Did He Seriously Pick Panetta....

#26
#26
In all fairness... his SecDef is a former CIA Director
His DNI is Adm (ret) Blair
His Nat'l Security Advisor is Gen (ret) Jones

Those 3 are all good picks. From what I understand Obama is trying to distance himself from the torture circles.
 
#30
#30
MG1968 said:
Panetta is also 71 years old. That's too old to be entrusted with the responsibility of running the CIA. What happens if he has a heart attack and dies while in office? Will his 46 year old youthful and dynamic protege be prepared to take over?
Click to expand...

Did you feel the same way about McCain/Palin? Two words changed from your post:

MG1968 said:
McCain is also 71 years old. That's too old to be entrusted with the responsibility of running the Entire Country. What happens if he has a heart attack and dies while in office? Will his 46 year old youthful and dynamic protege be prepared to take over?
Click to expand...
 
#31
#31
SavageOrangeJug said:
Stating the truth = clueless jackass?
Click to expand...


JoeVols and you both seem to have little understanding what you call truth is only an opinion. JFK was considered a liberal. He didn't hate the CIA. The end of the cold war eliminated the need for certain segments of the CIA anyway. Whether you want to agree with it or not, THAT IS TRUTH. We didn't need as many spooks in the eastern bloc anymore. It was a question of gutting but a question of need. Talking about governmental waste. For those of you who preach about this, think about what you are saying.
 
#35
#35
truefan said:
I suppose the less than credible intelligence we were getting out of the Middle East in the early 2000s was Clinton's fault too.
Click to expand...
Clinton left office in early 2000. A gutted CIA left in his wake.

GEE! I wonder why the intelligence sucked in early 2000?

Thank you, sir. You have proved the point. :eek:k:
 
#36
#36
alright, let's get something straight. Clinton was President until Jan. 20th 2001
 
#37
#37
truefan said:
JoeVols and you both seem to have little understanding what you call truth is only an opinion. JFK was considered a liberal. He didn't hate the CIA. The end of the cold war eliminated the need for certain segments of the CIA anyway. Whether you want to agree with it or not, THAT IS TRUTH. We didn't need as many spooks in the eastern bloc anymore. It was a question of gutting but a question of need. Talking about governmental waste. For those of you who preach about this, think about what you are saying.
Click to expand...
Say what? Do you know anything about history?

JKF threatened to dismantle the CIA. He hated them.

Here, let me Google that for you.
 
#39
#39
truefan said:
I suppose the less than credible intelligence we were getting out of the Middle East in the early 2000s was Clinton's fault too.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it was all his fault but when you gut the intelligence agencies it can only make the job of getting good info harder.
 
#40
#40
KB5252 said:
I wouldn't say it was all his fault but when you gut the intelligence agencies it can only make the job of getting good info harder.
Click to expand...

So we should have kept all those we didn't need and pay them those huge salaries. You sound like you are the CEO at GM. Look, the gutting was necessary because the number of agents needed in 1987 was far more than what was needed in 1995. You can't have it both ways. It is common sense. The Middle Eastern portion of the CIA wasn't trimmed of the fat nearly as much as the Eastern Bloc sector. Our government was paying HUGE sums of money to agents and funding operations that were no longer viable to our national and international interest.

YOu know it really doesn't matter. You guys on the right aren't going to agree with anything that comes from a democrat....even with common sense staring at you front and center. Like today in the basketball forum. You called BS on me on something I know for a fact. More so because it was me, the democrat, making the statement. And rather than going into a diatribe and explaing to you how you had no clue, I just let it go. (The NCAA investigation thing) This was clear proof you will have the tendency to disagree with a dem just because they are a dem, regardless of the facts.
 
#41
#41
KB5252 said:
I wouldn't say it was all his fault but when you gut the intelligence agencies it can only make the job of getting good info harder.
Click to expand...


Do you even know where and how it was gutted?

It was NONE of his fault. It was everyone involved at the time, including Congress. The cutbacks HAD NOTHING to do with the faulty intelligence.
 
#43
#43
truefan said:
YOu know it really doesn't matter. You guys on the right aren't going to agree with anything that comes from a democrat....even with common sense staring at you front and center.
Click to expand...

You follow that up with this gem? Breathtaking.


truefan said:
Do you even know where and how it was gutted?

It was NONE of his fault. It was everyone involved at the time, including Congress. The cutbacks HAD NOTHING to do with the faulty intelligence.
Click to expand...
 
#44
#44
truefan said:
It was NONE of his fault. It was everyone involved at the time, including Congress. The cutbacks HAD NOTHING to do with the faulty intelligence.
Click to expand...

While it may be overstating things to simply lay everything on Clinton I have no idea how you can make the above statement, at least not with the certainty you make it.
 
#46
#46
MontereyVol said:
I for one am all for this.
Click to expand...

Not just indifferent...but all for it? Now..Panetta might run the CIA differently than how Clinton's men did...but the association worries me. Panetta was in the center of that white house...so until he proves otherwise, I'm concerned.

What are the attributes that make you all for it?

Now..I know that you can get a bad name quickly at Langley when you start messing with any of the status quo (and that can get you a bad reputation quickly)...but there were some boneheaded decisions going on wrt the CIA by the admin...
 
#47
#47
Things at Langley are likely to be pretty crappy depending on the new interrogation procedures. Bring in a "human asset" reducer and morale should hit an all time low.
 
#48
#48
Oh boy...

With a strong background in economics, Panetta has little hands-on experience in intelligence. But he is known as a strong manager with solid organizational skills.
Click to expand...

Even Diane Feinstein isn't convinced...

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who will be the new chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she had not been told in advance of Panetta's selection.

"My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time," the California Democrat said.
Click to expand...

I did enjoy this tibit though (in reference to Blair's nomination)

Blair also is known in Navy circles for once trying to water-ski behind the destroyer he skippered, the USS Cochrane
Click to expand...

Obama to name Panetta to lead CIA, Blair as intelligence chief - CNN.com
 
#49
#49
From a NY Times Blog....

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

Members of Mr. Obama’s transition also raised concerns about other candidates, even some Democratic lawmakers with intelligence experience. Representative Jane Harman of California, formerly the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was considered for the job, but she was ruled out as a candidate in part because of her early support for some Bush administration programs like the domestic eavesdropping program.
Click to expand...
 
#50
#50
TennTradition said:
Not just indifferent...but all for it? Now..Panetta might run the CIA differently than how Clinton's men did...but the association worries me. Panetta was in the center of that white house...so until he proves otherwise, I'm concerned.

What are the attributes that make you all for it?

Now..I know that you can get a bad name quickly at Langley when you start messing with any of the status quo (and that can get you a bad reputation quickly)...but there were some boneheaded decisions going on wrt the CIA by the admin...
Click to expand...

Yeah there is that, but I really don't want to see him on TV out here anymore. :)

Leon Panetta, Institute Director
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top