Leon Panetta as C.I.A. Chief will be a debacle of huge proportions

[Joe Fields]

just waiting to happen.

First and foremost, the man has NO qualifications to run spook central. I do not care what the reasons are for his appointment. He is not a career man with the agency. He has no idea as to the inner workings of the agency, and while he is learning, others will be surreptitiously running the agency, to whose ends we will not know.

We do not need a politician as head of the agency, especially one who was a former presidential chief of staff. Bush politicized the hell out of all cabinets and departments within the government. It was enough to leave this country with a hangover that will last for at least a generation. Please, no more politicizing of such critical depatments and agencies of the government.

Let me just say that Leon Panetta seems, (I emphasize seems) to be an honorable man, and a politician who wouldn't back down against Nixon, regarding civil rights issues. He wants to run for congress again? I have no problem with that. White House advisor? No problem. But the head of the CIA? BIG PROBLEM. Just wait. We'll see. It doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to know just how the bureaucrats within the CIA will keep Panetta at bay. Obama's decision to appoint Panetta MUST be rubbing a lot of career people within the Agency the wrong way. Not only do these people get mad, but they also get even.

[saltpoint]

1. Respectfully disagree.

I like the Panetta pick.

I like the anti-torture context.

[Joe Fields]

3. My opinion? He'll be eaten alive...(figuratively, of course.)

I'm with you all the way on the torture issue, of course, but that alone is no reason to hire someone as CIA Chief. He has absolutely no credentials that qualify him as head of the CIA.

[saltpoint]

9. Think of the mess Porter Goss made at the Agency,

and he had experience to spare.

Panetta is an alpha guy. It could be that a progressive alpha guy is good medicine for the CIA.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

12. And consider the brilliance

of William Webster when he was the head.

What experience did Goss have? Are you kidding? He was a purely political pick with absolutely no experience, his time on the House Intelligence Committee nothwithstanding. He was a Bush tool, and everyone knew it.

Panetta will do good things for the Agency. His loyalty is legendary. He'll take good care of his people, which is exactly what they need after having been tossed to the wolves by Cheney and his thugs.

[saltpoint]

21. If the debate is on the personal and professional merits of Porter Goss,

there will not be time for me to weigh in with how appalling I think the man is.

An appalling, monstrous walking emblem of everything I do not respect about my country at its worst.

Nevertheless, he was an officer of the CIA early on, most notably in Latin America where one easily imagines him organizing "groups directed at the disappearance of select citizens," if I may invoke the hip jargon of the Agency.

Jackson Browne calls such groups "death squads," and I think his more colloquial version is the truer.

Goss was monstrous before the Bush appointment, but no less monstrous following it. At the beginning of his career as a spook, he was locally monstrous. Then, toward the end, far more globally monstrous.

I was trying to defend Panetta as a non-CIA career pick.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

26. Goss was a spook?

One can only imagine ........ no, I won't go there.

What if Panetta used to be a spook?

What about you, Old Crusoe?

Do you have something you want to share with the group, hmmmmm?

:toast:

[saltpoint]

29. Uh, no, ma'am. I ain't no spy. Honest.

But if'n I was I'd want me one of them nice sports cars like 007.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

32. And if you had one of them

I'd make you a very happy spook................

:wow:

[saltpoint]

LOL!

[spanone]

101. that's why i like him

[Egalitariat]

105. He should have hired me if that's what it takes****

nm

[Jane Austin]

2. Do you have special insight or knowledge

of the intelligence agencies?

Just wondering what your opinion is based on.

[Joe Fields]

6. my sigline says it. a lot of experience.

I've been around long enough, and know the inner workings of such organizations.. As I said, it's no stretch of the imagination.

And yes, it's possible I could be wrong, but experience tells me I'm dead on accurate. Hey, time will tell, right?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

10. I've been working in Washington since

the days of Watergate.

So, your evasive answer suggests that you're an old spook.

Here's where you might screw up with that dodge: if you are an old spook, you wouldn't be posting this kind of stuff on a message board.

If you're not an old spook, well, you're an experienced something, and that still beggars the question.

Why do you think you're "dead on accurate"?

