Thom Hartmann's thoughts on why Feinstein and Rockefeller are opposed to Leon Panetta as CIA Dr.

[RiverStone]

Can you spell COMPLICIT?

Thom has a local show on AM 620 out of Portland, OR before going national; he suggested this morning that the reason why some in the Dem leadership are concerned about an "outsider" being nominated for CIA Director had more to do with prior acts of complicity (Thom's word) with Shrub's regime rather than anything to do with Leon's qualifications.

Interesting observation. :think:

By the way, Thom felt Leon Panetta was an excellent choice. The fact Leon is an outsider (from corrupt intelligence community) makes him even a better choice!



On Edit: Thom specifically referred to Dianne Feinstein (and Jay Rockefeller); my original OP read Nancy Pelosi. Corrected OP title.

[lapfog_1]

1. Pretty sure that's why DiFi doesn't like it either.

cockroaches don't like the light.

[moondust]

2. Oh yeah.

They would have a lot to lose if some outsider who is not an accomplice were to stumble upon the family jewels.

[azmouse]

3. Thom's on fire today. It's a very good show.

He also wouldn't allow MAnn Coulter to be on the show today. Love it! Go Thom!

[monmouth]

4. Totally agree....n/t

[MzNov]

5. Is it Pelosi also?

I'm listening to Thom this morning, I think he mentioned DiFi and Rockefeller being Bush insiders and complicit with his war crimes. There are 8 or 12 Dems who have been the DINOs who have supported Bush and his crimes all along....

[RiverStone]

8. Thank you --- corrected

I believe he mentioned Nancy, but it was in a different context. He did definitely talk about Dianne Feinstein's opposition and her role on the intelligence committee's.

Appreciate the editorial correction! :hi:

[MzNov]

15. you are quite welcome

I myself would never pass up an opportunity to trash Pelosi, but I didn't remember her name being mentioned this time. GeeeZuss I hate DiFi.

:hi:

:fistbump:

[BadGimp]

6. Hartman is such a high level thinker and he looks beyond the obvious..

Good on you Thom!!

[1776Forever]

7. Bush Sr. was the "first" outsider in the CIA - When he left he had shaped it into what it is today..

I would like to see Panetta reshape it into something we can believe in again as a reflection of the true U.S. doctrine that is founded on the Constitution.

More on Old Man Bush's CIA:

George H.W. Bush

http://www.famoustexans.com/georgebush.htm

(snip)

He (Bush Sr.) served as Gerald Ford’s Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) from November 1975 to January 1977. As head of the CIA, Bush was answerable only to President Ford. He was supposedly the first CIA “outsider” to hold the agency's top position. During his tenure as DCI he maintained a policy of disinformation and secrecy, despite a public show of cooperation with congressional investigations of CIA abuses such as assassination plots using Mafia hit men. In September 1976, Chilean dissident leader Orlando Letelier was assassinated in Washington D.C. by agents of DINA, Chile’s secret police. The CIA knew of such plots, and the two assassins entered the U.S. using fake Paraguayan passports. But the FBI was kept in the dark about this information.

.........

As far as Pelosi and others opposition - makes you wonder what the hidden agenda is not to let him in the position for sure.
:hide:

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. Uh, not even close

Poppy Bush was in the CIA from day one. Prescott Bush and his fellow Nazi funding partners are the ones who started the CIA (and its predecessor the OSS).

Poppy was very much involved in the failed Bay of Pigs operation and an FBI memo from none other than J. Edna Hoover herself places him in Dallas Texas on November 22, 1963.

The Bush Crime Family are the ultimate insiders in the CIA.

[mod mom]

18. Here's the memo from J Edgar Hoover mentioning George Bush of the CIA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bush_Sr,_JFK_-_J_Edgar_Hoover_memo_2.jpg

[1776Forever]

21. Point taken - but can we agree H.W. was thought to not have much experience by some? Read on....

NYT
January 5, 2009, 2:30 pm
Panetta to Be Named C.I.A. Director
By Carl Hulse AND Mark Mazzetti

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/panetta-to-be-named-cia-director/

(snip)

Mr. Deutch, now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said Mr. Panetta and Dennis Blair, who was selected by Mr. Obama to become director of national intelligence, were an “absolutely brilliant team,” and called Mr. Panetta a “talented and experienced manager of government and a widely respected person with congress.”

