Panetta to Be Named C.I.A. Director

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Panetta to Be Named C.I.A. Director

By Carl Hulse (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/author/carl-hulse/) AND Mark Mazzetti (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/author/mark-mazzetti/) http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/01/05/us/politics/05panetta_190.jpgLeon E. Panetta, the former congressman and White House chief of staff. (Kevin Wolf/Associated Press)
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.
Mr. Panetta has a reputation in Washington as a competent manager with strong background in budget issues, but has little hands-on intelligence experience. If confirmed by the Senate, he will take control of the agency most directly responsible for hunting senior Al Qaeda leaders around the globe, but one that has been buffeted since the Sept. 11 attacks by leadership changes and morale problems.
Given his background, Mr. Panetta is a somewhat unusual choice to lead the C.I.A., an agency that has been unwelcoming to previous directors perceived as outsiders, such as Stansfield M. Turner and John M. Deutch. But his selection points up the difficulty Mr. Obama had in finding a C.I.A. director with no connection to controversial counterterrorism programs of the Bush era.

Aides have said Mr. Obama had originally hoped to select a C.I.A. head with extensive field experience, especially in combating terrorist networks. But his first choice for the job, John O. Brennan, had to withdraw his name amidst criticism over his role in the formation of the C.I.A’s detention and interrogation program after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Members of Mr. Obama’s transition also raised concerns about other candidates, even some Democratic lawmakers with intelligence experience. Representative Jane Harman of California, formerly the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was considered for the job, but she was ruled out as a candidate in part because of her early support for some Bush administration programs like the domestic eavesdropping program.
In disclosing the pick, officials pointed to Mr. Panetta’s sharp managerial skills, his strong 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.
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.
“He will bring a wealth of knowledge of the government to the C.I.A. post and an outside perspective that I think might be helpful at this juncture in the C.I.A.’s history,” said Lee Hamilton, the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group.
As C.I.A. director, Mr. Panetta would report to Mr. Blair (http://projects.nytimes.com/44th_president/new_team/show/dennis-blair), a retired admiral. Neither choice has yet been publicly announced. The C.I.A. has settled down from years of turmoil after the Sept. 11 attacks and fallout from flawed intelligence assessments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs.
At the same time, it faces uncertainly about where it fits in the constellation of spy agencies operating under the director of national intelligence. In recent months, Michael V. Hayden, the current C.I.A. director, has clashed with Mike McConnell, the current director of national intelligence, about Mr. McConnell’s efforts to fill top intelligence jobs overseas with officers from across the intelligence community, not just the C.I.A.
Mr. Panetta, a native of Monterey, Calif., served eight terms in the House representing his home region before becoming the chief budget adviser to President Bill Clinton in 1993. He then served as Mr. Clinton’s chief of staff from July 1994 to January 1997.
Given the focus on the intelligence apparatus in the wake of the terror attacks and the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr. Obama’s selections in the intelligence field are expected to be closely examined.
Mr. Hamilton said that if confirmed, Mr. Panetta will have the advantage of moving to the agency headquarters in Langley, Va. with a strong relationship to Mr. Obama, which can translate into influence within the broader intelligence community. He said Mr. Panetta’s lack of hands-on intelligence experience can be supplemented by others.
“You have to look at the team,” he said. “You clearly will want intelligence professionals at the highest levels of the C.I.A.,” he said.

--------------------------------------------------------

just wow.

yeah, i wouldn't want anybody on any other counterterrorism program to head our CIA. "hope is on the way".

[Winehole23]

Another Clinton retread.


Who will speak for him, SpursTalk?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

is it me or does he look like a fatter Dom Irrera?

[101A]

Why Panetta?

What does he bring to the table?

I didn't vote for Obama, I wish him well; I was cautiously optimistic the night of the election; I am less and less so.

[clambake]

well, if you guys don't like him, history says he's a good pick.

[Winehole23]

well, if you guys don't like him, history says he's a good pick.Support, please? What history?

Eight term Congressman from Monterey, CA, chosen first as Clinton's budget director, then as his chief of staff.

Anything else?

[101A]

well, if you guys don't like him, history says he's a good pick.

