The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: bijou on January 05, 2009, 02:43:37 PM
-
Freddie Stubbs (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-05-09 02:40 PM
Original message
Panetta to Be Named C.I.A. Director
Advertisements [?]Source: New York Times
President-elect Barack Obama has selected Leon E. Panetta, the former congressman and White House chief of staff, to take over the Central Intelligence Agency, an organization that Mr. Obama criticized during the campaign for using interrogation methods he decried as torture, Democratic officials said Monday.
...SNIP...
librechik (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-05-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. At least he's not a spook of some sort
Recent appointees have all had that in their background somewhere. Maybe Panetta can just manage the place without having ancient ties and obligations cloud all the issues.
Maybe.
MineralMan (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-05-09 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. He'll be resisted strongly by the entrenched bureaucracy,
but, if he's willing to begin firing people, he can begin to turn things around. Actually, he doesn't have to actually fire that many...he can just move some of the "players" to fun positions like watching Finland or something.
What he can't do is to walk in and not take charge in a no-nonsense way. If he does that, he'll be completely ineffective. He must shake things up, and do it quickly and massively. There are plenty of junior folks who are the ones doing the work anyhow.
lebkuchen (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-05-09 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. as he was during Nixon's presidency when Panetta supported
the Civil Rights Act and Nixon didn't.
Panetta will be a breath of fresh air to the CIA.
lebkuchen (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-05-09 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. He fought the oil companies off the coast of CA while I was in college
bagging rays on the clean beaches.
He's an environmentalist. What a great choice for CIA.
bananas (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-05-09 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
16. Should've been Valerie Plame.
Baby Snooks (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-05-09 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
31. Why the hell not as Molly would say...
At least Valerie Plame would have known who was who and who was doing what and who will try to circumvent the administration by just bypassing the director. This is still a Bush CIA. Don't fool yourself.
Riverman (508 posts) Mon Jan-05-09 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
34. Nice- Instead of BUSH III were are getting CLINTON III
I did not support Hilary, but I guess she should have been the nominee, if we knew Obama was simply going to be their puppet! Change You Can Believe In! WTF!
:rotf:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3673675#3673679
-
promoting valerie plame to head the CIA would be like electing a state senator president . . . oh, wait . . .
-
The incompetent picks continue. Nothing to do but sit back and laugh.
.
-
Dangged if a DUmmie didn't make 2 true statements in one post.
What he can't do is to walk in and not take charge in a no-nonsense way. True.... a liberal leave the nonsense behind...... :rotf:
If he does that, he'll be completely ineffective. True again..... I expect him to be a complete failure, no matter what.
-
librechik (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-05-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. At least he's not a spook of some sort
Recent appointees have all had that in their background somewhere. Maybe Panetta can just manage the place without having ancient ties and obligations cloud all the issues.
Maybe.
Translating into English from Moonbat, this means he will have no clue what he's doing, will be kept in the dark and fed bullshit by the Agency careerists, and to the extent he imposes his will on them it will be a disaster (and those career Agency types will be inclined to let it be a disaster, as long as their names aren't on anything associated with it). Jimmuh didn't make quite the same mistake, he appointed Stansfield Turner, which was also a huge disaster, though for entirely different reasons.
-
Crisco (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-05-09 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
35. "Anyone But Clinton"
I eliminated Obama from my primary preferences when it finally came time to size up the candidates and saw that Obama was a lot more to the right than his speeches. When it came down to the two of them, both looked about equal, so I voted to finally see a woman in the White House - and got called a racist for it, here on DU, more or less.
I'm not silly enough to think Hillary was the anti-Obama; but there are a lot of people on DU who owe sincere apologies to people they insulted in the rush to paint Obama as an anti-Clinton liberal.
it's gonna be a long four years for the DUmmies
-
Translating into English from Moonbat, this means he will have no clue what he's doing, will be kept in the dark and fed bullshit by the Agency careerists, and to the extent he imposes his will on them it will be a disaster (and those career Agency types will be inclined to let it be a disaster, as long as their names aren't on anything associated with it). Jimmuh didn't make quite the same mistake, he appointed Stansfield Turner, which was also a huge disaster, though for entirely different reasons.