He said that given global environment, there are indeed good reasons for Mr. Obama to select a C.I.A. veteran to lead the C.I.A. But he said that two of the agency’s most successful directors, John McCone and George H.W. Bush, had little or no intelligence intelligence experience when they took over at C.I.A.

........

I am sure the tentacles go deep if there is anything to do with the Bush's.

[bullwinkle428]

9. Yes! I was listening to him earlier when he was speaking on this matter,

and it truly was one of those "light bulb over the head" moments! A brilliant illustration of why we need to have a "non-spy" type in charge of a spy agency...

[Ernesto]

10. W-nuts gotta hate Thom...

He just tells it like it is..... that's all he does.
I love the guy!

[Usrename]

11. The Lieberman wing of the Democratic party.

Pelosi, Hoyer, Emanuel, Reid, Feinstein, Rockefeller, Bayh, Nelson(FL), Clinton(?), Obama(?)...

[dflprincess]

12. I've been very unhappy with a lot of Obama's appointments - but this one I like

(I'm sure that will relieve the PE)

On the other hand, it also worries me. Things don't seem to go so well when someone crosses the CIA establishment.

[merh]

13. As Greenwald wrote:

UPDATE VI: Spencer Ackerman reports that Sen. Dianne Feinstein is upset with the selection of Panetta, petulantly complaining that she wasn't consulted in advance and that it would be best to have an "intelligence professional" in that position. CQ's Tim Starks reports that Sen. Jay Rockefeller is making very similar noises about this selection. Few things could reflect better on Panetta's selection than the fact that Feinstein and Rockefeller -- two of the most Bush-enabling Senators -- are unhappy with it.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/05/olc/print.html


----------

I couldn't agree more.

[RiverStone]

19. I found this statement by DiFi particularly strange

The move came as a surprise, however, including to incoming Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who is clearly not pleased. She gave the following statement to the Washington Independent:

"I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA Director. I know nothing about this, other than what I've read," said Senator Feinstein, who will chair the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in the 111th Congress.

"My position has consistently been that I believe the Agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/05/leon-panetta-obamas-cia-d_n_155338.html?page=7&show_comment_id=19416412#comment_19416412


How in the hell can DiFi think having an intelligence professional is a good thing?! I wonder where has she been the last 8 years? Gitmo, water-boarding, wiretapping, etc.... Like we really need more of that shit!

Leon has no links to those illegal activities - makes him the perfect choice.

[merh]

20. As one former intelligence person, media expert said this morning

they had experience with Porter Goss and look what a miserable failure that was.

[Supersedeas]

31. the Lieberman wing of the DLC is showing its true colors

[loudsue]

32. Lieberman....Obama's MENTOR according to Obama's own words.

Things will make much more sense when Democrats get their minds around what is really happening.

[gratuitous]

14. I don't know about "complicit"

But if I were a radio host, that might be a good word to use to grab listener attention. What I think is more likely is that Feinstein and Rockefeller got hood-winked by the Bush administration, they know they’ve been hoodwinked, but they’re too proud, stubborn, egotistical or something to admit it publicly. And it would be so much easier to explain themselves to an insider, another member of the club, as it were. Panetta, however, might just want a fuller explanation for why they so willingly gave in even after it was apparent that they should have been exercising some oversight and restraint on the Bush administration.

“Complicit” may be too strong to describe Feinstein’s and Rockefeller’s actions; but “dazzlingly stupid” isn’t an appellation that the Senators are eager to get hung on them, either.

[warren pease]

23. How about accessories before and after the fact...

Certainly in Pelosi's case. According to a December 9, 2007 Washington Post front-page exclusive, she and seven other "need to know" members of the house and senate were briefed by CIA personnel in September 2002 on the whole obscene torture program -- with highly detailed videos showing some of the harshest "enhanced interrogation" techniques, including waterboarding.

Despite the flawless image of upper-class disgust she adopts when questioned about such messy matters -- downcast eyes, slightly wrinkled nose, pursed lips and a little disappointed sag of the shoulders -- Pelosi and the rest were reportedly big torture fans and cheerleaders at these briefings.

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

Accomplices to war crimes in violation of Constitutional and international law. A program founded and extended on orders from the Bush Criminal Enterprise.