[Joe Fields]

20. I'm no spook.

It's something I call wisdom, born from years of experience. I watch, I ask questions, I learn. Over the course of fifty years, a person who has paid attention sees things that most people overlook. They have a feel for certain issues, or certain situations, political situations, for example.

Of course my thread means nothing now. It has yet to be proven. And I hope I'm proven wrong. The CIA needs an overhaul, and I hope whoever directs the agency can do it. But it's not Leon Panetta. I'll bet you money that I'm right.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

24. Wisdom?

That's a concept that's a bit different in Washington than it is in other venues.

Experience in this town is what matters. When you gain a certain amount of experience, it's because you are very good at what you do. Panetta's an old pro.

I'm older than you are, you little whippersnapper, :), and, honestly, any nomination can go to hell with the wrong breaks and some bad decisions. But, for my money, and what I know of how it works, I'd put it all on Panetta. He was balls down to the floor when he headed up the Office of Civil Rights. I loved that.

Did you know he started out as a Republican? Read up on him. He's got an astonishing CV.

[Joe Fields]

27. You seem to be confusing two separate issues. When you can

ascertain exactly what I said, then maybe this conversation could advance.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

30. Enlighten me

You claim expertise, and here I am, bumbling and not getting it right, according to you.

I am eager to be educated.

Please.

Thank you.

[Joe Fields]

36. I was dicussing my collective years of wisdom to make a prediction.

As for my thesis, I stated that experience is needed to run today's CIA. I said absolutely nothing about anyone with wisdom in Washington. That is an oxymoron.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

37. I gotta tell you...........

For someone to trumpet his "... collective years of wisdom..." suggests to me one thing:

You have none.

Wisdom in Washington doesn't exist? And by what experience did you decide that?

You really keep digging yourself in deeper, you know.

[Joe Fields]

47. I'm not digging anything. You're just making an ass of yourself.

Do you like making a habit of hijacking other people's threads?

Longstanding member of DU since March of 2008. Wow. Educate yourself. It's not too late.

[FrenchieCat]

51. Oh, great wise and experienced one!

:rofl:

Joe Fields (1000+ posts) Thu Jan-24-08 02:53 PM
Original message
If Kucinich drops out of the race on Friday,...

then I will vote for Edwards in the Missouri primary. I can't stand the sight of Hillary or Obama. They have no more business being president of the United States than I do.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4187220&mesg_id=4187220

:rofl:

Joe Fields (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-28-08 11:18 AM
Original message
South Carolina was not a good litmus test for Obama.

I am certainly no fan of Pat Buchanan, but what he said this morning made sense to me, and should have the Obama campaign quite concerned. Yes, it's true Obama smoked Hillary in S.C.. However, it is also true that, while He got roughly 75 percent of the African American vote, Hillary received almost 75 percent of the white vote. Since more than half of the registered democrats in S.C. are African American, it's no real surprise how the primary played out. That is just a reality.

If this is the trend, then it could be a Clinton route, come Super Tuesday. Either way, I don't believe my interests will be represented.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4248667

[Joe Fields]

53. Oh, from the person who has already deified Obama.

.

[annabanana]

88. track records count . . . . n/t

[aquart]

71. Frenchie Cat, we so rarely agree. LOL!

[DevonRex]

111. *snort* That there's some hilarious reading. Panetta will be great.

He won't be spending all his time hiding the bodies and he'll fire anybody who doesn't show him where the bodies are buried from the * administration. There are quite a few operatives who need to go, as they've been desensitized to human pain. Doesn't bother them one iota if somebody's tortured to death.

I want a tough CIA. But I want a legal CIA.

[Jane Austin]

17. Those darn sig lines are so light

I can hardly see them.

I'm afraid my eyes generally skip right over them.

One thing that intrigues me about the Panetta appointment is that - having been WH chief of staff - he knows what the POTUS needs to know to make informed decisions.

I am surprised that the two senators popped off like they did. I would think that even if PE Obama failed to run Panetta by them, that they would defer to the PE of their own party by making their criticism known through private channels.

It kind of sounds as if there is (possibly) too comfortable a connection between the SSCI and the Agency, something that Obama might have been trying to correct with this appointment.