He's obviously a political pick; nothing more, nothing less.

He may be a great CIA director, he may not;

What he will NOT be, however, is "change".

[clambake]

you didn't vote for change, so what do you mean?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

you didn't vote for change
:lmao

[clambake]

how's your face, viva?

[Winehole23]

Presumably Panetta will ride the bureaucratic herd, and someone else will be the intel wizard.

[balli]

You know, considering that in order to murder Muslims and make money, the current vice president and George Tenet more or less spent the first few years of this decade turning the CIA into a lying propaganda machine, I'd say that there's some pretty big change on the way. Whether this guy's connected to the Clinton Admin. or not.

[clambake]

You know, considering that in order to murder Muslims and make money, the current vice president and George Tenet more or less spent the first few years of this decade turning the CIA into a lying propaganda machine, I'd say that there's some pretty big change on the way. Whether this guy's connected to the Clinton Admin. or not.

are you saying that manufactured fear is no longer the trend?

[101A]

are you saying that manufactured fear is no longer the trend?

Sure it is.

Seen any Democratic demagogy of Social Security lately? SAme tactics, different subjects.

Any you've got me, I am shocked at how few of my fellow Americans voted for Bush's third term like I did.

[clambake]

you're right. completely unrelated subjects.

[balli]

Seen any Democratic demagogy of Social Security lately?
Nope. And I follow politics. But maybe somewhere yes, there's a right wing blog that's pointed out some of that going on.

But to compare anything the Democrats are apparently saying about Social Security to the amount of pre-war fabrication that was carried out by the Bushies is laughable. Wake the fuck up.

[Winehole23]

I'd say that there's some pretty big change on the way. Whether this guy's connected to the Clinton Admin. or not.Word. For eight years politics has driven out experience and competence in favor of political loyalty.

The way Michael Hayden lobbied for the so-called terrorist Surveillance Program wasn't comforting either, but his expertise will surely be missed. By most accounts, he's a first rate professional and human being.

[ChumpDumper]

He's obviously a political pick; nothing more, nothing less.

He may be a great CIA director, he may not;

What he will NOT be, however, is "change".You guys will never get it.

Change = not Bush.

It's change.

For the better.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

You guys will never get it.

Change = not Bush.

It's change.

For the better.

maybe you should know that one cannot be elected three times into office. in other words change was going to happen regardless.

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe you should know it's too bad McCain didn't say he would do anything different than Bush -- it might have helped him.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Maybe you should know it's too bad McCain didn't say he would do anything different than Bush -- it might have helped him. i guess msnbc didn't carry the 3rd debate.

[balli]

maybe you should know that one cannot be elected three times into office. in other words change was going to happen regardless.

Palin was everything bad about Bush amplified to 11. The republican ticket would have been a physical change in persons yes, but a change for the worse. Which I wouldn't have thought possible, but y'know, the monstrous evil/idiocy incarnated in Sarah Palin changed my mind.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, refresh our memories -- tell us everything McCain said he would do differently.

[clambake]

a few days ago mccain said he wouldn't support palin...so......that's kinda different.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Yeah, refresh our memories -- tell us everything McCain said he would do differently.
youtube is your friend.

[ChumpDumper]

So you can't remember anything he said he would do differently either.

Not a surprise.

[balli]

youtube is your friend.

Don't make arguments, not back them up with anything substantive and then tell us to go search the internets to find factual support for your bogus claims. Idiot.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

a few days ago mccain said he wouldn't support palin...so......that's kinda different.
i don't think he ever dug her at all. cindy's reaction to palin when she announced it was her wedding anniversary the day she was picked said it all to me.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Don't make arguments, not back them up with anything substantive and then tell us to go search the internets in search of factual support for your bogus claims. Idiot.are you really that incompetent? no need to answer that. really

[balli]

I'm incompetent because I don't feel like I should have to research your arguments for you? Because you refuse to substantiate what you say? Get a clue asshole.

[clambake]

i don't think he ever dug her at all. cindy's reaction to palin when she announced it was her wedding anniversary the day she was picked said it all to me.

this doesn't make sense. cindy has quite a bit in common with baby palins grandmother.