Only a DUmmy could think that having no relevant experience is an asset for an employee. That explains why they are all unemployed.
-
Baby Snooks (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-05-09 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
31. Why the hell not as Molly would say...
At least Valerie Plame would have known who was who and who was doing what and who will try to circumvent the administration by just bypassing the director. This is still a Bush CIA. Don't fool yourself.
Yes,thanks for admitting just exactly what her and her egomaniac husband were doing.
-
lebkuchen (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-05-09 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. He fought the oil companies off the coast of CA while I was in college
bagging rays on the clean beaches.
He's an environmentalist. What a great choice for CIA.
So torture will now be okay as long as they don't leave a carbon footprint? What the hell does being an environmentalist have to do with intelligence? Are anti-littering campaigns now going to be part of the spy business...good way to catch those terrorists, wait for them to drop a Snickers wrapper on Pismo Beach. The stupid is really stronger than usual today.
Cindie
-
librechik (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-05-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. At least he's not a spook of some sort
Recent appointees have all had that in their background somewhere.
Yes GOD FORBID we have a Spy Chief with a background in SPYING!!
:thatsright:
-
lebkuchen (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-05-09 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. as he was during Nixon's presidency when Panetta supported
the Civil Rights Act and Nixon didn't.
Panetta will be a breath of fresh air to the CIA.
The stupidity and ignorance of DUmmys never ceases to make me want to vomit.
Nixon was not the President when the (Civil Rights Act) bill was passed on July 2, 1964.
The majority of those that opposed the bill in Washington were democrats! Including:
"On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation."
Most Democrats from the Southern states opposed the bill, including Senators Albert Gore Sr. (D-TN), J. William Fulbright (D-AR), and Robert Byrd (D-WV).
Then there is this little factoid from Johnson:
"The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Make no doubt about it, the black people in this nation are still enslaved. The only difference between now and 100 years ago is the Democrats just moved them from the plantations to the inner cities
-
Make no doubt about it, the black people in this nation are still enslaved. The only difference between now and 100 years ago is the Democrats just moved them from the plantations to the inner cities
I'm not sure if I've seen more accurate words ever spoken(typed)
:cheersmate:
-
Make no doubt about it, the black people in this nation are still enslaved. The only difference between now and 100 years ago is the Democrats just moved them from the plantations to the inner cities
you forgot the part obout their slavery being self-imposed and that those who profess to lead them to "freedom" merely keep them in chains
-
lebkuchen (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-05-09 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. He fought the oil companies off the coast of CA while I was in college
bagging rays on the clean beaches.
He's an environmentalist. What a great choice for CIA.
:thatsright: Words fail :thatsright:
-
Uh oh. They're not going to like this.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who this week begins her tenure as the first female chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said today that she was not consulted on the choice and indicated she might oppose it.
"I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director," Feinstein said. "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."
The choice of Panetta was seen as a sign that Obama considered it more important to have a steady political hand and astute manager at the helm of the agency, rather than someone with deep operational experience.
In picking Panetta, Obama risks raising anew questions about the politicization of the CIA, a concern cited by leading congressional officials.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-cia-panetta6-2009jan06,0,5514283.story
-
Wonder where Jamie Gorelick will land in the administration?
Maybe they can somehow recycle Bob Torricelli too.
-
Uh oh. They're not going to like this.
Quote
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who this week begins her tenure as the first female chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said today that she was not consulted on the choice and indicated she might oppose it.
"I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director," Feinstein said. "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."
The choice of Panetta was seen as a sign that Obama considered it more important to have a steady political hand and astute manager at the helm of the agency, rather than someone with deep operational experience.
In picking Panetta, Obama risks raising anew questions about the politicization of the CIA, a concern cited by leading congressional officials.
http://www.latimes.com/ne...2009jan06,0,5514283.story
Dear Gawd...
I agree with Feinstein.
That's how ****ed up this is. :mental: