Political Hack to Run CIA

[GreyICE]

No. I just don't think a two-year military stint that included briefly holding an intelligence title 40 years ago consists of any sort of substantial experience in the field. I really don't. Hell, I was in the Boy Scouts for longer than that, and it was a heluva lot more recent than 40 years ago, too.

You can easily prove me wrong, by explaining what his accomplishments were while holding this position.

You're trying, desperately, to see something that isn't there.

Epic fail, indeed.

You're rationalizing, Cleon. You are ignoring your own statements. This tells me two things.

First, a theory is based on facts. Your theory was that he was a political hack. Your facts were that he had no relevant experience.

You were shown to be factually incorrect. This torpedos your theory. Period. It's dead. You have to reevaluate it based on the new facts.

I see no reevaluation.

Second, these facts were easy to find. It took me, roughly speaking, 2 minutes. This tells me that you did no relevant research. None. Your judgment was based on bias, preexisting, and you had no desire to examine it. My theory is that your prejudice was that his recent experience was working with the democratic party, and that you then dismissed him as a political hack with no real exploration of what he has done.


I find no merit in discussing this with someone who forms theories based not on an examination of the facts (which clearly never occurred) but on what can only be judged to be prejudices. If it was merely ignorance, a demonstration of that ignorance would force a reevaluation.

You cannot be convinced, because your theory holds no basis in a rational evaluation of the facts. We know this because no attempt to determine the actual facts of the case indeed occurred. Such theories are irrational. Using rational arguments against irrational ones is doomed to failure, as this forum has repeatedly demonstrated. It is better to demonstrate the irrationality, and hope that the irrational comes to their senses.

If, after a rational evaluation, your opinion remains unchanged, we can indeed then discuss this. Your ridicule of his position and defense of the indefensible (a factually wrong statement) suggests to me that this has not occurred. I hope that it will, but I doubt it is a high probability event.

 

[Cleon]

You're rationalizing, Cleon.

No, you're overreaching. You're trying to make the case that a 40-year-old job title for a low-level officer whose entire military career was shorter than an Associate Degree program somehow consists of "intelligence experience." I'm not buying it.

Further, you're trying to make this about me, rather than about Obama's choice of an unqualified political hack to run the CIA.

I'm not the issue. Panetta is. Try to focus on that, k?

Your theory was that he was a political hack.

That's not a "theory." That's a simple observation, based on his decades of working as a Democratic Party operative in various elected and appointed positions.

Your facts were that he had no relevant experience.

Which, so far, you have yet to disprove.

Again, you can do so quite easily, by explaining what his duties or accomplishments were while holding the position that you find so important.

You have not done so. Instead, you've posted a long screed about how I'm not worthy of your attention, and how flawed I am compared to your investigative greatness. This might be great for your ego, but it does little to make your case.

 

[GreyICE]

Cleon, you're chopping and hoping that you can respond to something here. You didn't do the research, you got called on it, deal.

Now if you're willing to sit back with knowledge of the fact that you do not, in fact, have the information necessary to judge his competence because your research has been lacking, and listen to why he may be a good choice, I can enlighten you.

If you're going to insist that your research was somehow adequate when it so clearly was not, we're done.

 

[Roadtoad]

Grey, when I was in the Army, most of the First and Second Looies I knew in the S2 made coffee and double checked security clearance apps. The coffee was passable.

Having served as a First Lieutenant at Fort Ord does not mean that Panetta had "extensive" intel experience. Quite the opposite. His experience, if that's you're bar, is very limited.

 

[madurobob]

Very limited, even in the eyes of his colleague at the time:

“We were a training base—we had to put out X number of soldiers every cycle, so it was important that we knew what was going on,” he says. “It had to do with keeping the commanding general posted regarding how the war was building up and, interpreting from that, how many more men and draftees they would need to put through training.”
...

As for whether the gig at Fort Ord was any kind of preparation for running a byzantine agency dogged by scandal and allegations of torture, Gates says nah. But he has utter faith in his old pal nevertheless.

 

[Cleon]

Cleon, you're...

Again, I'm not the issue. Panetta is. Stop trying to make this about me.

For the third time: You can show me up quite easily by explaining what his duties or accomplishments were while holding the position that you find so important. That speaks volumes more than a job title.

 

[boloboffin]

A supporting view from Robert Baer in Time:

Leon Panetta may not have an intelligence background, but his appointment as CIA director shows that Barack Obama understands the CIA's problems. As a former White House chief of staff, Clinton Administration budget director and eight-term California Congressman, Panetta knows his way around Washington better than most people, and that kind of knowledge is exactly what the CIA needs right now.