[ChumpDumper]

are you really that incompetent? no need to answer that. reallyYou did answer.

Your answer was "I don't know what I'm talking about."

[Viva Las Espuelas]

you guys did vote for obama. you can't fend for yourselves so you need help. you're just going to have to wait. change is on the way.

[doobs]

This is a real head-scratcher. If Obama selected Gates to be SecDef for purposes of continuity in national defense, then why wouldn't he also select Hayden to head the CIA? Why would he select a Clintonite politician, a former congressman with no experience (correct me if I'm wrong) on an intelligence committee? A former chief of staff to President Clinton?

I don't get it. If he wanted a change in the leadership of the CIA, that's fine. But there are better candidates to choose.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

here's for all of you that need it

http://bluebuddies.com/gallery/Smurf_Baby_Nursery/jpg/Smurfs_Nursery_Smurf_Baby_Spoon.jpg

i'll be back to feed y'all later.

[balli]

you guys did vote for obama. you can't fend for yourselves so you need help. you're just going to have to wait. change is on the way.
Translation:
qS7nqwGt4-I

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao Seriously, you can't even say one thing to back up your own unsolicited claim.

Damn, that's funny.

[Wild Cobra]

Another Clinton retread.


Who will speak for him, SpursTalk?

Not only that, but do we want the CIA as politicized as he will likely make it?

I say he is the worse choice Obama has made.

May as well make Al Gore the head of the EPA as well.

[PixelPusher]

Not only that, but do we want the CIA as politicized as he will likely make it?


A "politicized" CIA? That cherry was broken a long, long time ago.

I agree with this take:


I always liked Panetta. He served in the Army and is openly proud of it. He seems to be a good lawyer (oxymoronic though it may seem). He's a good manager. And he's going to watch Obama's back at a place that's full of stilettos and a track record for attempted presidential assassination second to none. But Italians know all about political assassination; you may remember Julius Caesar. Or Aldo Moro. The self-proclaimed cognoscenti will deride his lack of "spycraft," and he's never worked in the intel bureaucracy or, for that matter, in foreign policy or national security. But he's been chief of staff, which involved all that stuff.

I think it's a smart move.

link (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjZhOTc2MDM1OWJjNmQ0NmJkYTMwMjhlYWM0NjI2MDY=)

[balli]

Not only that, but do we want the CIA as politicized as he will likely make it?
Excuse me? Where the fuck where you the past 8 years?

[Winehole23]

It makes a little more sense now. Dennis Blair is tapped (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKR8vd9kXzD5NWKbYGjN87YkZO4QD95H6F3O6) for DNI.



WASHINGTON (AP) — Retired Admiral Dennis Blair is Barack Obama's choice to be director of national intelligence.


Two Democratic officials said Monday that the former head of U.S. Pacific Command was the president-elect's choice for the post. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement has not yet been made.


His nomination has been expected, unlike Obama's other intelligence choice of Leon Panetta to run the CIA. Panetta is a former congressman and White House chief of staff who brings experience in management but not an intelligence background to the post.


Blair served in the Navy for 34 years and he was chief of the U.S. Pacific Command during the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Blair is also a China expert, and he was an associate director for military support at the CIA.

[doobs]

It makes a little more sense now. Dennis Blair is tapped (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKR8vd9kXzD5NWKbYGjN87YkZO4QD95H6F3O6) for DNI.



WASHINGTON (AP) — Retired Admiral Dennis Blair is Barack Obama's choice to be director of national intelligence.


Two Democratic officials said Monday that the former head of U.S. Pacific Command was the president-elect's choice for the post. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement has not yet been made.


His nomination has been expected, unlike Obama's other intelligence choice of Leon Panetta to run the CIA. Panetta is a former congressman and White House chief of staff who brings experience in management but not an intelligence background to the post.


Blair served in the Navy for 34 years and he was chief of the U.S. Pacific Command during the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Blair is also a China expert, and he was an associate director for military support at the CIA.

How does it make more sense now? Why wouldn't Obama pick another expert like Blair to head the CIA?