Just MHO - I have neither knowledge of that Agency or any others.

But I did read a lot of Shakespeare!

And I LOVE watching Obama's mind work. :)

[Joe Fields]

69. One thing I'll say about Obama. He's a hard one to figure.

[annabanana]

89. This was my initial reaction to their public discontent. .

Not being a particular fan of DiFi, my first thought was (there goes a racket broken up). .

[Jane Austin]

117. Remember when Obama sent out those teams to all the departments

in government to evaluate their needs, strengths and problems?

I imagine that was a cue for any number of "whistle blowers" to come forward to those teams in their orange badges to talk about issues of calcification in their departments.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the CIA team as well as other savvy intelligence people recommended that the prevailing relationships be busted up.

[KittyWampus]

4. He might just be the man to whip the CIA budget into shape.

[Joe Fields]

8. CIA/budget? BWAHAHAHAAAAAAAA....

Didn't know they had one.

[kentuck]

5. I disagree also.

Panetta is very savvy to how Washington works and how the intelligence agencies work. I would have preferred Wesley Clark in the position but he could have done much worse. He could have kept Hayden and Mullen(sp?) entrenched in their positions. They volunteered to stay on. Somebody needs to clean out that nest of vipers. The more people that get rubbed the wrong way, the better, in my opinion.

[Joe Fields]

13. He's not that savvy. You really need an insider in the agency.

Of course someone needs to clean out that nest of vipers, same with the justice dept. and all other cabinet departments. I'm just saying that Panetta hasn't got what it takes to do the job. And while we may get a chuckle out of some of those vipers getting rubbed the wrong way, I guarantee Panetta won't find it amusing. He will run into a lot of people who can and most likely will make his job a lot tougher than it is.

[kentuck]

I think we need a very intelligent outsider for the job...

But that is just my opinion. Personally, I think the CIA should be mostly disbanded. When was the last time they were right?

[Joe Fields]

31. I'm like you. I don't have a crystal ball. I just have my learned opinion.

It seems really strange to be talking about qualifications for the director of an organization built on lies and deception.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

33. Lies and deception?

Hell, that's what the Catholic Church is built on.

Now, why is your position "learned"?

[Joe Fields]

38. maybe the Pope should run the CIA,

go hijack someone else's thread. you plainly disagree with me. leave it at that.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

42. Do I disagree with you?

No, that's not so. I'm simply curious as to how you've arrived at your conclusion.

You don't hold up well when asked specific questions. Wanna label me some sort of tin hat person, too?

If you're gonna put it forth, be prepared to back it up.

So, enlighten me. This is the second time I'm asking, and, really, it's just curiosity.

[cali]

80. because Joe Field says so. And says so and says so

and says so.

[Joe Fields]

81. That's Fields, and it's my opinion, as I've clearly stated.

Did I ever sell it as fact?

I see the vampires come out at night.

[annabanana]

90. (some are also early risers). . . n/t

[ellie]

99. Definitely

We need to de-fund and disband the CIA. Complete waste of money.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

7. There is no tradition

of inside men taking over the leadership of the Agency. George H. W. Bush, George Tenet, William Webster.

Panetta is a smart, experienced Washington insider. He knows how things work, which is the most important aspect he has for this job. The staff will be the ones who keep the wheels greased, but his knowledge of the political hierarchy, funding, and who has what kind of power is what he has.

The job demands a politician. Otherwise, the Director will be chewed up by the organization.

What they need at the CIA most now is someone who will help them restore the credibility that was shredded by these past eight years (take a bow, Cheney). Panetta will accomplish that.

He's a great pick. Inspired.

[nebenaube]

18. There is no way to verify or disprove that assertion... n/t

10/92

[Tangerine LaBamba]

19. Oh, the spook life

The one in which no one knows who was a spook and who wasn't?

Good point.

[ShortnFiery]

11. No, I think he'll do just fine. He's highly intelligent and thoughtful.

Thank HEAVENS that "warmongering Dem" Rep. Jane Harman (CA) didn't score this position. :-)

Better to have someone who is intelligent but has to "make themselves smart" through equally intelligent advisers THAN having a swaggering warmongering person of either variety (D or R).

[natrat]

14. fail

[Old and In the Way]

15. No sale.

Time to clean house at the CIA...de-Bushify it. I think Panetta is superb choice. He brings a strong resume and a knowledge of all things Washington into the job. Having no direct experience at CIA might actually prove to be an asset. He's more likely to be objective in dealing with this agency.

[Joe Fields]

22. Jimmy Carter felt the same way, when he blew into D.C. with the GA. mafia.

They found out very quickly who runs Washington. The bureaucrats. Snub them and they'll give you a bellyful.

I'm certainly not going to jump up and down with glee if Panetta fails at his job, should he be approved.

[Ichingcarpenter]

34. "GA. mafia."

Last time I heard that line was from republican operatives

Back then! LOL!!!

[Joe Fields]

41. that's how I remember them being referred to.

What the hell would YOU call them? That's what they were known as, by everyone. Not just repukes. Slander much with insinuation?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

43. Wow.

You sure are touchy.

What's wrong with "Georgia Mafia"? Everyone called them that, including Republicans, who did not mean it kindly.

[Ichingcarpenter]

49. Exactly

'EVERYONE' doesn't leave any exceptions but deals
with absolutes.

Something Jimmy Carter never did.

[Joe Fields]

54. Carter did deal in absolutes sometimes. educate yourself.

[Ichingcarpenter]

58. Educate yourself..............LOL!!

I thought you spoke for "EVERYONE ' ?

Including me with your statement?

[Joe Fields]

62. Many people use this site for fun and games.

Some get their jollies by pissing in everyone's cornflakes, then giggling about it, like little boys and girls. What are you, a little boy, or a little girl? Or are you an adult? I really can't tell by your pedantic comments. I think you must be an adolescent. Time for you and others here to grow up.

[annabanana]

92. Tangerine is making more sense than you in this thread.. You've stated

your opinion, and not backed it up very convincingly. The all powerful bureaucracy that you assume is just waiting to destroy Panetta is the same one that was supposed to keep us safe from Bushbabies excesses. . .

[Joe Fields]

95. LOL!!!! Unwarranted insults directed toward me make more sense than

my arguments?

Tag teaming much today?

If you have anything worth hearing, please spit it out. I love conversation. But this shit you're shoveling gets very boring, very quickly.

On edit: So, you think Panetta's a spook, too? You must have your tinfoil hat riveted to your head.

Oh brother...

[JackRiddler]

16. I'd like to see Frank Church and Stansfield Turner get another chance.

Preferably with the supposed JFK plan: "Break it up into a thousand pieces."

This time, expose everything. Don't just fire the covert operators, like Stansfield did, which was a favor because they went private and came back ten times stronger. Indict'em.

But here's a question for you:

First and foremost, the man has NO qualifications to run spook central. I do not care what the reasons are for his appointment. He is not a career man with the agency. He has no idea as to the inner workings of the agency, and while he is learning, others will be surreptitiously running the agency, to whose ends we will not know.

How do you know this? If he's a spook, it's a secret. What's your security clearance, to know such a thing for sure?

[Joe Fields]

25. Oh man, tinfoil time.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

28. What tinfoil?

That question - which is a mirror of what I asked you - is a reasonable one. Your response is a full weasel.

Don't do that.

Answer the question.

[Joe Fields]

44. If I had thought it deserved a thoughtful reply, I would have given one.

Are you seriously suggesting that Panetta is a spook, and has been for years? I'm done with you.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

46. You're "done with me"?

Oh, come now.

Can your years of collective wisdom state authoritatively that Panetta was never a spook?

[JackRiddler]

52. In your case, I recommend lead...

it will help with being such a lightweight.

[Joe Fields]

55. a lightweight in regard to what?

I have lost a few pounds, but still tip the scales at 180.

If you care to debate the merits of any particular issue, then I would accept. You don't want to do that, though. Just giving fair warning.

[JackRiddler]

61. Debate? I ask a question, you give a stupid answer...

of the kind that denies there's anything to discuss.

