely anyone notice that he was the chief operations officer for intelligence at Fort Ord?

When was this?


INRM

 

[Roadtoad]

What I worry about is that considering he has a field in economics and intelligence he will be somehow used to drive us and other nations into some kind of One World Government...(snip)

Hi, this is the Politics section of the board.

The CT Section covers this quite nicely. Based on what we know about Panetta, and his stated beliefs, I don't think this is even an issue. (Quite frankly, he's been fairly critical of the UN in the past, and the fact that it's been a place of refuge for third world thugs in many cases, which I would have thought would work against that kind of lunacy.)

If you want to take a nosedive into the woo, knock yourself out. Just do it somewhere that people will appreciate it. If you disagree with Panetta based on facts, that's fine. You're welcome to do that. But to smear the man, based on a belief he has never once expressed, simply because of his background, is simply wrong. It isn't fair, it's not just. It's no different than the attempts to smear David Rockefeller over the Trilateral Commission, or any of the other nonsense I've read over the years.

Seriously, I used to get this kind of silliness in the mail from certain groups, and it took ages before I could get my name off their damned mailing lists. I never asked for it, it was insulting to my intelligence when I got it, and nothing seems to have changed.

 

[INRM]

Message deleted by poster

 

[INRM]

Roadtoad,

Does Panetta oppose the UN in principle, or just as it is? If only the US and only NATO countries were in control of the UN, I'm pretty sure he'd be pretty damn happy

 

[Chaos]

Roadtoad,

Does Panetta oppose the UN in principle, or just as it is? If only the US and only NATO countries were in control of the UN, I'm pretty sure he'd be pretty damn happy

Can you please show us where he said or wrote that?

Or, otherwise, can you please apply for the Million-Dollar-Challenge for reading his mind?

 

[Roadtoad]

Roadtoad,

Does Panetta oppose the UN in principle, or just as it is? If only the US and only NATO countries were in control of the UN, I'm pretty sure he'd be pretty damn happy

IIRC, it was just as it is presently constituted. I don't think (and I'm still trying to track down the quote) that he's opposed to the principle of the UN, and its stated objectives. Hell, I'M not even opposed to the stated objectives, but when you have Libya's representatives sent up for the Human Rights Commission, that's a little bizarre, to say the least.

I may have spoken too soon on this. Let me track down the actual quote again. But, to the best of what I recall, Panetta's an internationalist. (Thanks for the heads up, Chaos! )

 

[INRM]

How do you define "Internationalist"?

INRM

 

[Roadtoad]

Good question. Again, I'll need to do more reading. It's one of those terms that has multiple meaning for multiple users. How Panetta defines it, if it applies to his beliefs, could have a lot of bearing.

Meantime, I need to get a shower. I was changing a fuel filter, and got gasoline in my eye, as well as all over my clothes. BRB.

 

[Roadtoad]

Finally checked things out. Based on the Wikipedia definition, Panetta would best be described as an internationalist, since what I'm reading supports the notion that he favors cooperation between nations, ideally for mutual benefit, (i.e., NAFTA, and the WTO.) There are limits, it would seem, to that belief, from what I'm reading at the Panetta Institute website, and other locales, but that seems to be the very general gist of this.

However, it's wise to define this, given that the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others, tend to define "internationalism" as being a threat to American sovereignty. I'm not sure where they get that, but half the time, I don't know where these guys get HALF the crap they do.

Actually, INRM made an exceptional point. Definitions like this tend to take on odd lives, split personalities, and the like, simply for the benefit of those who sling such things around with out much thought. Pretty dangerous stuff, when you get down to it.

Another point: IIRC, (don't hold me to this, though), there are those on the right who are now saying that Panetta's too nice a guy to run CIA, though if I remember this well enough, back when he ran the Clinton White House, it was suggested that he was only slightly kinder than a pit bull. Again, more to research. Neither seems to jibe with what we have been learning about this man. It's actually been very beneficial to do the digging about this.

