Political Punch

Obama is a joke.

Obama wants a more enemy friendly CIA. It's important that the enemy like us more so they won't be so angry. It might be a good idea for Obama to order our soldiers to only wound enemy combatants rather than killing them. That would be a friendly gesture and would lessen their hatred, no?

"All occurred during the tenure of Clinton Administration (Panetta, Berger, et al.) appointed CIA Directors including Woolsey, Deutch, and Tenet. "

Woolsey has daid Clinton never once met wityh him when he held the post. And Duetsch, wasn't he the one who resigned after it was discovered had all our secrets copied on his personal computer at home..lol..a real piece of work, huh?

"Let's give this new man a chance and some support; without a doubt the country could use some guidelines back on a better moral, economic and social compass."
-------------------------------------
pefros,

LOL, and the "anoited one", the one who knows nothing of the "Chicago-Style" of politics from which he sprang, will give us this guidance.....

LOL, and you wonder why people use the phrases - "anoited one", "messiah", etc...

PLEASE, he has already shown with his handling of Richardson, that he is just another politician. Nothing more, Notihng less !

the last place anyone should be looking for moral guidance is to any politician of any party!

Now even ABC's formerly very liberal reporter and senior analyst Sam Donaldson says Panetta is wrong for the CIA Directorship. Sam says in his article posted today "Panetta, who I know quite well, like and respect, should not be CIA director." Further on he continues, "when it comes to the next CIA director, I don't know who it will be, but I don't think it will be Panetta." PEBO should rethink this unfortunate appointment and get someone with some experience.

After watching the American government under the Republicans cosying up to Saddam Hussein and supplying him with weapons (Iran war) AND cosying up with the islamic radicals in Afghanistan and supplying them with weapons (Russia), there seems to be lots of blame to go round. The United States has been speaking out of many sides of its mouth.

Let's give this new man a chance and some support; without a doubt the country could use some guidelines back on a better moral, economic and social compass.

Both Democrat Senators Feinstein (incoming Intelligence Committee Chair) and Rockefeller (outgoing Intelligence Committee Chair) are doubtful of Panetta's credentials to lead the CIA at this time according to a number of major news outlets (CNN & Time) as well as ABC.

-First WTC bombing, Feb. '93
-Khobar Towers bombing, Jun. '96
-African Embassy bombings, Aug. '98
-USS Cole bombing, Oct. '00
-9/11 - WTC - Pentagon, Sep. '01
All occurred during the tenure of Clinton Administration (Panetta, Berger, et al.) appointed CIA Directors including Woolsey, Deutch, and Tenet. Not a good record of defending our citizens, soldiers, or friends.

"but not like George Tenet and other former CIA heads who are advocating for him. "

such as who?

" As far as we know, he has no knowledge of the operational structure of the CIA, and very little about their methods of intelligence gathering and collation."

You sound like Diane Feinstein, but not like George Tenet and other former CIA heads who are advocating for him.

Not a lot of appreciation for this appointment, other than from the Obama-Amen chorus. But then they could approve of any Clinton holdover being appointed- including Socks.

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who this week begins her tenure as the first female head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said 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."

A senior aide to Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the outgoing chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the senator "would have concerns" about a Panetta nomination.

Rockefeller "thinks very highly of Panetta," the aide said. "But he's puzzled by the selection. He has concerns because he has always believed that the director of CIA needs to be someone with significant operational intelligence experience and someone outside the political realm.""

How in the world can any American still believe this baloney:

"Clinton and the Democrats, including Panetta, share a large portion of the blame for allowing Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to metastasize into a global terrorist network. On that basis, I find Panetta's appointment troubling."

If you and Bush and Cheney had ever served in the military, you would know that what happens on YOUR watch is YOUR responsibility.
When did the GOP become the Party of "Blame Anyone But Bush"????

Have you forgotten that Richard Clark warned the entire Bush adminstration in JANUARY 2001 that their only enemy was Al Qaeda???

