Leon Panetta To Head CIA
Leon Panetta served as Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton and was a California congressman. Obama wants someone with no connection to recent CIA controversies like its detention and interrogation programs following September 11. That means a relative CIA outsider like Panetta rather than Obama’s initial choice, John. O. Brennan, who had field experience but too many links to the past.
In disclosing the pick, officials pointed to Mr. Panetta’s sharp managerial skills, his string bipartisan standing on Capitol Hill, his significant foreign policy experience in the White House and his service on the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan panel that examined the war and made recommendations on United States policy. The officials noted that he had a handle on intelligence spending from his days as director of the Office and Management and Budget.
Looks like another good choice to me. Good job, sir.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Looks like another good choice???
Excuse me? Panetta may have become the default because distrust for Obam runs so deep in the intelligence community that no one else could be persuaded to take the job, but that scarcely makes Panetta a “good choice” appointment.
Intel is a difficult job – even for the professionals, as evidenced by the fact that ALL (and I do mean ALL) Western intelligence services thoroughly believed that Saddam retained the capacity to manufacture WMDs and likely had at least a few in reserve.
Having essentially threatened criminal sanctions against CIA interrogators (OK, torturers, if you prefer), I see this as a potential disaster as the legal standards appropriate to US criminal law are suddenly applied to intel work – resulting in all the professionals going in to extreme conservative mode.
The fact of the matter is that many WMDs are real old technology, war gases were used in WWI, and by WWII nerve gas was available, if not used. Of course, fission weapons are early 1940s technology. There is little chance that we can truly keep 70 year old technology away from determined and well financed bad guys – at least not without good intel.
Don’t get me wrong, the US is a big country, with a lot of resources. We can undoubtedly survive the nuking of an LA or NYC, just as the Japanese survived the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki despite an immensely smaller population and economy. Tough luck for those in the A and B rings, and a lot of cancer for those even downwind of the C-ring, but the US will survive.
Not so, the Democratic party, if the repubs can in any way make the case that dems putting rookies in key positions cost a few hundred thousand lives.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Just another Clinton re-tread. Looks like the Clinton Administration all over again. Heck, Leon didn’t even know Clinton was “not having sex with that woman”. It happened right under his nose and he is going to head the CIA. YOW!!!
January 5th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
“Not so, the Democratic party, if the repubs can in any way make the case that dems putting rookies in key positions cost a few hundred thousand lives.”
…
The Democrats tried to make the case that the Repubs putting an individual incapable (now clearly) of sound judgement in THE key position did cost more than an acceptable loss (if there is such a thing) of American lives.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
willy,
I was about to post the same thing about him not knowing what was going on.
this is the first choice that really has me worried. We have an inexperienced guy in charge of the country and now we have a guy with no intel experience who will be advising him on threats, etc?
Oy.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Now news is breaking that diane feinstein is ticked off about panetta being picked.
hmmm
January 5th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Maybe this could become interesting.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
[...] Back to the days of treating terrorists and enemies of America with fuzzy-furry gloves. And if Alan Colmes, Talk Left, and the wackos at Firedoglake like himAbandon all Hope of fighting the [...]
January 5th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
[...] Back to the days of treating terrorists and enemies of America with fuzzy-furry gloves. And if Alan Colmes, Talk Left, and the wackos at Firedoglake like himAbandon all Hope of fighting the [...]
January 5th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Listen to you two. What a riot.
T Mason: Hey Willy, I got good news. Controversy with Obama’s CIA pick.
Willy: YES! Let’s cross our fingers.
What a pair you two are!
January 5th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Why thank you PFKAM.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Doesn’t sound like he has any experience for the job… ??
January 5th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Just a cover-up boy for Clinton.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
tdro,
I am assuming you have NOOOO problem with this pick.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
[...] • Two Weeks to The White House: Alan analyzes President-elect Obama’s latest transition decisions. [...]
January 5th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
It’s time someone explained just what the hell the CIA has done for us in the last sixty years, and whether the United Stated might be a lot better off if there had never been a CIA.
January 5th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
George Hanshaw, fine post Sir.
January 5th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
To liberal rottweiler: I will tell you what they have been doing…using fear to up their budget, spying on America (although technically illegal) building flying torture chambers, etc….
January 5th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
“”Not so, the Democratic party, if the repubs can in any way make the case that dems putting rookies in key positions cost a few hundred thousand lives.”"
What kind of right-wing nutter strategy is this?
Whoa…suddenly it’s the CIA that has kept the US safe all these years?
Lol
I know they do excel at assination, although they fail more than they succeed, need examples?
And as for WMDs in Iraq…western intelligence saying that he had the capacity to make a WMD, which as you say can include WW1 nerve gas …there’s a huge strectch between that and what Bush and company told us. Remember
” – mushroom clouds over US cities”?
I can’t see how the CIA can do any worse to be honest.
My understanding remains that there was conflicting evidence anyway, that Bush and Blair chose to ignore, so maybe the CIA is not entirely to blame…
January 6th, 2009 at 2:48 am
I’m a little worried.. not just that this guy seems a square peg in a round hole but worse than that I seem to find myself agreeing with Willy and Blissful..
January 6th, 2009 at 4:56 am
No reason to think this guy would be worse than George “The Jews set me up” Tenet, or Porter, “I couldn’t get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified.” Goss.
I think that most of those in the CIA who WERE good, were pushed out.
January 6th, 2009 at 6:52 am
It isn’t just repubs who think this pick was ill advised. Dems are coming out saying the guy should have been sec of commerce, not over the CIA
January 6th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Good point, OldLefty. I think many of the republicans (and democrats) don’t want him because he won’t play ball. He can’t be any worse than what we have now.
January 6th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
His qualifications that I heard for the job today were: politically savvy, smart, and a hard worker.
Whew. I was worried he didn’t have experience
January 6th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
1. sharp managerial skills,
2, his bipartisan standing on Capitol Hill,
3, his significant foreign policy experience in the White House
4. his service on the Iraq Study Group
5. he had a handle on intelligence spending from his days as director of the Office and Management and Budget.
NOw, in all fairness, he did not say he can see Iraq from his house, so that might disqualify him.
January 6th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Well TDRO, it ain’t just me that thinks this guy isn’t right for the job. A LOT of dems think he would have been better suited for the sec of commerce position considering we are in such stressful times security wise. That list includes Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller.
Being director of CIA really doesn’t lend itself to on the job training.
January 6th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
I like this guy. Nobody seems to like him and have only negative things to say about him. I hope he proves everybody wrong and does a great job as head of the CIA. And like I said before, he’s got to be better than what we have now.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
I know Leon a little bit being a CA resident and a political-junkie. While I’m not upset by the appointment I have never heard Panetta say anything on matters of intelligence gathering methods or similiar issues in any major public forum. I’m certain he is informed on them but I have not heard him advocate or defend intelligence services in the past. I hope that as Director he both transparent but also vigourous in his office’s efforts. He is certainly qualified. I just wonder if he ever thought he would do THAT is more my point.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:28 am
“He is certainly qualified.” WOW…just like Caroline Kennedy is qualified? As far as I can tell, Panetta’s only exposure to intelligence was getting daily briefings as Clinton’s COS. What, exactly, has him qualified to be the chief of intelligence for the US, ERIC? Please, do explain.
Obama’s argument for Panetta is that he wants someone in the top intel job who hasn’t been “tainted” by GW influence…granted, but he’s keeping the Deputy Director and various others to provide the experience that Panetta obviously lacks. interesting…
TDRO, are you suggesting that Gen Hayden isn’t doing an effective job as Dir of CIA? Would you rather George Tenet still be in charge? George was in until ‘04, if you’ll remember, an appointee of Clinton, and responsible for the greatest number of classified intel leaks in history, not to mention he was at the helm during 9/11, when there was a “failure” of the intelligence community to identify the threat Al Queda posed, and it was Tenet at the helm again when we thought there were WMD in Iraq. So, who would your pick be?
January 7th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Okay, Jared:
If George Bush KNEW we were going to be attacked on 9/11 in July 2001, why didn’t he do something to deter it?
Furthermore, with all the illegal wiretapping that was done in January of 2001 by the Bush administration, you’d think he would have been able to stave off the attack. But he wasn’t spying on the enemy, he was spying on our military and U.S. citizens.
And as for Tenent:
From “Meet the Press” 03/30/08
Tim Russert asks General Michael Hayden is the recent violence in Basra is going to have an impact on the political reconciliation that was promised when the “Surge” was launched. Hayden’s answer was to ignore all the various promises the American people were made in the run up to war and beyond – of quick battles, occupancies that would last mere months, cakewalks, missions accomplished, last throes, and imminent drawdowns – and insist that the current state of play is something that we were always told was going to happen.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Didn’t Tenet also say,
“They’re setting me up. The bastards are setting me up,” Tenet said, but “I am not going to take the hit.”
January 7th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
TDRO…How did you manage to bring GW into the mix on a discussion of the director of the CIA? ;)
Well, since you asked (I’m sure you already know this as you seem to be very well educated on political matters and such…no sarcasm intended), in 2005, there was a report issued by the CIA Inspector General that had a 19-page summary stating that Tenet knew the dangers of Al Qaeda well before September 2001, but that the leadership of the CIA did not do enough to prevent any attacks. Tenet reacted to the publication of this report by calling it “flat wrong”.
You got me on the wiretapping thing…I don’t think it was ever revealed WHO they were listening to specifically, but you’re right..they definitely weren’t listening to the right people.
…and how does a clip from Meet the Press answer my question of how you think Hayden is shortchanging you? As far as I know, Gen Hayden isn’t in charge of the war and its outcome, (and I’m pretty surprised he felt he was in a position to comment on the progress of the war at all), but rather, only in charge of providing the intelligence to the commanders who make the decisions with regards to the war.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Jared,
I screwed up. I didn’t mean to post that one about Hayden here.
But it doesn’t change the fact that Bush KNEW we were going to be attacked and did nothing to prevent it. Not only that, he used 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, which Bush himself has admitted.
So now we have millions dead for no good reason.
By the way, he was able to find Saddam but still can’t seem to find Bin Laden? Guess he didn’t care enough about going after those responsible for 9/11 as much as he cared about stealing Iraq’s oil.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
All I’m saying is I happen to like this Panetta guy and hope he does a great job. We’ll see what happens.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
I don’t honestly know if Bush knew or not about 9/11. I can imagine he gets briefed on a number of “threats” on a daily basis…which ones are credible and which are not.
Agree the war in Iraq was a bad move initially, but you can’t argue with removing a murderous dictator. -”millions” dead (assume you fired for effect here?)?
I hope Panetta does well also…did you hear Sanjay Gupta got the nod for Surgeon General?
January 7th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
If Bush knew about 9/11, then clinton obviously knew bout the first WTC prior to it being bombed.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Blis:
And Clinton did know. And his CIA director knew. They tried to warn Bush months in advance. Bush ignored the warning and allowed us to be attacked. Now don’t get me wrong, tt worked out great for Bush and Cheney. 9/11 was their excuse to attack Iraq.
Jared:
Personally, I don’t like Sanjay Gupta. I think he could have done better. But, then again, it’s not my call.
January 7th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
TDRO, i am talking about the FIRST WTC, NOT 9/11
So you are telling me that clinton had great intel about 9/11?
Okay, if that is the case, then you would have to agree that the intel clinton had about sadam hussein….the intel that led him and MANY dems to say sadam was a danger and iraq was a threat AND they had WMD’s was legitimate when George Bush reviewed it and said the same darn thing that clinton had said.
January 7th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Cheney was lying to congress and the American people about WMD’s to achieve his goal of instigating a war with Iraq.
I say Cheney because I think he was running the country. Bush was just the political scapegoat.
We were attacked on 9/11 by Saudi Arabia. So why did we attack Iraq? They had nothing to do with 9/11.
Iraq could have easily been a threat. So was Iran. So was North Korea. So was Russia. Why attack Iraq?
January 7th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
TDRO, what made you come to the conclusion that GW knew months in advance of 9/11? I’ve heard rumors of this, but can’t find any credible source of info.
January 7th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Wait…Cheney WANTED to go to war with Iraq? Lemme guess…for the oil that we were getting anyway?
