PEBO Taps Panetta to Head CIA

p.s. Todd . . . are you again forgetting Bin Laden was CIA funded under the Reagan Republican administration?

"Yeah, Bush was stupid to trust that any of Bubba's appointments were bright enough"

Well Todd, now you're simply revealing your blanket bias against and condemnation of anyone appointed by Clinton or a Democrat - a rigid, prejudiced and almost idiotic stance.

You're prejudging large numbers of people you know nothing about.

"How does a job in physical security decades ago at a base used by reservists prepare you for a job in human and signal intelligence? I suppose that Panetta might have had to guard against the possibility of Obama's neighbors trying to blow it up but outside of that there is no relevance to today's situation."

Firs of all, it wasn't for reservists, but for he army and officer training. It's language training programs were very well known. You're right, the base has closed and merged with the university system of California. I happen to be familiar with the area where it's situated, the Monterey Peninsula and individuals who underwent training there. 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. Good night.

Yeah, Bush was stupid to trust that any of Bubba's appointments were bright enough. Now you're saying we should trust that his unqualified former Chief of Staff is up to the CIA job? Not even Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) is buying that pal. Panetta was their when Bin Laden got his start and did nothing to stop him when they could have.

"I really dont know what this Fort Ord thing is or why its relevant."

FYI, Fort Ord was a major linguistic training school for military officers. The language and strategic acumen of some of its graduates is quite impressive. It's hardly JLo's old school as you put it. How is Chief of Staff not relevant to an intelligence position?

Its a name check.

Look I had a job that had security in it. Somewhere.

At a military base that closed in 1994.

How does a job in physical security decades ago at a base used by reservists prepare you for a job in human and signal intelligence? I suppose that Panetta might have had to guard against the possibility of Obama's neighbors trying to blow it up but outside of that there is no relevance to today's situation.

How does it prepare him for the factionalization and turf wars inside of the CIA? It doesnt.

"Sounds like Caroline Kennedy's experience going to JLo's old school."

A clever, but stupid comment.

"He had substantial intelligence experience as the Clinton Chief of Staff. Plus, he also was a head of intelligence operations at Fort Ord in Monterey, CA. "

Sounds like Caroline Kennedy's experience going to JLo's old school.

I really dont know what this Fort Ord thing is or why its relevant. I understand how being head of the NSA is relevant. I understand how being on the House Intelligence Committee is valuable. It looks on the face of it, unless he has been hiding his light under a bushel for a decade, like Panetta is the least qualified Director since Schlesinger.

Now if you want to spin that as a good thing its up to you.

It was not Congress who was responsible for cherry picking and stove piping intelligence regarding Iraq.

It was not Congress talking repeatedly about the coming 'mushroom-shaped cloud'. All of this was coming directly out of the Bush administration.

You may find the arguments tired, but anyone who's had their kids among the over 3000 killed in Iraq, or the many thousands more wounded or maimed, or any one of those affected by the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths and many, many more maimings and woundings might beg to differ.

"When you have someone with no experience then tend to over rely on staff and are scared to make decisions. Not what we need."

The claim doesn't hold that Panetta has no experience. He had substantial intelligence experience as the Clinton Chief of Staff. Plus, he also was a head of intelligence operations at Fort Ord in Monterey, CA. And thankfully, he's not a good old boy with the water boarding club.

Todd, so Bush wasn't strong enough to chose someone other than Tenet?

That was Bush's choice to leave the man in the position . . . you can't blame Clinton for that, try as you might.

"Which is all the more reason for bringing an outsider in."

Actually just the opposite. Intelligence gathering isnt going to give you a picture of a terrorist holding up a sign with his GPS coordinates or a photo of boxes labeled Acme WMD.

You get part of a picture from here and part from there. There may be some intercepts that mean something but then maybe they dont. When the Iraqi general says "We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left." does that mean they destroyed it or they hid it? Are those aluminum tubes for nuclear use or conventional weapons.

What about the rumors you get from other countries intelligence services? Do you trust those or ignore them?

You very seldom going to get full information. This job requires you to make judgments on muddied waters. And if you dont do it you are going to get 9/11 and USS Cole.

When you have someone with no experience then tend to over rely on staff and are scared to make decisions. Not what we need.

As one news editorial say " A novice president and a novice head of the CIA when we are at war. Not a good thing" Strictly a sugar plum to the pink people which will cost American lives.

-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. Under Bush?

You know all this talk about skewing intel by Bush in order to attack Iraq is getting old. He needed a resolution from congress in order to do it, which included a lot of the same democrats that we now have who are trying to obscure their yes vote and who are now in their second and third act this election cycle. Let's be clear here.

I don't think the intelligence was bad per se during the Bush years, but selectively and destructively used. Which is all the more reason for bringing an outsider in.

I'm thinking back fondly to the use of the CIA by Bush and Cheney to cook skewed intelligence on Iraq in order to justify their neo-con agenda to go ahead and attack.

That's when 'experienced' leadership in the CIA really counted and look what happened. Tens of thousands killed (many civilians) and still counting - and the country virtually bankrupted by hundreds of billions of dollars of war debt - which continues to build as we speak.

I'm also thinking back to 'experienced' CIA leadership under Bush that had such excellent intelligence that 9/11 took place on their shift . ..

Why would anyone expect the least-qualified, least-experienced, least-accomplished president-elect we've ever had to do any better? Why would anyone expect a Chicago politician to do any different (It's not about qualifications, it's about politics!)

I'm thinking back fondly to the use of the CIA by Bush and Cheney to cook skewed intelligence on Iraq in order to justify their neo-con agenda to go ahead and attack.

That's when 'experienced' leadership in the CIA really counted and look what happened. Tens of thousands killed (many civilians) and still counting - and the country virtually bankrupted by hundreds of billions of dollars of war debt - which continues to build as we speak.

I'm also thinking back to 'experienced' CIA leadership under Bush that had such excellent intelligence that 9/11 took place on their shift . ..

Why would anyone expect the least-qualified, least-experienced, least-accomplished president-elect we've ever had to do any better? Why would anyone expect a Chicago politician to do any different (It's not about qualifications, it's about politics!)