With Ms. Nancy in the middle, knowingly aiding and abetting a federally sanctioned covert program whose sole purpose is inflicting the maximum level of physical and psychological pain on anyone they can round up and "rendition" to some hell on earth, simply on suspicion of being or seeming to be an Arab. No other charges required.

As to getting hood-winked by the Bushies over and over again... How is it possible that all these presumably smart, experienced, accomplished, savvy people keep getting snookered by an administration fronted by the stupidest man to ever occupy the White House?

This is an administration that has lied about virtually every single policy or action of even modest importance since grand theft election 2000 and the silent coup -- and been caught in most of those lies by one of the half-dozen or so remaining investigative reporters who can still make a buck in America, bloggers, international media, independent US media and even, once in a great while, US mass media (when they're off their meds for half a day).

But not congress. Is it possible they've all succumbed to the rhetorical brilliance and undeniable charm of The Commander Guy? Nah..

It seems they'd rather present themselves as the witless dupes and rubes and hicks they appear to be. This way they're just well-intentioned idiots and innocent of any wrong-doing, acting with the very best intentions solely on behalf of their constituents.

Maybe "dazzlingly stupid" is the image they adopt to hide their criminality.


wp

[gratuitous]

25. "Criminal" may very well develop

And both Feinstein and Rockefeller may yet yearn for the day when we would settle for "dazzlingly stupid" to describe their post hoc rationalizations of their failure to exercise any oversight. I maintain that they would rather explain themselves privately to another member of "the club" than have to work this out publicly with someone like Panetta, who isn't going to just nod sagely when offered the excuse of "Well, you know . . . intelligence. Black ops. Wet jobs. Mumbo jumbo."

If Feinstein, Rockefeller, Pelosi and other Democratic stalwarts are guilty of complicity with these crimes against humanity, I'm entirely in favor of their being tried with the rest of the outlaws. It seems to me that the safest route out of this infernal labyrinth is to do the right thing sooner rather than later, and there just might be a window now to say "I was duped by the Bush administration. But now I'm going to join the side of the angels in exposing their criminal activity."

I don't know if it's stubbornness or foolishness. I suppose it could also be that they're more afraid of a backlash from the Bush Family Evil Empire than they are of having justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. In any event, hesitation and delay only plants them more firmly in the criminal camp.

[leveymg]

30. The "Gang of 8" were read-into both programs in 2003: torture & warrantless spying

See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2864232
and http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/19/64543/8922/739/538265

[dreamnightwind]

26. more complicit than stupid imho

DiFi would belong more in the "complicit" category than the "stupid" category. Even she, though, was outraged over some of the abuses of this administration.

I was wondering if she was thinking of herself as a possible DCI? Dunno, just idle speculation. Would love to get her out of the senate, though.

She and Panetta have plenty of history, not that I know that much about it, but that could also be part of the picture.

[StudsT]

17. interesting - i give a lot of weight to anything Thom says

thanks for sharing RiverStone :toast:

StudsT

[Duppers]

22. K & R

nt

[anonymous171]

24. The Intelligence Community needs an outside voice.

Since they've been trapped in their own little echo chamber for the past eight years.

[DCKit]

27. They'll all keep squealing until either:

1) They're assured they'll have cover.
2) They kill the nominations that threaten to expose their complicity.
3) The cover's blown off and everyone finally accepts they were collaborators in un-American acts.

[chknltl]

28. Should NASA should be 'Administered' by an Astronaut?

I liked Thom Hartmann's take on this. To me, a positive characteristic of Senator Obama is the fact that he is not a 'Washington Insider.' I am sick of politics as usual, I hope that a President Obama will represent the needs of We The People more-so than the needs of the corporatists. I welcome the Leon Panetta selection because he may represent the needs of We The People/the US Constitution over the needs of any corruption within the C.I.A. An insider selection by Obama otoh, may instead have chosen to sweep such stuff under a rug-especially if that insider were in any way complicit.

("Should NASA should be 'Administered' by an Astronaut?" Was a topic related example called in to the Thom Hartmann show by one of his callers-credit where credit is due!)

[bertman]

29. I said it before he did, but I'll give him a pass on it this time.

I'm glad it's getting on the airwaves, for what good it'll do.