I’ve heard the left, and a multitude of other so-called political pundits say Cheney was running the country. It’s high time to get off the bandwagon on this one. There is NO credible information indicating that Cheney made ANY executive decision on his own. Sh**, he can’t even aim straight, much less run a country…
Wrong, TDRO, we were not attacked by a different country, we were attacked by an extremist Muslim group. And I’ve said many times before on this website that I believe the initial move into Iraq was on false (later learned) pretenses; however, that still doesn’t mean the removal of a murderous dictator was wrong of us.
In 2001, it wasn’t verified that N Korea was building nuclear bombs (although GW had reason to believe NK was looking to get WMD) = not a threat; Iran didn’t have the loco president it has now, and there were no clear verbal (or otherwise) actionable threat against the US or US interests, other than pursuing WMD (unless you count the anti-Israeli rhetoric that had been going for decades prior); and Russia still had Putin, but he primarily kept to himself (other than the whole Chechnyan thing and trying to strong arm former soviet republics). Iraq, from what GW was briefed, was the only who we thought had WMD and who had made it perfectly clear it’s intentions of using them against US interests in the area.
I can’t presume to know the thought process of the POTUS and his Joint Chiefs during this whole thing…I can only imagine…
You’ve heard the old adage that hindsight is 20/20, well this is definitely a moment in history we will learn from for a long, long time.
January 7th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
TDRO,
We were attacked by Al Qaeda, not saudi arabia.
Bush/cheney had the same intelligence about iraq that clinton had. Only moments ago you said the intelligence clinton had was golden.
Which way is it?
January 7th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
I’m not defending Clinton and I never said the intelligence he had was golden. He may well have had the same intelligence, but he wasn’t president on 9/11.
Over half of the terrorist were Saudis.
Jared:
From CNN -
WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Bush’s daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.
But, the officials said, there was no speculation about the use of an airplane itself as a bomb or a weapon, and no specific, credible information about the possibility of a hijacking of any sort.
It marks the first time the White House has acknowledged there was a warning of a potential hijacking linked to bin Laden prior to the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
January 7th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
TDRO,
My point was: you say clinton had intelligence that he passed on to bush that should have prevented 9/11.
Clinton also had intelligence that was passed on that stated sadam was a threat and iraq had WMD’s
If one set of intelligence is credible, then obviously both of them were. right?
January 7th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
TDRO,
Yeah, over half of them were saudis. They were ALL muslim. So if by your own admission we should have an issue with the saudis, then shouldn’t we also have a problem with muslims?
January 7th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Blissful:
What the hell are you talking about? That’s like saying since I don’t like the KKK that I hate all white people.
My point about the intelligence is this: Clinton and Bush both thought Iraq had WMD’s. Both thought North Korea was testing nuclear bombs (hell, N Korea was bragging about it). Both knew Russia had WMD’s that they could have used at any time.
Why pick Iraq? Personally, I didn’t trust Clinton or his intelligence. Cheney knew before we invaded that Iraq they had no WMD’s.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/23/60-minutes-cia-official-reveals-bush-cheney-rice-were-personally-told-iraq-had-no-wmd-in-fall-2002/
January 7th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
What happened to my post?
January 7th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Great. Now is shows up.
January 7th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
TDRO,
“But, the officials said, there was no speculation about the use of an airplane itself as a bomb or a weapon, and no specific, credible information about the possibility of a hijacking of any sort.”
This is support for my argument earlier about the fact the President probably receives a multitude of briefings on “possible” threaths…but by what standards do they determine what threats are considered credible and what threats aren’t. If there was no credible information about 9/11, how was GW supposed to react? Admittedly, he did receive briefings on the matter, but like your CNN report points out, there was no verifiable information regarding either a bomb or a hijacking.
Moving on to Clinton, I’ll have to back BLISS up on this one. Inaction by the Clinton administration, given the same intel the Bush admin had (as you pointed out), makes him just as, if not more, culpable in the 9/11 scenario. Then where is your argument against him? And you cannot use the line “he wasn’t President on 9/11″ as an argument to absolve him of responsibility.
January 7th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Posting trouble, try the end of the post:
After Cheney chose himself as VP,
At this point, many thought, before the 2000 election, that due to Cheney’s connection to PNAC, they would invade Iraq.