In response, Bush fired Clark and went on vacation in Crawford; and Cheney pulled out the old maps of IRAQ.

George W. Bush...
On watch Sept 11, 2001 -- the day of the most deadly attack on US soil in US history.

George W. Bush...
The Worst President EVER.

obama has finally lost his marbles and he isn't even sworn in as potus. panetta is as qualified to be cia as my brother and my brother had been deceased for years. the nation's security will be in deep jeopardy, deep weeds, with panetta. our enemies will slide right by panetta and morale in our intelligence structure will collapse adding further to the danger of our nation's security. obama is turning out to be close to incompetent in making good decisions. emanuel, richardson, and now panetta. who knows what other dumb decisons, staffing, appointments obama has already made that americans know nothing about to date. time for all journalists to start doing excellent investigative reporting. the honeymoon is way over for obama. heat up the impeachment process, just in case.

I am sure Mr. Panetta did a good job for Clinton. The times have changed. We now face terror attacks inside our country.
We need a more experienced, younger CIA director. Not a 70 year old man.

Its very obvious that Leon Panetta's selection to head CIA points to Obama's plan for bringing drastic changes into CIA's operation philosophy, that he could not have achieved through a career intelligence professional. Leon Panetta is no dummy, he sat through daily intelligence briefings at White House, had been a congressman for six terms and many assignments at WH. Obama has very competent team including Gen. James Jones and Blair to consult complex intelligence issues in daily briefings at WH,where {anetta will be present. We ought to think of Panetta as a trusted competent implementor at CIA oof decisions made daily by inyelligence team. So, please do not jumo to any conclusions yet.

Todd, after watching the American government under the Republicans cosying up to Saddam Hussein and supplying him with weapons (Iran war) AND cosying up with the islamic radicals in Afghanistan and supplying them with weapons (Russia), there seems to be lots of blame to go round. The United States has been speaking out of many sides of its mouth.

Let's give this new man a chance and some support; without a doubt the country could use some guidelines back on a better moral, economic and social compass.

"I'm sure Fort Ord had more classified areas of intelligence beyond the linguistic. It may have very well dealt with the signal and human intelligence you mentioned, also. I mean those two areas certainly sound compatible with military language training."

If any of that classified diphthong research had leaked out the Republic would have been in big trouble.

Sorry this experience doesnt sounds very relevant to me. As far as we know, he has no knowledge of the operational structure of the CIA, and very little about their methods of intelligence gathering and collation.

Your position is either
1. hey we wouldnt want someone with experience
or
2. look he really does have experience

I dont think you are going to convince anyone with this "no experience needed" ploy. The standard has always been that the candidate had actual operation experience before he took over the job. That seems to have been relaxed with Deutch with bad results.

Fort Ord doesnt seem significant. And attending summarized briefings a decade ago really isnt much help either.

You may parse the wording however you would wish. To me it sounds like an insulting attack on me rather than my position. Furthermore, my statements are demonstrably true regarding Clinton's personnel choices during his watch and the terrorist events that led up to 9/11 which you blame exclusively on "Bush's watch". Clinton and the Democrats, including Panetta, share a large portion of the blame for allowing Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to metastasize into a global terrorist network. On that basis, I find Panetta's appointment troubling.

Todd it was not a personal attack against you, it was an attack against your position of issuing a blanket condemnation of anyone appointed by Clinton. That is what I criticized and called 'rigid, prejudiced and almost idiotic'. You've got to read what people actually say, not what you imagined they said.

I certainly don't think your personal attack on me adds any credibility to your argument, it usually indicates a failed position. PS. according to Hollywood it was Representative Charley Wilson (D-Texas) who signed up Bin Laden's group. You know "Charley Wilson's War”? BTW, Ronald Reagan was the best President of the past century, sorry.

Lightnin, not one commentor has made the clever connection between "Chicago politician" and our newly-elected President. It's picks like these that really quell our cynisism of politicians possessing integrity and independent thought.

What we need to remember to do is to pray for this President, and for wisdom.

P.S. Also our Troops.