[101A]

Yeah, refresh our memories -- tell us everything McCain said he would do differently.


What, exactly, is Obama doing that is different?

Tax cuts? Check

Massive Govt. Spending? Check

Sounds an awful lot like the Bush economic policies that everyone claims to have gotten us into this recession, doesn't it?

[Winehole23]

How does it make more sense now? Why wouldn't Obama pick another expert like Blair to head the CIA?Why Obama has picked a political manager rather than an expert seems to have stumped nearly everybody. I know it does me. Outsiders don't have a very good track record running the CIA.

[101A]

Some (powerful) Dems on the Hill apparently not thrilled with the pick, either... (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-cia-panetta6-2009jan06,0,5514283.story)

[Winehole23]

An interesting tidbit on Panetta, from his days in Richard Nixon's HEW:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009010205/leon-panetta

[Winehole23]

Some (powerful) Dems on the Hill apparently not thrilled with the pick, either... (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-cia-panetta6-2009jan06,0,5514283.story)OTOH, Pelosi voted for Porter Goss, a candidate with oodles of relevant experience who turned out to be awful.

[Rockhound]

Here's what Obama should do.

Hire Pelosi as his uber head adviser. Then do everything opposite of what she recommends. Pretty much guaranteed to bat .900

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Biden: Obama Made Mistake Not Consulting Feinstein (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/06/biden-obama-made-mistake_n_155634.html)

January 6, 2009 01:30 PM


The Obama transition team made a mistake by not consulting with Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California before choosing Leon Panetta to head the Central Intelligence Agency, Vice President-elect Joe Biden said Tuesday.
Feinstein, following the announcement Monday, stated that she had not been consulted and expressed concern (http://washingtonindependent.com/23827/dianne-feinstein-not-too-pleased-with-panetta-pick) about the Panetta pick.
While visiting the Senate, Biden was asked if Feinstein, the incoming intelligence committee chair, should have been part of the process. "I'm still a Senate man and I always think this way: I think it's always good to talk to the requisite members of Congress," said Biden. "I think it was just a mistake."
But Biden offered high praise for Panetta and said he is "totally qualified" for the CIA spot. "He's been a consumer of intelligence for a long time. He was chief of staff [in the Clinton White House]. He understands the agency. Leon Panetta will do a first rate job. He's a great manager. He understands the community and I think he'll make a great director of the CIA. I've been here for I don't know how many of them and I think he'll be as good as any we've had."
Feinstein explained her reluctance to support Panetta (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/feinstein_on_panetta.php) to Talking Points Memo:
"I understand their thinking" in choosing Panetta, Feinstein explained, describing herself as "very respectful of the president's authority ... this is the man [Obama has chosen]."
I asked Feinstein whether her reticence about Panetta's lack of ties to the CIA would be mitigated by having Steven Kappes, her preferred choice for CIA director, stay on as the agency's No 2. "I believe very strongly" that Kappes should stay, Feinstein said, adding that Panetta's standing would be "very much enhanced" were Kappes to stay his deputy.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), however, declared himself "pleased" with the choice in a statement. He added that "there are few people of whom I have a higher opinion" than Panetta.
"I am pleased by reports of the nomination of Leon Panetta to be the next CIA Director. These reports indicate that President-elect Obama recognizes the need for fresh leadership for the intelligence community. Leon Panetta has a long and distinguished career in public service and there are few people of whom I have a higher opinion. He has been a strong voice opposing the interrogation practices authorized by the Bush Administration and he is well-equipped to restore our national security, which has been undermined by the current administration's policies. I look forward to closely examining his record, hearing his plans for protecting our nation against al Qaeda and other threats, and learning how he will help restore the rule of law after years of lawlessness that have undermined our national security."
-------------------------------------------------------------

[Winehole23]

Not so surprising that Mr. Biden would weigh in. Senate man and all that...

The President-Elect clearly omitted a courtesy, when he decided not to even pretend to consult Madam Speaker. Congresswoman Pelosi's the ranking Democrat and the longest serving member -- ever -- of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

It would have been courtly for Mr. Obama to drop in first, but the moment has passed. Maybe he meant to throw her off balance. Ms. Pelosi could've offered her advice unsolicited. Perhaps she already had.

[Winehole23]

OTOH, Obama may have been sending Pelosi a message along the lines of his OLC pick, Dawn Johnson (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/05/olc/index.html).

Pelosi was briefed on our exotic interrogations and our extralegal domestic surveillance program and didn't even peep.

Maybe that's a designated area of change.

[ChumpDumper]

What, exactly, is Obama doing that is different?

Tax cuts? Check

Massive Govt. Spending? Check

Sounds an awful lot like the Bush economic policies that everyone claims to have gotten us into this recession, doesn't it?Only now is the time to actually be doing it.

It's not my fault MBA Bush and the Republicans didn't balance the budget when they had complete control of the government. It's theirs.

[Wild Cobra]

A "politicized" CIA? That cherry was broken a long, long time ago.

Please do not change the context of my words. I said "as politicized as he will likely make it." I never said it wasn't politicized. Just implying that it will be very highly politicized with Panetta.

Did you pass your English classes?

[Wild Cobra]

Excuse me? Where the fuck where you the past 8 years?

Will you stop using a 3rd grade mentality please. Re-read my words and apply proper English meanings to them.

[Winehole23]

Please do not change the context of my words. I said "as politicized as he will likely make it." I never said it wasn't politicized. Just implying that it will be very highly politicized with PanettaParsing. You do think Panetta will politicize the post, WC.

Ballijuana never imputed the point about prior politicization to you, but produced it for contrast.

Your umbrage is not well founded, and your jab at ballijuana for being illiterate is just childish.

Just guessing WC, but it's probably possible to make your points around here without gratuitously insulting others.

Or is that what you're here for?

[Rockhound]

8Lx52sBLtKI

[Winehole23]

I'm one for sure.

[RandomGuy]

Panetta is a former congressman and White House chief of staff who brings experience in management but not an intelligence background to the post.

The non-hack analysis of this is that Panetta does two things:

1) Brings a certain amount of finesse and knowledge about Congress to the job. Part of the problem with the Bush CIA has been the perceived lack of congressional oversight (both Dems and Reps in Congress feel this way, by the way) on CIA affairs.

2) Brings in a guy who is not tainted somehow by the extra-ordinary renditions, illegal wire-taps and torture debalacles.

It is a very plain break with the last 8 years, and the guys relative inexperience with intel is an acknowledged drawback, outweighed by the above two factors in my opinion and, it would seem, that of the President-Elect.

Not a perfect choice, but probably one of the best options. :tu

Like him or not he does have a good chunk of administrative skill.

[Winehole23]

The non-hack analysis of this is that Panetta does two things:

1) Brings a certain amount of finesse and knowledge about Congress to the job. Part of the problem with the Bush CIA has been the perceived lack of congressional oversight (both Dems and Reps in Congress feel this way, by the way) on CIA affairs. Good point.


2) Brings in a guy who is not tainted somehow by the extra-ordinary renditions, illegal wire-taps and torture debacles.

It is a very plain break with the last 8 yearsEchoes my own hacky analysis at #51..[/quote]

[RandomGuy]

I said "as politicized as he will likely make it." I never said it wasn't politicized. Just implying that it will be very highly politicized with Panetta.


I doubt that would be Obama's goal here, and would not fit into the pattern he has established with what he has done so far.

Many CIA analysts have been under very explicit and implicit pressure from Cheney to make their assessments absolutely jive with whatever the executive branch thought they should be getting. This has been documented and corroberrated by a lot of insiders, and not just the usual "disgruntled" ex-employees either. There is a good weight of evidence here that the CIA has been for the last 8 years highly politicized.

Given that Obama has gone out of his way to get opposing viewpoints, and has stated outright that he doesn't want "yes men" in his cabinet, I find it highly unlikely that you are correct in your assessment.

Once again, your inability to see things without using your partisan blinders leads you to piss-poor analysis of available data.

[Wild Cobra]

Parsing. You do think Panetta will politicize the post, WC.

Ballijuana never imputed the point about prior politicization to you, but produced it for contrast.