I don't need to debate people who don't want to know that the spook world is little more than a breeding nest for gangsterism. The "permanent bureaucracy" of spooks you apparently hope to see served is what strangles the hope of democracy and constitutional government, generation by generation. It helps create a large part of the chaos and instability in the world, which it then pretends to treat so as to justify the next budget. It's a funny thought that Panetta might not be a part of the spook world in some capacity, we can only hope, although most likely he is. But how would you ever know?

Anyway, he's part of the permanent nomenklatura, unlikely to rock the boat.

Most people understand intuitively what happens when power structures are kept secret, unaccountable and privatized. A hardcore minority (who get the majority of the media time) are stuck on the national security propaganda, as though this would justify extraconstitutional institutions with state power, as though maintaining spook world ever did anything to make the common people safer.

Please have the last word.

[Joe Fields]

66. WTF ? How do you think most people will react to your

assertion that Panetta is a spook? Get a grip, please. This is what 8 years of Bush has done to many Americans.

[annabanana]

93. It is just as fact based as your assertion that he is not. . n/t

[JackRiddler]

109. Why would I care how "most people" will react to such an assertion...

given that I did not assert it? It's only your assertion that I said such a thing.

You echoed the news line that Panetta "has no intelligence experience." I replied that you have no way of knowing this, and furthermore if he was a spook, it would still be claimed otherwise. Thus the question is open and maybe you should find a different basis for your concern.* If you want to misinterpret or falsely extend this basic observation, which a fourth-grader would have no trouble understanding, then that's on you, not me. You'd be the one who thinks he's receiving messages no one actually sent. You're the one engaging in "conspiracy panic," to use Jack Bratich's phrase.

---

* - As for your concern, I would argue that "no intelligence experience" would be a requirement for the only ethical approach to an agency like the CIA, which has been extraconstitutional from birth, highly criminal throughout its history, and on the whole highly detrimental to the security of the country and its people. It should be shut down, its full history exposed, its perpetrators prosecuted, its contractors and fronts and proprietary organizations expropriated and investigated, its victims given restitutions, its legitimate functions (such as surveillance of foreign military threats and counter-espionage) passed on to new agencies. Not that Panetta, sadly, signals anything of the kind.

[peacetalksforall]

23. What I half heard on NPR is that Panetta was the CIA liaison from the Oval Office under Clinton.

[Davis_X_Machina]

35. George HW Bush and John McCone...

...were neither of them Intel community people. How would you assess their careers as head of CIA?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

39. McCone was an impressive figure

He led the CIA during what was probably its most important period.

His predictions about Vietnam - he opposed our involvement there and told LBJ so when he resigned - were dead right on.

[Davis_X_Machina]

40. Still, as per OP...

...he should never have had the job in the first place.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

45. Unless................

......... he had been a spook.

How can we ever know, as one of the very astute posters pointed out to me elsewhere in this thread?

How do we know Panetta wasn't a spook?

[JackRiddler]

50. You really believe that bullshit?

In GHWB's case, the research extinguished this myth long ago.

[Lagomorph]

48. From my persective as an observer...

I would prefer to see some "subject matter expertise" in the Agency.

He's got to be able to determine which of the expert liars he's talking to, is giving him the straight dope on those issues he's required to address.

[Joe Fields]

56. I'm just an observer also. It only makes sense to have someone

who is an expert in the intelligence community to head the CIA.

[Ichingcarpenter]

60. So you want, who, an expert?

With your great insight on the CIA
who would that be?

[Joe Fields]

67. see post 62

[Lagomorph]

74. Well actually...

Since we both claim to be observers and we carefully spoke from that perspective, I don't see where either of us claim any insight into the CIA.

Given that neither of us claim any expertise, it would seem obvious that we're speaking in general terms about the SORT of person we'd like to see, rather than naming an individual.

You don't seem to have anything constructive to offer, either. You do however, seem to be quite impressed with yourself, without having any "subject matter expertise" to support your self esteem.

But that's OK, it's still a free country. I'm hoping you can enlighten me as to whom we might consider.

[saltpoint]

76. But there are more schools of thought out there about that.

Josh Marshall, for example, had this to say:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

-- the first piece as I type this, with several observers' viewpoints.

