Comments on: Obama Surprises With CIA Pick

President-Elect Will Tap Leon Panetta For CIA Director, Dennis Blair For Director Of National Intelligence

[ioweign]

"cbsispravda-see, the left doesn''t think terrorism is a threat. In fact, they don''t even like referencing 9/11."

Posted by Xlib at 05:27 PM : Jan 05, 2009


It must not be a threat - OBL is STILL free...

[jn122736]

When even the likes of Diane Finestine (Democrat-CA) says that it''''''''s a bad idea, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is a bad idea.

Posted by CBSisPravda1

LOL Take what Feinstein says seriously? What a joke--Her husband made about as much money off the Iraq war as Cheney did from Haliburton!

Maybe she thinks Cheney should be CIA director, he''''d be able to figure a way to keep that ole money flowing in!

Posted by liberalme at 07:36 PM : Jan 05, 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good point, liberalme.

And don%u2019t forget, immediately becoming speaker of the house, Diane Finestine also refused to even consider the impeachment of president Bush.

I have never understood her reasoning for that. Perhaps there is more to it than we are told.

[ourtomorrows]

The CIA is no longer what it used to be. The real secret and interessting stuff (like warrantless wiretaping...) happens at the NSA, not the CIA or the FBI. And the DHS will become more important and the 27 agencies below it less so (Can you say "budget cuts"? No, not while we have this preposterous "War On Terror"! But can you say "budget relocation"? Maybe...).

Hence it might be clever to place a budget hawk atop an agency that demands lots of money but does not deliver a days work for a days pay (see 9/11, FBI and INS had more on the terrorists than the CIA, what a shame!).

Posted by ballpen1

so I gather you don''t actually know what the CIA does. The CIA is primarily responsible for intelligence gathering outside of the US. They do work completely different from the FBI or Homeland Security. The CIA''s work is worldwide and meant to examine, analyze and gather information in various countries throughout the globe. They are not primarily responsible for law enforcement in the US (FBI) or protection of the homeland from terrorism (Dept of HS). Bush put together a network so that the CIA now has a direct line to share information with Homeland Security that is relevant to HS just like all the other agencies do, but if you remember the entire debate when this set up was created, the CIA still has a huge level of autonomy.

[ballpen1]

Two things:

1: CBS, could you please find a picture of Panetta that demeans him even MORE? Maybe picking his nose? I checked all my other news outlet, you are the only one with this ugly mugshot. Why? Oh, i just remembered, don''t bother to answer...

2. All you "not experienced" wailers: What is the CIA today? Right, a "subcontractor" to the DHS! Who made it that way? Right, George W. Bush! Has the President Elect picked someone to run DHS? No, he has not (yet)!

The CIA is no longer what it used to be. The real secret and interessting stuff (like warrantless wiretaping...) happens at the NSA, not the CIA or the FBI. And the DHS will become more important and the 27 agencies below it less so (Can you say "budget cuts"? No, not while we have this preposterous "War On Terror"! But can you say "budget relocation"? Maybe...).

Hence it might be clever to place a budget hawk atop an agency that demands lots of money but does not deliver a days work for a days pay (see 9/11, FBI and INS had more on the terrorists than the CIA, what a shame!).

[liberalme]

And now the Democrats will try to dismantel the intelligence structure that kept Americans safe since 9/11.

American voters have chosen -- poorly.



Posted by CBSisPravda1

Hahahaha intelligence in Washington over the past 8 years? Not a bit!

Lets take wiretapping for an example----how many cells have been broken with that bright idea?

Or try this----800,000 names on the FBI terror watch list---how many have been found out from that list?

The only intelligence the current regime in Washington has is how to get away with murder and rob the country blind at the same time---they did that without a hitch! Oil on the other hand -----oops

[promaclaura]

Finally, a great Democrat to head the CIA. He will surely find out how V.P. D. Cheney cooked the Intel Data immediately after 9/11 so to produce a Cooked Report to Congress. Ofcourse, Bush did not know what his V.P. did.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by lovegetpeace at 06:59 PM : Jan 05, 2009

Isn''t there any "Great Democrats" in the CIA? I''d feel better if he had selected one of them.

[promaclaura]

It''s like selecting David Petraeus to oversee the economy. A good leader for the military, but the economy, I don''t think so.

[liberalme]

When even the likes of Diane Finestine (Democrat-CA) says that it''''s a bad idea, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is a bad idea.

Posted by CBSisPravda1

LOL Take what Feinstein says seriously? What a joke--Her husband made about as much money off the Iraq war as Cheney did from Haliburton!

Maybe she thinks Cheney should be CIA director, he''d be able to figure a way to keep that ole money flowing in!

[promaclaura]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........HA!!!!
WE CAN COUNT ON IT THAT EVERY TIME OBAMA MAKES A CHOICE FOR A POSITION THAT THE RECONS WILL COME OUT OF THE WOOD WORK TO CRITICIZE HIS CHOICES. LIKE THE CHOICES OF THE LAST 8 YEARS WERE THOSE OF A GENIUS.
2 FAILED WARS,1000 DEAD FROM FAILED EVACUATIONS IN LA.
A FAILED ECONOMY,A LRGE INCREASE IN HOMELESSNEES DUE TO FORECLOSURES,NOT TO MENTION 2.3 MILLION JOBS LOST TO CHINA SINCE 2001.

YEAH YOU ALL HAVE A RIGHT TO CRITICIZE OBAMAS CHOICES.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by demswin08 at 06:17 PM : Jan 05, 2009

O.K., so you''ve posted your thoughts on what those opposing this choice believe, how about what your gut tells you. Stop coming from the direction of defending Obama and give some reasoning on why this guy is a good decision to head the CIA.