Remember, these were the Straussians :
While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical – divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow.
But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. Strauss believed that “those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.”
In the PNAC policy paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses states that it aims to:
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for the U.S. military:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”
On Pp51:
“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.”)
9/11 WAS their Pearl Harbor.
January 8th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Hence, their ignoring al Qaeda, and IMMEDIATELY after 9/11, Rumsfeld blaming Sadaam.
Richard Clarke said about the Predator:
. “The most telling thing for me about the attitude of these people was on the decision that had been pending for a long time to resume Predator [remote-controlled drone] flights over Afghanistan, and to now do what we couldn’t have done in the Clinton administration because the technology wasn’t ready: put a weapon on the Predator and use it as not only a hunter but a killer.
We had seen bin Laden when we had it in the Clinton administration, as just a hunter. We had seen him. So we thought, Man, if we could get this with a hunter-killer, we could see him again and kill him. So finally we have a principals meeting and the C.I.A. says it’s not our job to fly the Predator armed. And D.O.D. says it’s not our job to fly an unarmed aircraft.
I just couldn’t believe it. This is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the director of C.I.A. sitting there, both passing the football because neither one of them wanted to go kill bin Laden”.
You also had the Downing Street Memos.
Don’t forget, Iraq WAS a secular nation. After they invaded Kuwait, bin Ladin wanted to bring his Mujahideen to repel Sadaam, and the Saudis, (who DO support religious extremists, but are Bush business partners), patted his head and said, No thanks, we have the Americans…Onward Christian Soldiers!”, thus fulfilling the predictions of SOME intel people in the 80s who warned that this would happen if you if you armed every wacko in the region and trained them to bring down a superpower.
January 8th, 2009 at 8:12 am
Someone check out Vanity Fair: An Oral History of the Bush White House
The quote about Cheney by Lawrence Wilkerson,and tell me why it won’t post.
January 8th, 2009 at 8:16 am
“After Cheney chose himself as VP” – hilarious…my side hurts!
“Many thought”…who’s “many”
“But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders.” – Because Clinton tipped the morality scales? How ’bout being a bit MORE blinded by your obvious hate for the Bush administration.
and then the Predator? wow, it must have been an early morning for you. Now, I know you’re not a dumby, but posting this comment from Richard Clarke was a bit odd: The CIA are intel gatherers, hence their statement of “it’s not their job to drop bombs” and the DoD are the enforcers, hence their statement “we’re not in charge of gathering intel.” Of course it should be a collaborative effort, but you know how things work on the Hill…it’s like asking two pitbulls to share the same food dish.
And now Vanity Fair is among your list of credible news resources?
You make my head hurt..
January 8th, 2009 at 9:53 am
“How ’bout being a bit MORE blinded by your obvious hate for the Bush administration.”
How about your hatred for the Clinton administration? Everytime something comes up about a republican crime, the right always cries “What about Clinton??? what about Carter???”.
Well, Clinton and Carter are no longer presidents. They’re old news and as Cheney has said, parroting Nixon’s statement, “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” In which case, anything Clinton and/or Carter did or did not due was legal. Case closed.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Also, Jared, I assume you find OldLefty’s comment hilarious because you can’t handle the truth.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Jared (I) – Texas
It’s no secret that Cheney was asked to find a running mate for Bush, and came up with himself.
~~ ““But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders.” – Because Clinton tipped the morality scales? How ’bout being a bit MORE blinded by your obvious hate for the Bush administration.”’
It has nothing to do with the morality of affairs v the morality lying about war.
I guess, you need to look up the PNAC and the followers of Leo Strauss, otherwise, it’s like my saying , there’s no al Qaeda.
.
~~ “And now Vanity Fair is among your list of credible news resources?”
The Vanity Fair piece ONLY quotes these people, that’s why it’s called An Oral History.
But I guess Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell , David Kuo, Matthew Dowd, Scott McClellan, Paul O’Neill, Rand Beers…. ALL served under this administration, ALL must be lying, and the tiny group of PNACers are the ONLY ones who are credible.
YOU make MY head hurt.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:18 pm