Panetta is experienced enough to understand that the CIA was the victim of political manipulation under the Bush Administration. It was the Bush White House that cherry-picked the intelligence on Iraq, not the CIA. Panetta will have the ear of the new President to walk him through all of this and to make the case that there is no point in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Panetta will also serve as a good counterweight to retired Admiral Dennis Blair, the designated director of national intelligence who is unlikely to streamline the intelligence community or challenge the Pentagon's preeminent position.

...Panetta's service with the Iraq Study Group will serve him well. Aside from Afghanistan, how and when the U.S. pulls out of Iraq are the most pressing intelligence and foreign policy issues that the new Administration will face in the next two years. There is no time for a CIA director to play catch-up.

Dianne Feinstein is now on board. Panetta's in.

 

[Roadtoad]

At no point have I suggested that Panetta would make a bad choice. His role as CIA Director is at the head of the bureaucracy, but it is not so much about his role as Spymaster. We'll see what he does, how he answers the questions put to him.

As I've said: A lack of intel experience might be an asset at this point, oddly enough.

 

[gumboot]

Please cite this "law" that prohibits using conventional bombing of targets that might threaten civilians? Are nuclear weapons finicky about not killing civilians? The advent of nuclear weapons negated the point of area bombing cities.

You said that there are numerous military actions the Allies used in WWII that became "illegal" after the war. I am still waiting for you to come with one of them.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4326063#post4326063

The law in question is Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

Four specific things from WW2 that would now be illegal, but were not illegal at the time:

-Shooting air crews who have bailed out of an aircraft and are on a parachute.
-The fire bombing of Tokyo city.
-The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
-Operation Chastise (the "Dambuster" raids)

No wonder he doesn't know what a Vegemite is. So you agree there is reason to insult New Zealand?

I know what Vegemite is. I don't know what you offered up such a nonsensical, weak, and stupid comment, displaying a profound wealth of ignorance. Hence the "" expression.

 

[Cicero]

The law in question is Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

Four specific things from WW2 that would now be illegal, but were not illegal at the time:

-Shooting air crews who have bailed out of an aircraft and are on a parachute.
-The fire bombing of Tokyo city.
-The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
-Operation Chastise (the "Dambuster" raids)

I know what Vegemite is. I don't know what you offered up such a nonsensical, weak, and stupid comment, displaying a profound wealth of ignorance. Hence the "" expression.

While there were several incidents where Allied forces did shoot at pilot/air crews that had bailed out, or were on the ground, this was de rigueur for the Japanese and Germans (and those pesky Russians). I would think this 1949 addition was aimed at what the Axis did in WWII, not the Big Two of the Allies.

Since the U.S. was the only nation to have nuclear weapons in 1945, the Geneva Convention post 1948, when the Soviets also had nuclear weapons, really has nothing to do with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact International Law provides for nuclear retaliation aginst an aggressor nation that employed first use of a nuclear strike. So, theoretically, there could be many cities destroyed by the U.S., far worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if the U.S. were the target of a nuclear attack first, and it would not violate these post WWII conventions.

http://books.google.com/books?id=r2...X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA168,M1


The U.S. is not a signatory of Protocol 1 that prohibits raids like the famous Lancaster/Mosquito Dambusters operation. But again, this type of operation was not a U.S. specialty.

The U.K. also had their own stipulations before signing.

The United Kingdom ratified Protocol I in 1998, but made the following reservation in respect of Article 56:

"The United Kingdom cannot undertake to grant absolute protection to installations which may contribute to the opposing Party's war effort, or to the defenders of such installations, but will take all due precautions in military operations at or near the installations referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 56 in the light of the known facts, including any special marking which the installation may carry, to avoid severe collateral losses among the civilian populations; direct attacks on such installations will be launched only on authorisation at a high level of command."

So out of the "many" things you specifically singled out the U.S. did during WWII that were legal then, but not post 1948, really amount to the fire bombing of cities, i.e., Tokyo, Dresden. Since Tokyo was made of wood and paper construction (how many cities today are of such construction?), this method of aerial bombardment while effective then, would not even be a consideration today. The Dresden raid was a British/U.S. effort.

 

[GreyICE]

Again, I'm not the issue. Panetta is. Stop trying to make this about me.

For the third time: You can show me up quite easily by explaining what his duties or accomplishments were while holding the position that you find so important. That speaks volumes more than a job title.

Ah, so you are willing to consider his experience. Very well, first consider what qualities Obama wants in a CIA chief.

First, he should be uninvolved in the current community. The current international intelligence gathering the US has committed has been hopelessly polluted, turning into an echo chamber to reinforce what we want to hear. It's in dire need of reform.

The CIA, NSA, and MI are all straight out. Anyone with recent experience in them has participated, and is thus tainted, in opinion if not in fact (and, it would be very hard to tell if they were in fact unaffected).

The FBI would seem logical, but presidents have worked hard since J. Edgar to make sure that domestic and overseas are separate. Having a former FBI person be CIA head honcho is dangerous.