Your umbrage is not well founded, and your jab at ballijuana for being illiterate is just childish.

Just guessing WC, but it's probably possible to make your points around here without gratuitously insulting others.

Or is that what you're here for?
You and I most certainly interpret his remark the I replied to differently.

Remember, it was after Pixil's remark too. When I use a context of relative terms, and then he refers to the last 8 years... As if I don't see what's been happening? I still disagree with his implication, but he started with bitter remarks rather than valid debate points.

Remember. I never gave any indication of no politicization. Why attacked who first?

Besides, isn't it getting old to say "eight years" referring to president Bush for everything wrong?

Are people so libtarded as to thinking that's the correct answer to things?

I cannot stand such blatant stupidity. If you do not address the real problems, the problem will never be fixed! The propaganda and dogma that the left pursues only guarantee we will never get better. Only worse.

[Wild Cobra]

I doubt that would be Obama's goal here, and would not fit into the pattern he has established with what he has done so far.

What happened to CHANGE?



Many CIA analysts have been under very explicit and implicit pressure from Cheney to make their assessments absolutely jive with whatever the executive branch thought they should be getting. This has been documented and corroberrated by a lot of insiders, and not just the usual "disgruntled" ex-employees either. There is a good weight of evidence here that the CIA has been for the last 8 years highly politicized.
Source?I have never seen anything solid. Only "unnammed sources" and quotes out of context. Maybe you are counting the lies of Tenent as well...

[Nbadan]

hmm......

Criminal Investigation of CIA Video Destruction is “Ongoing”


The destruction by Central Intelligence Agency officials of videotapes showing the interrogation of suspected terrorists is the subject of “an ongoing criminal investigation” that is expected to conclude in the near future, according to a prosecution official.

“Investigators are now in the process of scheduling interviews with the remaining witnesses to be interviewed in this investigation,” wrote John H. Durham, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, in an affidavit (pdf) late last month. “Based on the investigative accomplishments to date, we anticipate that by mid-February 2009, and no later than February 28, 2009, we will have completed the interviews.”

His remarks came in the course of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the James Madison Project for documents pertaining to the CIA videotape destruction. The government asked for a stay of the FOIA proceedings until witness interviews are completed. At a hearing on January 6, the request for a stay until February 28, 2009 was granted by the court, said attorney Mark S. Zaid, director of the James Madison Project.

Key details of the pending criminal investigation have been redacted from Mr. Durham’s affidavit, including the number of witnesses interviewed and the volume of documents examined to date. But the affidavit does provide a sense of the level of activity involved, indicating that “a considerable portion of the work to be done in connection with the investigation has already been completed.”

Linky (http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/01/cia_video_destruction.html)

[Wild Cobra]

hmm......

Criminal Investigation of CIA Video Destruction is “Ongoing”



Linky (http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/01/cia_video_destruction.html)

So Dan...

what relevance does that have with Panetta?

[ChumpDumper]

I cannot stand such blatant stupidity. If you do not address the real problems, the problem will never be fixed! The propaganda and dogma that Wild Cobra pursues only guarantee we will never get better. Only worse.

[Wild Cobra]

I cannot stand such blatant stupidity. If you do not address the real problems, the problem will never be fixed! The propaganda and dogma that Wild Cobra pursues only guarantee we will never get better. Only worse.

OK, back that up please.

[Winehole23]

OK, back that up please.Actually, that's your job.

Keep up the good work!:tu

[Winehole23]

Never mind.

[gtownspur]

It makes a little more sense now. Dennis Blair is tapped (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKR8vd9kXzD5NWKbYGjN87YkZO4QD95H6F3O6) for DNI.



WASHINGTON (AP) — Retired Admiral Dennis Blair is Barack Obama's choice to be director of national intelligence.


Two Democratic officials said Monday that the former head of U.S. Pacific Command was the president-elect's choice for the post. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement has not yet been made.


His nomination has been expected, unlike Obama's other intelligence choice of Leon Panetta to run the CIA. Panetta is a former congressman and White House chief of staff who brings experience in management but not an intelligence background to the post.