For myself, I''m leery about it as well. It sounds like he has good credentials for domestic, economic issues, but directing the CIA seems like a stretch. There has got to be someone in the CIA hierarchy that fits the bill better. Heck, it can be a CIA Obama supporter for that matter, as long as it''s someone who has walked the walk and knows the nooks and crannies of the CIA. To top it off, a leading democrat is decrying this choice and clearly upset. In today''s crazy world we need experience for this role, the CIA has got to be scratching their heads over this one.

[nincomp]

This pick for CIA director is just further proof that Barack Obama is incompetent, and incapable of holding the office of president.

When even the likes of Diane Finestine (Democrat-CA) says that it''''s a bad idea, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is a bad idea.

Posted by CBSisPravda1 at 07:02 PM : Jan 05, 2009
=========================================================
He can prove his competence once and for all by declaring CIA''s programs like renditions and waterboarding illegal, something he predecessors so called capable people couldn''t do.

[dakotaclark]

fyi...

"Before his engagement with intelligence issues as White House chief of staff, his only explicit involvement was his stint from 1964 to 1966 in the U.S. Army, where he graduated from Army Intelligence School. He rose to captain and served as chief of operations of the intelligence section at Ford Ord, Calif."

Surely, that must count for something in the way of
"Intelligence Community" experience.

[ezchill]

I can''t believe some of the comments on this board. Does anybody on this posting on this board value a person having actual experience doing the job they are considered for???
Go to wikipedia and research this guy. WHERE IS THE SECURITY INTELLIGENCE EXPERIENCE?? WHERE IS THE NATIONAL DEFENSE EXPERIENCE?? Oh yea, that''s right. He was in the Army for 2 years back in the 50''s.
I''m sure I''ll get some moron replying with "where''s George Bush''s experience.."
But your right. It''s only the CIA Director position. Who needs experience for that? Either you people are really stupid or actually want to see the country burn. Does anybody on this board actually know what going on in the world?
I''m embarrassed that I''m actually commenting among you people.

[lovegetpeace]

Finally, a great Democrat to head the CIA. He will surely find out how V.P. D. Cheney cooked the Intel Data immediately after 9/11 so to produce a Cooked Report to Congress. Ofcourse, Bush did not know what his V.P. did.

[lovegetpeace]

Finally, a great Democrat to head the CIA. He will find out how V.P. D. Cheney cooked the Intel Data.

[ourtomorrows]

Leon Panetta''''s reputation and credentials are flawless. Plus, he is a very good person, to boot!
He has an excellent record of cutting costs and doing an outstanding job at whatever the task.


Posted by dakotaclark

I would not challenge Panetta''s credentials as far as domestic policy goes, I just don''t see how he qualifies as the head of the CIA. He has little to now foreign policy experience and virtually no experience in dealing with or working in the intelligence community. The center he currently runs seems clearly focused on domestic issues. I could see him as director of OBM, as secretary of Commerce, perhaps Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Labor, chief advisor on domestic policy, but I just don''t see director of the CIA. He is a competent person in general, but that does not mean he will be good at everything, especially since virtually all of his experience is in the domestic sphere. I am not in anyway trying to diminish his record, I just still don''t see the logic in this appointment.

[dakotaclark]

Hmmm...

Leon Panetta has a very strong and positive record as a former member of the U.S House of Representatives, and as Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget; and, as Chief of Staff to President Clinton.

By the way, he has previous responsible "intelligence community experience" while serving with the U.S. Army.

Most important, however, Leon Panetta was the main person responsible for balancing the budget.

According to Wikipedia, "In 1993, the beginning of his ninth term (in Congress), he was chosen by then-President Bill Clinton to be Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget. He is credited with developing the budget package that would eventually result in the balanced budget of 1998. On July 17, 1994, he was appointed White House Chief of Staff by Clinton, a position he held until January 20, 1997. He was an important negotiator of the 1996 budget, which was another important step towards balancing the budget."

Leon Panetta''s reputation and credentials are flawless. Plus, he is a very good person, to boot!
He has an excellent record of cutting costs and doing an outstanding job at whatever the task.

[ourtomorrows]

WE CAN COUNT ON IT THAT EVERY TIME OBAMA MAKES A CHOICE FOR A POSITION THAT THE RECONS WILL COME OUT OF THE WOOD WORK TO CRITICIZE HIS CHOICES. LIKE THE CHOICES OF THE LAST 8 YEARS WERE THOSE OF A GENIUS.

Posted by demswin08

But here is the thing, we are not talking about the last 8 years. President-Elect Obama, as of January 20, will be in charge. It is his job to appoint people who are skilled and qualified. If you believe President Bush was a disaster, then I would gather you would agree that President Obama will be a huge improvement. That does not mean that you can''t simply say, why Leon Panetta? Most of his other choices seemed reasonable and logical, whether or not one necessarily agrees with them, this one however seems very odd. Panetta has no intelligence experience at all, not even while in Congress. How is he qualified, particularly given the threats that now exist (and you can say that Bush brought about the threats etc., but regardless, they are there.)

[ourtomorrows]

Putting any feelings about President-Elect Obama aside, could someone please explain to me the logic of making Leon Panetta head of the CIA? I don''t get it. Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State, this I understand, but Leon Panetta heading up the CIA, he has no relevant experience at all. I would really like to get some logical, reasoned views on this situation, why is Panetta a good choice?

[xlib]

cbsispravda-see, the left doesn''t think terrorism is a threat. In fact, they don''t even like referencing 9/11.

[brannigon]

Well, CBSisPravda1,I agree; if you think that Panetta has no experience for the position, look at the one who chose him; look who''s president! He doesn''t have any experience for the position either! A 2 year rookie senator that has surrounded himself in the past with nothing but crooks! Besides, look at the stupid decisions he''s already made! God help us all!