Leon Panetta for Head of the CIA?
That's like picking a doctor to represent you as your lawyer. Or picking Hillary Clinton to be in charge of enacting National Health care reform.
Panetta may be a smart man with admirable capabilities, but he has not the required background knowledge to run the most important intelligence gathering entity in the country.
This is no time to experiment with management skills for the best spy agency we have. Not now, not ever.
The reasoning behind this pick is that he will be adept at communicating with Congress about intelligence issues.
That's not the purpose of this position.
The sole purpose should be to protect the interests of the US.
Panetta is a staunch criticizer of the interrogation techniques used under the Bush administration. Thus, Obama is throwing a bone to the left with this pick, ensuring that these techniques (which have worked for 7 and a half years) will be changed..
The Obama team didn't even ask or brief Senator Diane Feinstein, the (God help us) new Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee (a true oxymoron), about this. And she is against the pick.
"My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time", she said.
Newsflash: Hell hath froze over. I actually agree with DiFi.
Eric Holder, Bill Richardson, and now this.
The bloom is coming off the rose for Obama. And there's going to be plenty more petals to loose.
Bush had Harriet Miers. Obama has this. Let's see if the media rips him to shreds.
Note: Damn.. I just realized that Mike touched on this in his last piece. Sorry, Mike. I'll leave this up though, so the trolls can rip my proofreading.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Barack Obama
Comments (12)
No problem Shawn. The trol... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Mike | January 6, 2009 7:57 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
No problem Shawn. The trolls have already commenced their assault on my post. :-)
1. Posted by Mike | January 6, 2009 7:57 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on January 6, 2009 19:57
2. Posted by George
| January 6, 2009 9:23 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
"That's like picking a doctor to represent you as your lawyer.
It's worse. It's like picking a lawyer to be your doctor.
2. Posted by George
| January 6, 2009 9:23 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 6, 2009 21:23
3. Posted by GarandFan | January 6, 2009 9:54 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
"Let's see if the media rips him to shreds."
Not hardly, they'll be asking for a bailout shortly.
3. Posted by GarandFan | January 6, 2009 9:54 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 6, 2009 21:54
4. Posted by John S | January 6, 2009 10:38 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
"It's worse. It's like picking a lawyer to be your doctor."
Or electing Barak Obama as president. No experience necessary, apparantly.
4. Posted by John S | January 6, 2009 10:38 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on January 6, 2009 22:38
5. Posted by MPR | January 6, 2009 11:24 PM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Obamalala is paying back the wacko left with this appointment. No coercion of terrorist of any kind. No wire tapping of suspected terrorists outside or inside the country. Full Geneva conventions rights for terrorists captured. Close Gitmo and bring them into the U.S prison system. America needs to be paid back for being so wrong for the last eight years. Anyone associated with the CIA must be purged. blah blah blah la la la la la la.......
5. Posted by MPR | January 6, 2009 11:24 PM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on January 6, 2009 23:24
6. Posted by Arthur | January 7, 2009 10:14 AM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
> This is no time to experiment with management skills for the best worst spy agency we have.
Fixed that typo for ya.
Seriously, although I'd like to see somebody with an intel background running the CIA, it's even more important to FIX the CIA. And that takes a cutthroat manager.
6. Posted by Arthur | January 7, 2009 10:14 AM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 7, 2009 10:14
7. Posted by BluesHarper | January 7, 2009 10:55 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
"Obamalala" - ding dong.
Sorry, I couldn't help it.
7. Posted by BluesHarper | January 7, 2009 10:55 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 7, 2009 10:55
8. Posted by Bruce Henry | January 7, 2009 1:34 PM | Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
I'll refrain from being a critic of your use of the word "criticizer", Shawn.
Panetta may not have the experience you think necessary, sir, but he did serve in an intelligence unit as an Army officer during Vietnam, served nine terms in Congress if I'm not mistaken, managed the GAO, served as WH Chief of Staff, and served on the Baker Commission, aka Iraq Study Group. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he on the 9/11 Commission also? I'm honestly not sure of that one.
Now, that resume may be a little thin to your liking, Shawn, but you ain't hiring. We elected a President to nominate these appointees, and they have to be confirmed by Congress. I'll bet you Panetta gets very little trouble from GOP members in his confirmation hearings.
8. Posted by Bruce Henry | January 7, 2009 1:34 PM |
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on January 7, 2009 13:34
9. Posted by Marc | January 7, 2009 3:25 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
b henry - "Panetta may not have the experience you think necessary, sir, but he did serve in an intelligence unit as an Army officer during Vietnam, served nine terms in Congress if I'm not mistaken, managed the GAO, served as WH Chief of Staff, and served on the Baker Commission, aka Iraq Study Group."
And so?
Each of those positions, while important in their own way, are all as a consumer of intel data.
Being in charge of the CIA and overseeing the production, analysis and quality of an intel assessments is a far different matter.
As yes, Panetta was a member of the ISG.
9. Posted by Marc | January 7, 2009 3:25 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 7, 2009 15:25
10. Posted by Shawn | January 7, 2009 3:55 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Bruce,
Look it up. It is an actual word.
10. Posted by Shawn | January 7, 2009 3:55 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 7, 2009 15:55
11. Posted by Marc | January 7, 2009 5:55 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Shawn... that may not be enough for "bruce," he may have the need to be shown the way.
11. Posted by Marc | January 7, 2009 5:55 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 7, 2009 17:55
12. Posted by Bruce Henry | January 8, 2009 11:35 AM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Mea culpa, Mallow. Clumsy prose, perhaps, but "criticizer" is indeed an actual word.
But for the rest of my comment, was that substancey enough for you?
Yes, I know "substancey" isn't an actual word.
12. Posted by Bruce Henry | January 8, 2009 11:35 AM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 8, 2009 11:35