Blair served in the Navy for 34 years and he was chief of the U.S. Pacific Command during the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Blair is also a China expert, and he was an associate director for military support at the CIA.

Do you know Dennis Blair?

[Winehole23]

Beyond this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_C._Blair), not really.

[RandomGuy]

I doubt that [making the office of CIA director into a highly politicized office] would be Obama's goal here, and would not fit into the pattern he has established with what he has done so far.


What happened to CHANGE?

WC: O will make into a highly politicized office when it wasn't before.

RG: On, the contrary, it was a politicized office and he will make it less so, the very definition of change.

WC: what about change?

Seriously, are you retarded when it comes to reading comprehension or something?

[RandomGuy]

Many CIA analysts have been under very explicit and implicit pressure from Cheney to make their assessments absolutely jive with whatever the executive branch thought they should be getting. This has been documented and corroberrated by a lot of insiders, and not just the usual "disgruntled" ex-employees either. There is a good weight of evidence here that the CIA has been for the last 8 years highly politicized.




Source?I have never seen anything solid. Only "unnammed sources" and quotes out of context. Maybe you are counting the lies of Tenent as well...

Fair enough. You want a source, I will try to give it to you, but it will take a bit of digging to re-find everything I have been reading about it for the last 5 years or so.

What would you find a sufficient level of proof?

I know that nothing I find will make you admit that a Republican administration really sucked at intel, so before I even start, I want you to set the ground rules so that your inability to see through your blinders and admit that a Democrat might do a better job than a Republican at this is really obvious.

Do tell, let me know what level of proof you say you require.

[Wild Cobra]

Fair enough. You want a source, I will try to give it to you, but it will take a bit of digging to re-find everything I have been reading about it for the last 5 years or so.

What would you find a sufficient level of proof?

At least three people who are not unnamed sources who will testify that specific results were politically driven, with facts. Not conjecture, and that they name names. Also that they were in positions that avail them to such information.

I have seen allot of things that lacked any degree of credibility. Baseless allegations. What I see, is when a lie is repeated enough times, people believe it. I'm just not that naive.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Rummy had to invent a new office to sign off on shitty intel.

That's all anyone needs to know.

[clambake]

yeah, you just think anything negative to republicans were obvious plants.

[ChumpDumper]

OK, back that up please.You're blatantly stupid.

There you go.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol Rummy had to invent a new office to sign off on shitty intel.

That's all anyone needs to know.

That['s right. Jump to conclusions. Sorry, I need real evidence.

[ChumpDumper]

That['s right. Jump to conclusions. Sorry, I need real evidence.Look, I'm sorry you have chosen to remain ignorant about the past eight years. There is plenty of information out there about the Office of Special Plans, etc., but you don't really want to know.

Just shut up and wave your miniature American flag.

[Wild Cobra]

yeah, you just think anything negative to republicans were obvious plants.
You referring to me?

If so, My God. When will you ever get a clue?

I attack those who use baseless attacks. I'm sorry if that means I end up defending republicans from libtards. I don't see baseless attacks on the left from the right very often. I don't do it to defend republicans, but to defend the truth. If you think about it, I have actually defended democrats at times!

How many times must I say something to that effect before you get a clue?

[Wild Cobra]

Look, I'm sorry you have chosen to remain ignorant about the past eight years. There is plenty of information out there about the Office of Special Plans, etc., but you don't really want to know.

Just shut up and wave your miniature American flag.

At least I believe in waving a flag. I doubt you have any patriotic blood in your veins.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see baseless attacks on the left from the right very often.:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:r ollin

[ChumpDumper]

At least I believe in waving a flag. I doubt you have any patriotic blood in your veins.And you molest children.

Now that we've got that out of the way....

[Wild Cobra]

And you molest children.

Now that we've got that out of the way....

See...

You have nothing, so you revert to vile slander...

Pathetic...

Or is it a fantasy of yours? Afterall, those who think certain thoughts often want to displace those thoughts on others...

[ChumpDumper]

See...

You have nothing, so you revert to vile slander...You did it first, idiot. Now you're whining about having the whip reversed on you.

Typical.

Have a tissue.