Thus, you need an outsider.

He must have relevant knowledge of the field.

He must, ethically, be above reproach.

He must have experience as an administrator.

Now Panetta fits all the bills. He served on the Iraq Survey group, so has good position on how the CIA failed. He has experience chairing multiple committees. He has obviously passed clearance and background checks. He is beyond reproach in terms of personal ethics. He has experience converting the former Fort Ord into a university (both management and organization).

Moreover, he has served as the White House Chief of Staff, a position referred to as "the second most powerful man in Washington." As a direct aide to the President, it is a position of extreme responsibility and power. By all accounts he served well. The Chief of Staff manages the flow of information around the President (sound anything like an intelligence director?). He coordinates with key personnel, bringing important issues to the President's attention. He structures and manages the White house staff system, the system that supports and executes the power of the executive branch. They also serve as free-roaming negotiators for the President, meeting with key people.

In short, they're about as close as you can get to an intelligence director without being from the intelligence community at all.

So, basically, he has relevant experience, he is a solid choice, and he is hardly a partisan hack. The man is well liked and well respected, and he is competent for the job.

Now onto why he might be competent beyond that. Panetta continued to impliment civil rights reforms in his role under Richard Nixon, essentially undoing Nixon's back room dealing to stop enforcing the Civil Rights and Voting Rights act. While eventually forced to resign, he took a principled stand against the President and things he thought were wrong.

In short and long, he is a man who has done principled dedicated service to his country, as both a Republican and a Democrat. Far from being a political hack, he is qualified for the job, as well as being an outsider in the intelligence community. This brings a unique opportunity for a qualified outsider to overhaul a system that so clearly failed to tell the President and Congress, and by extension the American people, an unpleasant truth they most definitely should have heard. I consider this another intelligent and solid choice for the position


His intelligence experience? Relevant and untarnished, with the advantage of having a long, hard look at the failings of the current community.
His security experience? Controlled and prioritized the flow of information to the most powerful man in the country for 3 years. Has security clearance with the Army, and obviously under the President.

It's sad as hell that you, someone I used to respect, simply did not do the research or contemplate the reasons that this man might have been selected. The politics forum claims another victim of shallow thinking. Also, research, research, research. If someone tells you something, assume they're lying until proven otherwise. Also, for the last time, trimming my posts is beyond rude. I feel this will be my last meaningful interaction with you, it's just too damn frustrating.

 

[Roadtoad]

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!

 

[boloboffin]

Has it been pointed out in this thread yet that the No. 2 guy and the No. 3 guy at the CIA are being asked to retain their jobs at the agency? That would go a long way in ensuring that Panetta's inexperience in conducting and managing intelligence operations will not interfere with this primary function of the CIA.

 

[pgwenthold]

What were George Tenet's qualifications for CIA director?

Whatever they were, for future use, let's look for the opposite.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Because the Norden bomb sight was ineffective when there was cloud cover means that the Allies purposely targeted hospitals in WWII?

Well the intentional incinerating of cities would seem to be targeting civilians. See Tokyo.

 

[Roadtoad]

Has it been pointed out in this thread yet that the No. 2 guy and the No. 3 guy at the CIA are being asked to retain their jobs at the agency? That would go a long way in ensuring that Panetta's inexperience in conducting and managing intelligence operations will not interfere with this primary function of the CIA.

No, I don't think it has been. But, I think you're right. Let's see how this plays out for now.

What were George Tenet's qualifications for CIA director?

Whatever they were, for future use, let's look for the opposite.

I think we've got that in Panetta.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If the intent in appointing Panetta is to try and rid the CIA of the scandals of the last 7+ years then one must also be prepared to accept the consequences of that. We had a risk adverse CIA under Clinton and it was terrible at its job as a result. We had a much more proactive CIA under Bush but the means by which it happened offended many.

So the question is do we trade off the values of a free republic for a more capable agency? There are arguments in favor of doing the bad things because it can get results. There are also arguments that the renouncement of our core values are not worth those improved results. So, where do we draw the line and are we prepared to accept the consequences?

It will be interesting to see what road Panetta goes down and how it works out.

Has the CIA been that much more capable under bush?

 

[Cicero]

Well the intentional incinerating of cities would seem to be targeting civilians. See Tokyo.

Who said it wasn't? Civilians work in defense plants, military bases, government buildings, etc. The reason LeMay changed tactics with the B-29 raids was because the much lower level sorties with incendiary ordnance was much more accurate and effective than the HE bombs dropped from 20,000+ feet.

 

[a_unique_person]

Personally I find the entire concept of heading government agencies with arbitrary political appointments to be bizarre in the extreme. Yet another flaw (as I see it) in the US system.

The Westminister system is better in this aspect of governance.

 

[gumboot]

The Westminister system is better in this aspect of governance.

That would be my contention.