 

[BeAChooser]

Weird. I would've thought for sure BeAChooser, Cicero, or kallsop would've been all over this

Obama - "Let me be clear: In Leon Panetta, the agency will have a director who has my complete trust and substantial clout.”

Oh yes ... a man WE can trust. Or can we?

Anyone remember Chinagate and CampaignFinanceGate? Anyone remember Judicial Watch's (as opposed to Janet Reno's) efforts to investigate those two scandals? http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/ois/specials/interim_report/interim_HTML.htm Anyone remember that as a result of JW's efforts, in the spring of 1995, a court ordered the production of Commerce Department documents related to these two scandals? Anyone remember that in 1998 Judicial Watch deposed Nolanda Hill, a close associate and confidant of Ron Brown? Anyone remember that she testified under oath that Brown told her that then White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered him to defy court orders and obstruct a Judicial Watch suit that was aimed at gathering information related to Chinagate and CampaignFinanceGate by withholding documents until after the 1996 federal elections. According to the above link:

in both her January 17, 1998 affidavit and at the March 23, 1998 evidentiary hearing, President Clinton's two top deputies, then White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta, directly ordered Brown to defy the Court's orders and obstruct the Judicial Watch suit until after the 1996 elections:

I further learned through discussions with Ron [Brown] that The White House, through Leon Panetta and John Podesta, had instructed him to delay the case by withholding the production of documents prior to the 1996 elections, and to devise a way not to comply with the court's orders.(184) (Emphasis added.)

****

Q: And that Leon Panetta had told Ron that, quote, "He had the responsibility of containing the Judicial Watch lawsuit"?

A: Yes.

Q: And you responded to Ron, did you not, by telling him that that strategy of stall, stall, stall would not work forever?

A: Yes, in part.(185)

Weekly reports sent by Secretary Brown to Chief of Staff Leon Panetta at the Clinton White House confirm Panetta's involvement, as they discussed the status of Judicial Watch's FOIA requests.(186)

Ms. Hill would later testify about Mr. Panetta's and Mr. Podesta's efforts to obstruct justice and cover-up the sale of trade mission seats for the President's re-election effort:

Q: And you learned that Leon Panetta and John Podesta had instructed him to delay the case for political reasons?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, do you remember Ron saying to you that Panetta and Podesta wanted him to, quote, "slow pedal" the case until after the [1996] elections? Those were the words that were used, was it not?

A: Yes.

Q: And that Ron mimicked Leon Panetta and laughed when he used the words "slow pedal"?

A: Well, he did a pretty good Leon Panetta.

Q: Imitation?

A: (Nods head affirmatively.)(187)

Ms. Hill's testimony indicates that the President was personally aware of this unlawful obstruction. She would later testify that, shortly after she saw Commerce Department correspondence indicating that trade mission seats were being sold in exchange for political contributions, Secretary Brown and the President had a meeting. This meeting occurred just before Brown took his fateful trip to Croatia188)

Anyone remember that Panetta was also involved in other Clinton scandals? Like Filegate?

In 1996, White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta issued a statement blaming the "the procedures in place for some three decades" for being inadequate. He called it "a completely honest bureaucratic snafu." Now we all know that procedures weren't the problem in Filegate and it was hardly a completely honest bureaucratic snafu. Was it.

Oh yes ... a man whose judgement we can trust.

A Chinese Naval Base -- at Long Beach

by Patrick J. Buchanan

March 13, 1997

And last year, Johnny Chung, who gave $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee, showed up for a Clinton radio broadcast at the White House, with six Chinese in tow, including an adviser of Cosco.

... snip ...

And who was chief lobbyist for handing over the historic naval base to China? None other than the president of the United States. Clinton held two meetings, one in the White House with Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and a deputy secretary of defense, to press Long Beach to make the deal.

Or can we?

 

[INRM]

Message deleted by inrm