Mario Cuomo has never managed a baseball team, but he is as convincing an expert at the game as anyone you ever need to talk with on the subject.

"Experience" has many asterisks.

[NNN0LHI]

98. Panetta knows how to determine which of the expert liars he's talking to

It will be all of them and Panetta is smart enough to realize that.

Don

[Beacool]

57. I agree, what an odd choice to head the CIA.

What the heck does Panetta know about intelligence? How is he a good fit for the job? He would be a much better Secretary of Commerce, now that Richardson is out of the running.

:crazy:

[Dreamer Tatum]

59. Agree nt

[ShortnFiery]

63. Anyone who warmongering Di Fi hates and who isn't named "Jane Harman" is ACES with me. Go LEON!!!

:applause:

[pmorlan1]

64. I Disagree

"Obama's decision to appoint Panetta MUST be rubbing a lot of career people within the Agency the wrong way. Not only do these people get mad, but they also get even."


And you think this is a good reason not to appoint Panetta? Sounds to me like more of the fearmongering we've been living through for the last 8 years.

And if you want to talk about politicizing the Agency I agree with Glenn Greenwald that if Feinstein & Rockefeller don't want Panetta it sure is a BIG PLUS in his column. If they are worried that they can't "work him" then I'm all for him.

[aquart]

72. Oh, that was my reaction, too.

[exboyfil]

82. I agree totally with you

Panetta is a great pick. The first problem with picking an intelligence insider is the tension between operations and analysis - with Panetta that tension is resolved. He can serve as a referee between those two sides.

As long as he has Deputies who are skilled and experienced, I do not see an issue. He is a knowledgable administrator which is the most important thing. He also understands how Washington works, which is essential for the position.

I get really irritated with bureaucrats who don't understand that they work for the people, and not for an agency. We should not be scared about what a bureaucrat thinks regarding a political appointment. They should do their jobs to the best of their ability.

At least Panetta's most relevant previous experience is not as an Arabian horse breeder.

[Joe Fields]

83. You missed my other good reason. Why is that?

[SoCalDemGrrl]

65. Oh yea of little faith- for God's sake, we must have some trust

in Obama's capacity to judge the right individual for the job.

You gave him your vote, now give him a chance!!!

[Joe Fields]

68. No. It doesn't work that way.

[cali]

70. lol.

the professional Obama haters will find any reason to dump on him.

[pnorman]

73. As of last year, he won't be the Top Guy there (thank Bush).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4772732

pnorman

[saltpoint]

75. Some interesting comments from Talking Points Memo

by Josh Marshall on the Panetta pick:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

[Joe Fields]

85. That's an intersting take from an insider.

Intellectually, I believe he is right. And I do hope that Panetta, if approved, can master his new job with speed, because we really do not have the time for on the job training. I do happen to think that it's important to have a person thoroughly familiar with the agency to lead it, at this time.

I think Panetta is a very talented person. My wish would have been something more along the lines of Commerce Secretary for Panetta. Not to take away from the importance of heading the Commerce Dept., but of all the appointments, CIA? I just don't see this working out.

[saltpoint]

108. I suppose someone on the Obama transition team would

ask you to give Panetta a while on the job to find out how it works out.

Panetta is the guy the boss wants in that job. A meeting or two was likely convened and they likely anticipated the "experience" insider/outsider objections, and then went with the pick anyway.

I like the sure-footedness of that, and I think Panetta's a good man.

[Hekate]

77. Rachel Maddow pointed out that Panetta came out against torture during the Bush admin...

That alone speaks very well for him.

As for the rest of it -- best of luck to him; Bush has left behind a nest of vipers in every department.

Hekate

[Postman]

78. George Tenet had "experience"....then 911 happened.

[moondust]

96. "Mr. Experience" boasted of a "slam dunk."

How did that turn out?

[unhappycamper]

79. Since 1947, the CIA has gotten exactly one thing correct.

They called the six day war with Egypt before it happened.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51qrPWpbewL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg

That's it. The one thing.

[JackRiddler]

115. Unfortunately they got a lot of things right - meaning, their own criminal plans.

First of all, in early 1991 the CIA announced publicly that Yugoslavia was about to break up into mini-states and war. This was still many months before fighting started and Croatia and Slovenia declared independence.

However, this may have been intended to give it a push, no?

The CIA unfortunately got a lot of wrong things right. They didn't kill Castro or install the desired death-squad juntas in Cuba or Venezuela, but they did have Allende and Lumumba and, oh, JFK and so many others killed, they installed tyrannies in dozens of countries, they oversaw the torture and execution of hundreds of thousands of people from Indonesia to Vietnam to the Condor countries long before the rogues who came out of the CIA helped install Bush Jr. in the 2000 coup.

[moondust]

84. Another old intel bureaucrat

would just continue the same old in-the-box mindset and good 'ol boy games that have failed again and again. It's high time for some out-of-the-box thinking to straighten the place out.

[Joe Fields]

87. I, for one, would feel better having qualified people fill a position

like CIA Director.

[ThomWV]

86. Could it be that the spooks are afraid of a real Manager?

"They will eat him alive" is what someone said about him; I wonder how much eating will be done if the first thing he does when he walks in the door is fire virtually every bad apple in the Agency (which is a barrel of rotten apples). Would they eat him alive then?

[Romulox]

91. Another Clinton crony. Change! nt

[NNN0LHI]

94. I don't want a spook running the CIA

Having a spook run the CIA is like having the fox guarding the hen house.

What is your agenda here?

Don

[Joe Fields]

102. Are you kidding me? You're kidding, right?

Yeah, I guess it would be too logical to have someone who actually knew something about the agency they were about to head.

[NNN0LHI]

107. Did you see a smiley face in my post?

What is your agenda?

Don

[bottomtheweaver]

97. The CIA is a debacle of huge proportions and a blight on the world.

Panetta had some intel experience in the army, he's been running a think tank on a former army base in California (now CSU Monterery Bay, nice place to work), he seems pretty clean so this is one appointment I'm cautiously optimistic about. Gates on the other hand has me VERY worried.

[Joe Fields]

103. Panetta does seem clean, and I hope he does well.

As for Gates, well...I just can't believe Obama feels it's good to keep this guy.

And the CIA? A necessary evil, which has become an agency run amok. It needs cleaned out and fumigated for sure, but I just think it's a mistake to put Panetta in there.

[Vattel]

100. I don't know if Panetta will do well, but

I'm encouraged that Obama has picked someone who is anti-torture; outsiders can be more effective than insiders at changing an organization in radical ways; and Panetta is hardly a belt-way neophyte. On the other hand, the CIA is not a nest of vipers. It contains many hard-working, dedicated people whose expertise we need if Obama's decisions on national security are to be well-informed. So one can reasonably worry that an outsider may meddle too much in the internal workings of something he doesn't really understand. On balance: it's really hard to predict how well Panetta will do.

[Joe Fields]

104. I'll say this about Panetta; from what I know about him, he seems to be

savvy, take charge, results oriented, and like you said, he takes a stand on human rights issues. I don't want to see anyone fail at the top levels of our govt. But if I didn't feel strongly about the Panetta pick being a mistake, I wouldn't have said anything.

[Phoonzang]

106. They'll just take him out of the loop and go about business as usual

as if he wasn't there.

[saltpoint]

112. I've seen that sort of thing happen in the business world from time

to time, but Panetta doesn't seem all that "take-outable."

I think if anything, Panetta is the "good boss" type.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

110. ...because being run by insiders has worked so well in the past!

:think:

[DS1]

113. Sandy Berger should have got it. Docs in his Socks, man!

In his socks!

[devilgrrl]

114. You mean a debacles like George Tenet and Porter Goss?

Please.... :eyes:

[saltpoint]

116. IMO, Panetta's public opposition against the Bush/Cheney/et al torture

tilt is the bigger story behind this appointment, and a glimpse at the same time into the intentions of the new president.

And an interesting side-story would be the apparent exclusion of any heads-up for DiFi and Rockefeller.

This appointment represents a significant power shift.

IMO it has already been successful.