Obama names Clinton crony who’s never worked in intelligence to head CIA; Update: Feinstein, Rockefeller oppose

posted at 3:38 pm on January 5, 2009 by Allahpundit

Why not? He named a Clinton crony with no foreign-policy experience to be Secretary of State, didn’t he?

Ace wonders if this is about having a dependable yes man at the top. Not really. It’s about having a guy at the top who’s untainted by “torture.” So untainted, in fact, that he’s also untainted by any intel experience whatsoever.

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, had hoped to get 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.

Here’s his chief qualification for the job, as near as I can tell. Whether this means Obama’s ready to junk the whole Bush interrogation apparatus or whether he merely wants Panetta as cover to quietly retain certain parts of it — or certain personnel, like Brennan, in lower-profile deputy roles — I guess we’ll see. Meanwhile, Brian Faughnan at Red State forwards an interesting passage from the CIA Library on Panetta’s spending priorities while head of Clinton’s budget office. Read it now, because the GOP’s bound to reference it at the confirmation hearing. Exit quotation: “Was Panetta wrong about the threats the U.S. faces in the 1990s, or was he simply too drive by green eyeshades over national security? Either way, the picture isn’t pretty.”

Update: The confirmation hearing should be fun: Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller, Democrats both, want to know why The One’s search for a torture-free nominee couldn’t uncover anyone with actual experience. Both of them evidently wanted Steve Kappes, whose recommendation reportedly led the agency to ban waterboarding.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

He served as a First Lieutenant in the Army from 1964 to 1966 and received the Army Commendation Medal.

So, he rose to the immensely high rank of 1LT. I’m blown away. His depth of experience and knowledge must be endless. And he got an ARCOM? Just about everyone gets one of those when they leave the service (at least for officers). Privates get that award for a yearlong deployment to Iraq. This is not meant to disparage the Private or 1LT ranks or the ARCOM. I’m merely trying to show how woefully unprepared this man is for the job. Obama never ceases to amaze me with his ineptness.

A former senior CIA official who advises Obama defended the surprise choice of Panetta, who has no direct intelligence experience beyond a two-year stint in the mid-1960s as a U.S. Army lieutenant. The official said Panetta had been a consumer of CIA intelligence when he was at the White House.

Because I’ve been a consumer of the Washington Post, does that mean I’m prepared to run the business? Just because one has seen intelligence reports does not mean he is qualified to lead and manage those who produce the report. Consumers are not producers.

Send_Me on January 5, 2009 at 9:31 PM

We have the foundations laid at CIA to lead a Brownie troop.
The Majik one has either got no firm grasp of what intel does or he plans to try and surrender the US of A to the UN.
Round two of the unfinished War of Northern Agression is gonna be a Humdinger.
The Soputh needs to rise up soon.

Col.John Wm. Reed on January 5, 2009 at 9:41 PM

To continue in a similar vein:

He also received a Juris Doctor in 1963 from the Santa Clara University Law School, and soon after began practicing law.

In 1964 he joined the United States Army as a Second Lieutenant. There he received the Army Commendation Medal, and was discharged in 1966 as a First Lieutenant.

SO…. one could assume that he couldn’t make it as a civilian lawyer, and joined the Army as a JAG off…. and then after his short stint in the military, went into directly into politics/government bureaucracy.

LegendHasIt on January 5, 2009 at 9:41 PM

I’ve spent 25 years as an intelligence analyst, mostly with DIA and some with NCTC. To see someone nominated to head the CIA whose sole qualification is to have been a political operative is appalling. In my career I’ve seen other military or political operatives appointed to high positions and have not been impressed. It takes experience to understand the intelligence business. It takes experience to understand the limitations and possibilities of intelligence. In fact, it takes a lot of experience to look at an intelligence report or even an article and see through to the mindset of the writer. I envision Pannetta and Blair spending all their time reorganizing and tweaking procedures while relying on professionals to advise on substantive matters. And then twisting the advisors’ opinions to fit political realities before presenting them to the ultimate executive with no experience, Obama.

NNtrancer on January 5, 2009 at 9:43 PM

I will say one thing in Pannetta’s favor. He is reported to want a government disclosure on what is known about UFO’s.

NNtrancer on January 5, 2009 at 9:48 PM

Gosh, this popcorn tastes so good!

SouthernGent on January 5, 2009 at 10:06 PM

So, he rose to the immensely high rank of 1LT. I’m blown away.

Send_Me on January 5, 2009 at 9:31 PM

How dare you say anything critical about anyone who was in the military! The very idea!!

Only kidding.

“He [Panetta] was stationed at Fort Benning in Georgia, Fort Holabird in Maryland, a brief time in Washington, D.C., and ended his Army time at Fort Ord near Monterey.”

Rough duty. Some would even say REMF duty. This [1964-1966] was during the Vietnam war. I wonder if he had some low friends in high places. Just wondering.

MB4 on January 5, 2009 at 10:16 PM

Correction. It was Podesta, not Panetta who was interested in UFO’s. My mistake.

NNtrancer on January 5, 2009 at 10:23 PM

He’s a lawyer that will gut the c.i.a. of all that will protect this country. Be afraid, I am.

Aggie85 on January 5, 2009 at 10:26 PM

NNtrancer on January 5, 2009 at 9:43 PM

I agree. There’s a reason Sun Tzu entitled his writings “The Art of War” and not the “The Science of War”. Gone are the days of the “Wild Bill” Donovans and Bill Casey’s.

Send_Me on January 5, 2009 at 10:26 PM

Rahm needs to make Feinstein and Rockefeller an offer they can’t refuse.

getalife on January 5, 2009 at 10:48 PM

As to Leon Panetta’s qualifications to be head of the CIA, I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing, I was not here, I did not even get up this morning.

OberfeldwebelSchultz on January 5, 2009 at 10:52 PM

Obama names Clinton crony who’s never worked in intelligence to head CIA…

Panetta? This is a joke, right? Has CERN done something with the space-time thingy?

ddrintn on January 5, 2009 at 10:57 PM

Panetta no experience.
Obama no experience.
Makes sense.

thetowncrier on January 5, 2009 at 11:14 PM

Did anyone bring up Panetta’s connections to Chinagate yet? Hubby reminded me that Panetta does have experience with spies, just not in the way we might like.

Y-not on January 5, 2009 at 11:15 PM

Mr. superior judgment strikes again.
This is Sept.10 thinking that democrats have been stuck in since realizing that their “police action” was nothing but a failure in the 90’s.

Hanging out with Rev. Wright for 20 yrs.
——————————————-
Starting his political career and working on an education board(that failed and wasted millions) with a marxist terrorist who thinks Manson was a “tuned in dude”and writes books declaring the overthrow of the US government dedicated to the likes of Sirhan Sirhan.
———————————————–
Was against the Surge
——————————————–
Close friends with Blago working side by side with him on his campaigns.
——————————————-
Doing land deals with Rezko.
———————————————-
Makes Richardson a cabinet member without doing a through background check.
———————————————
Now is putting someone in charge of the CIA without intelligence experience solely to appease his left wing base
during a time of war and serious threats looming from Iran and Pakistan.

This is what liberals consider “smarter judgment”.

This is an ignorant and politically inspired pick that could get a lot of people killed just because they want someone who has no links to prior CIA/Bush policies and will be nice to terrorist,thus making his left wing base happy.

Baxter Greene on January 5, 2009 at 11:40 PM

So much for “change” and I “hope” we all can dodge the next terrorist attack. Any one else noticed how much ammo has gone up? Now the price of vodka well that’s a given.

BHRIO on January 5, 2009 at 5:02 PM

Just like Rahm said:”You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

I have a brand new DILLON PRECISION Press for reloading with
Die sets for:
44 mag.
357 mag.
45 cal.
308 cal.
30-06 cal.

Already have many friends putting their orders in and I am saving them between 25% and 40% per box.

The democrats games of taxing the sh!t out of gun owners is not going to stop us from enjoying our 2nd Amendment rights.

Baxter Greene on January 5, 2009 at 11:57 PM

“He [Panetta] was stationed at Fort Benning in Georgia, Fort Holabird in Maryland, a brief time in Washington, D.C., and ended his Army time at Fort Ord near Monterey.”

Rough duty. Some would even say REMF duty. This [1964-1966] was during the Vietnam war. I wonder if he had some low friends in high places. Just wondering.

MB4 on January 5, 2009 at 10:16 PM

But, he did head security at the Monterey Wallmart, didn’t he?

Johan Klaus on January 6, 2009 at 12:24 AM

He actually wanted Winnie the Pooh. You know, “Winnie the Pooh seems to be a fundamental text on national security”.

InCali on January 5, 2009 at 7:05 PM

Dang! I can’t believe I forgot all about that. Thanks for the reminder, InCali. There is so much stupidity surrounding the Precedent-Elect that it’s hard to keep track.

No problem! This quote should never be forgotten. I think it is, without a doubt, the single, stupidest, most moronic, most oblivious, head-in-the-sand, scared, pansy-@&!, masking as enlightenment quote ever uttered in the history of mankind.

And this is what our national security will be like. Yikes!

InCali on January 5, 2009 at 7:29 PM

Here is Mr. superior judgment’s foreign policy guru and his
super smart idea of saving us from the jihadist:

Obama’s ‘Key’ Foreign Policy Adviser: “Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.”

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWViNzMxZTBhYzg4Y2NlZDc3MGI4NzUyYWMxNmY4MGU=

A runaway metaphor is not the worst sin in the world. But if former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig really is a potential national security adviser under President Obama,

Mr Danzig told the Centre for New American Security: “Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.”

He spelt out how American troops, spies and anti-terrorist officials could learn key lessons by understanding the desire of terrorists to emulate superheroes like Luke Skywalker, and the lust for violence of violent football fans.

Remember when Mr. superior judgment said this about the SURGE:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, on January 10 2007 predicted that the surge of troops in Iraq would fail. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he told MSNBC. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Four days later he told CBS’s Face the Nation that “we cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.”

Behold Obama,the military genius!!

Baxter Greene on January 6, 2009 at 12:30 AM

This is Sept.10 thinking that democrats have been stuck in since realizing that their “police action” was nothing but a failure in the 90’s.
Baxter Greene on January 5, 2009 at 11:40 PM

The “police action” wasn’t a great success in Korea and Viet Nam either.

Johan Klaus on January 6, 2009 at 12:31 AM

Flying blind from delusion, drunkeness or dope and hoping the providence they don’t want to believe in anyway saves them in spite of themselves is a common liberal trait.

This is how its starts.

Turner eliminated over 800 operational positions in what was called the Halloween Massacre.

Speakup on January 6, 2009 at 1:31 AM

So let me get this straight:

we’re replacing a man with:

* 40 years experience in the Air Force
* the highest intelligence rank in all of the armed forces
* 6 years experience as Director of the NSA

with a Clinton crony and former lobbyist with zero intelligence experience during 2 wars and steady threats to the homeland.

Any idea that seems this stupid must be brilliant!

Chuck Schick on January 6, 2009 at 1:36 AM

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, this is going to be an interesting four years.

N4646W on January 6, 2009 at 2:53 AM

A middle-management, bean-counter with no imagination being put into a job upon which depends the freedom of the USA and in consequence, the “Free” world. This man couldn’t recognise pertinent intel – or for that matter a Sea Change – if his life depended upon it. He certainly is the kind of first pick for the job I would expect from Obama.

Liam1304 on January 6, 2009 at 3:02 AM

I think the idea that he’s “bus fodder” is bang on. This could apply to any number of Obama appointments: bring in someone “politically correct” even though they are clearly not right for the job. Not matter! Get cheap media points until they thier usefullness ends and then under the bus!

Obama seems to have mastered the art of “I am dissapointed in _______”.

Waterboy on January 6, 2009 at 5:44 AM

Panetta is a political knife fighter. He will be loyal first to his boss then to his Party.

He will make sure the intelligence professionals provide the “right” recommendations.