[Wild Cobra]

You did it first, idiot. Now you're whining about having the whip reversed on you.

Typical.

Have a tissue.
Name-calling and bad words are a far cry different than slander!

[ChumpDumper]

Name-calling and bad words are a far cry different than slander!You're so stupid, you don't even know the meaning of the word.

That's the best part of all of this.

You're a pretentious fake, and you fuck yourself over more than anyone else could.

[Wild Cobra]

You're so stupid, you don't even know the meaning of the word.

That's the best part of all of this.

You're a pretentious fake, and you fuck yourself over more than anyone else could.

Only in your world. Other people know the difference.

I'm done with you for a day or so. You're starting to bore me. Nothing of substance. Just baseless attacks.

[ChumpDumper]

Only in your world. Other people know the difference.Yes, people other than you know the difference between slander and other forms of defamation.


I'm done with you for a day or so. You're starting to bore me. Nothing of substance. Just baseless attacks.You don't know the meaning of slander.

Quite substantive.


Really, look it up.

[Blake]

At least I believe in waving a flag.

if only it were white. you'd be doing yourself a favor.

[Winehole23]

For the record, I think the CIA faded the heat for GWB's shitty war results. The information was tailored to suit the ultimate consumers in the first place, so it was bound to be skewed.

Afterwards, Tenet fell on his sword, was asked to step aside. A few months later, he wa awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Intelligence failures were exaggerated overall.

The fact that some were not exaggerated only makes intelligence an better scapegoat. Bush threw the CIA under the bus and made a loyal man quit, rather than lead by taking responsibility, and outworking everyone else. But that wasn't GWB either.

[gtownspur]

Yes, people other than you know the difference between slander and other forms of defamation.

You don't know the meaning of slander.

Quite substantive.


Really, look it up.

None of you have the correct definition right anyway.

Libel is what's being committed here.

[ChumpDumper]

No shit.

[gtownspur]

For the record, I think the CIA faded the heat for GWB's shitty war results. The information was tailored to suit the ultimate consumers in the first place, so it was bound to be skewed.

Afterwards, Tenet fell on his sword, was asked to step aside. A few months later, he wa awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Intelligence failures were exaggerated overall.

The fact that some were not exaggerated only makes intelligence an better scapegoat. Bush threw the CIA under the bus and made a loyal man quit, rather than lead by taking responsibility, and outworking everyone else. But that wasn't GWB either.

Very plausible,

for that to happen, those consumers that wanted the spiced up intel had to exist during the clinton era since the info was all clinton era info. So who do you think these suitors are?

[gtownspur]

None of you have the correct definition right anyway.




No shit.


indeed.

[ChumpDumper]

indeed.:lol

I knew the definition -- I just wasn't spoon feeding it to WC. I wanted to see if he would look it up. Where to you find my calling it by any other name in this thread? Please link it for me.

[gtownspur]

:lol

I knew the definition -- .

good for you.

[ChumpDumper]

Where to you find my calling it by any other name in this thread? Please link it for me.

[Winehole23]

Very plausible,

for that to happen, those consumers that wanted the spiced up intel had to exist during the clinton era since the info was all clinton era info. So who do you think these suitors are?Maybe you can tell us.

[ChumpDumper]

The intel always existed -- it was a question of how reliable it was deemed. There were many bits of intel that the CIA thought were compete crap. That's why Rummy whipped up a new office to review the intel outside of the CIA.

[gtownspur]

Maybe you can tell us.


Joooooooooos!!!

no seriously, i don't have the slightest idea, i just know that the intelligence preexisted the bush 2 era.

[RandomGuy]

For the record, I think the CIA faded the heat for GWB's shitty war results. The information was tailored to suit the ultimate consumers in the first place, so it was bound to be skewed.

Afterwards, Tenet fell on his sword, was asked to step aside. A few months later, he wa awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Intelligence failures were exaggerated overall.

The fact that some were not exaggerated only makes intelligence an better scapegoat. Bush threw the CIA under the bus and made a loyal man quit, rather than lead by taking responsibility, and outworking everyone else. But that wasn't GWB either.

This pretty much hits the nail on the head.