Let’s see, under Clinton the major priorities at the CIA was “diversity” for gays and women.

Panetta will bring more PC policies to them

schmuck281 on January 6, 2009 at 5:56 AM

“This is not meant to disparage the Private or 1LT ranks or the ARCOM…”

Send_Me

I was awarded the ARCOM for being the best damned clerk typist the S1 section ever had, and for showing up early to make the coffee. Does that qualify me for the job? If it pays better than 45K and comes with a government car and credit card, I’ll take it. I couldn’t possibly do worse than Panetta and I will probably steal fewer office supplies.

SKYFOX on January 6, 2009 at 6:13 AM

When our new president takes office the real intelligence offices will scare the living hell out of Obama in what is real and what is fiction. For our own good this intelligence is hidden from the public eyes. Wait till you see the “Change” (pun intended) in his personality.

mixplix on January 6, 2009 at 6:52 AM

This is as bad as Bush and “Brownie” at FEMA, and potentially much more disastrous. Obama has named a Boy Scout who has no real concept of field intelligence to head a team of field agents who have to rub shoulders and cut deals with evil people to protect America. In other words, Obama has abdicated the number one duty of the President of the United States, to protect the people of the United States. The CIA is now once again the joke that it was during all other Democratic administrations. It is the shell of an intelligence agency that had bin-Laden in the crosshairs back in 1998 and had to stand down because Madeleine Albright was worried about the legalities of killing the SOB. We all know what happened next.

fleiter on January 6, 2009 at 6:54 AM

Correction. It was Podesta, not Panetta who was interested in UFO’s. My mistake.

NNtrancer on January 5, 2009 at 10:23 PM

Which makes your post even better…Podesta is one step ahead of Panetta…

right2bright on January 6, 2009 at 8:03 AM

I can imagine that there are a lot of dirtballs with Turbans and korans rejoicing in their caves today.

MOHAMMED “He Achmed.. Did you see what our infidel Friend Obama has Done?? He has appointed a total loser to the CIA, Praise be to Allah”

ACHMED : “Allah is truly beneficient. HA HA, We will soon have a world caliphate..”

Meanwhile in the Kremlin

PUTIN “Boris, you see what obama marxevich has done? He put old Clinton Retread in as CIA director.”

BORIS “No Shitski?”

PUTIN “No Shitski, is for real, Leon Redbone.. er Panetta will be head of CIA. Are you sure KGB did not control american election?? This is better that big woman and bottle of vodka”

BORIS “KGB no longer exist wink wink. I think Obama Marxevich only put Panetta in because even stupid americans would be suspicious if he appoint Mickey Mouse”

PUTIN “HA HA.. Tell fleet in Venezuala to sail up Potomic River.. They have berths for our ships, NO?? By the way, cancel all monies for camaflague and Maskrivota, we no longer need to hide”

bullseye on January 6, 2009 at 8:06 AM

This is Sept.10 thinking that democrats have been stuck in since realizing that their “police action” was nothing but a failure in the 90’s.
Baxter Greene on January 5, 2009 at 11:40 PM

The “police action” wasn’t a great success in Korea and Viet Nam either.

Johan Klaus on January 6, 2009 at 12:31 AM

You would think that we would have learned from our mistakes.

Baxter Greene on January 6, 2009 at 8:10 AM

Obama selects an inexperienced person for CIA chief?

You know, why not?

Cuffy Meigs on January 6, 2009 at 8:38 AM

Yup. Makes perfect sense. In a time of war, appoint a number-crunching lap dog, with no intelligence experience, as the head of your intelligence-gathering agency.

Next thing you know, they’ll appoint some rich chick with no experience to a position in the Senate.

Waitaminute…

kingsjester on January 6, 2009 at 8:48 AM

someone above suggested that once bambi got the “real” intelligence briefings after 1/20/09, he would realize the problems. he is already getting those briefings from the bush people. and he still thinks panetta could handle the job.

kelley in virginia on January 6, 2009 at 8:52 AM

I vote for the “Comedian” from the Watchmen. He’s got just the right attitude to do the job.

This same sick PC politic got 3,000 Americans killed. God help us.

Mojave Mark on January 6, 2009 at 9:09 AM

So much for “change” and I “hope” we all can dodge the next terrorist attack. Any one else noticed how much ammo has gone up? Now the price of vodka well that’s a given.

BHRIO on January 5, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Just like Rahm said:”You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

I have a brand new DILLON PRECISION Press for reloading with
Die sets for:
44 mag.
357 mag.
45 cal.
308 cal.
30-06 cal.

Already have many friends putting their orders in and I am saving them between 25% and 40% per box.

The democrats games of taxing the sh!t out of gun owners is not going to stop us from enjoying our 2nd Amendment rights.

Baxter Greene on January 5, 2009 at 11:57 PM

+1
.
Just received my Dillon between Christmas and New Year…. .45 ACP and .223 dies….

Simonsez on January 6, 2009 at 9:31 AM

Deja’ vu, Inspector Clouseau and the Return of the Pink Panther.

To optimize collection foreign intelligence and ensure the Homeland security, all CIA personnel will be directed to adhere to Inspector Clouseau’s rules of speech:

Rule #1: Any word with a ‘ah’, ‘oh’, or ‘oo’ sound, you must add a short ‘eh’ sound before it.
Examples: bomb = “behm”, phone = ‘pheone’, room = ‘rheum’
Rule #2: Any word with a ‘uh’ sound, you must replace it with a ‘ih’ sound.
Ex. monkey = ‘minkey.
Rule #3: Any word with a long ‘ay’ or ‘ee’ sound, replace it with a short ‘ah’ sound, but don’t apply rule #1.
Ex. crazy = ‘crahzy’, repair = ‘rahpair’.
Rule #4: For a past tense word ending with an ‘ed’, you must split the word in the wrong place or accent the wrong syllable.
Ex. solved = ‘sol-ved’, received = ‘rah-ceived’.
Review: “Yeuw have rah-ceived a bimp”. Can you see the application of rules #1,2,3 and 4?.
Rule #5: To reflect anger or dissatifaction with an object, animal or person, add the word “swine” before it.
Ex. ‘swine’ moat, ‘swine’ parrot, ‘swine’ maid.
Rule #6: If you are ever presented with information or facts you are unaware of, immediately respond as if you already had knowledge of it.
Ex. “Yes, I kneuw that… I kneuw that”. (remember to apply rule #1 to the word ‘know’)
Rule #7: Any person who does not understand a word you are saying must be referred to as a fool or an idiot.
Ex. “Yes, a rheumm… that is what I have been saying you idiot!”
Rule #8: Any reference to Kato must include the word “yellow”.
(Even though this may be considered politically incorrect, it was used affectionately)
Ex. “Kato my little ‘yellow’ friend, I’m ‘heum!”‘. (rule#1 again to the word ‘home’).

petefrt on January 6, 2009 at 9:33 AM

bullseye on January 6, 2009 at 8:06 AM

Funny!

petefrt on January 6, 2009 at 9:37 AM

So is there a responsible journalist left somewhere who is going to press Obama on this choice?

drjohn on January 6, 2009 at 9:40 AM

I’ve already got my “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted For Jimmy Buffett” bumper sticker prominently displayed.

tomswid on January 6, 2009 at 9:58 AM

So is there a responsible journalist left somewhere who is going to press Obama on this choice?

drjohn on January 6, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Thanks, drjohn…coffee all over the keyboard on that one…

coldwarrior on January 6, 2009 at 10:02 AM

He may be the One to lead an agency soaked with cheesy ivy league idiots and loaded with pol ops like Valerie and Joe

The only other agency in its class would be the State Department which found its soul mate in Powell. The pre Powell State Department led the charge to the islamic takeover of the Balkans and the snub to Soviet influence over the non islamic factions in the region while Powell finished up with his contempt for Bush mandate

Not to say there aren’t real humans taking real chances to defend America, but they are hard to find in the debris partially created by years of careful farming under the Clintons

In one sense, Panetta is coming home to the agency that never let go of the Clinton era. Panetta is a straight forward pol op which makes him more predictable than many of the polished phonies promoted by the pompous experts in Congress. Not to say he is qualified to run a top notch spy agency, but Plame and Wilson beg the definition

entagor on January 6, 2009 at 10:08 AM

highhopes on January 5, 2009 at 4:51 PM

I’m thinking Panetta’s mission is mainly political: To consolidate the left’s control of the CIA bureaucracy, the ‘shadow government,’ for years to come.

petefrt on January 6, 2009 at 10:11 AM

I suggest not spending significant periods of time in any large US cities for a few years.

Vashta.Nerada on January 6, 2009 at 10:13 AM

petefrt on January 6, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Bingo.

Not a mistake but a strategy

entagor on January 6, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Hey Baxter and Simon, how do I order?

doginblack on January 6, 2009 at 10:23 AM

petefrt on January 6, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Creating the intellegence machine to thwart opposition to the left’s agenda is about the only reason that makes sense putting a purely political operative into a position that normally is deemed more bipartisan than most. In short, Panetta is going to be the liason between the field agents and their overlords in the filthy bastard’s administration- somebody to authorize wiretaps and surveillance on Obama’s political opponents. Yes, that sounds paranoid but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

highhopes on January 6, 2009 at 10:24 AM

highhopes on January 6, 2009 at 10:24 AM

You may not be wrong. Remember all the trial ballons they’ve been putting out about “The Fairness Doctrine” and the “Slander Police” in Missouri during the campaign.

It’s a frightening thought.

kingsjester on January 6, 2009 at 10:30 AM

highhopes on January 6, 2009 at 10:24 AM —

Wire taps and surveillance on opponents to The “O” is not the purview of the Agency.

Having spent a lengthy career as a DO officer with the Agency, I am not aware of a whole lot of domestic spying on the part of actual agency officers or techs…none, really. I am, however, aware of a great reluctance on the part of most at the Agency to get involved in any sort of domestic spying, even at the mere suggestion of it.

However…look for an increase in funding for the FBI and a major recruitment effort to grow the Bureau in the next few months. Therein lies the real threat to our Rights as citizens. Gorelick at Justice again is something to look out for…and fear.

Panetta at the Agency will serve to devalue the Agency into just another of many federal intelligence agencies. The Dems have never had a fondness for foreign intelligence collection or operations, and most Dem officials I have dealt with over the years have had a totally misconstrued idea of what the Agency is and what its mission is. They seem to believe the hype and myth more than most, as it fits their preconceived notion of what espionage is all about.

coldwarrior on January 6, 2009 at 10:33 AM

ROFLMAO ! Leon Panetta!
CHANGE is right , He will change us from a Super Power to Super dolts!

ColdWarrior57 on January 6, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Love that Dem on Dem politics.

t.ferg on January 6, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller, Democrats both, want to know why The One’s search for a torture-free nominee couldn’t uncover anyone with actual experience. Both of them evidently wanted Steve Kappes, whose recommendation reportedly led the agency to ban waterboarding.

RACISTS!!!1

Kensington on January 6, 2009 at 11:56 AM

If indeed Leon becomes CIA head, the insiders will run circles around him.

diogenes on January 6, 2009 at 12:01 PM

The CIA seems to have changed from a smaller and more competent agency in the past into a much bigger and more inept agency now. They were intended to be the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY for our country–they are now lumped in with dozens of other military and civilian agencies.
***
Big organizations spend too much time coordinating within their own agency and trying to integrate operations with other agencies. Smaller agencies do a much better job. Who provides the best intelligence on the Mideast–the CIA or Israel’s Mossad? The CIA has great photos of the terrorist camps–the Mossad has a lady spy sleeping with the head general in the country and reporting every move!
***
I thought President Bush was unwilling to build an even bigger federal intelligence agency (Homeland Security) at first–then he was forced to sign on to it. We would be a lot better served with the CIA being a much smaller agency that was really in charge of the other agencies.
***
The political infighting between our intelligence agencies hurts our country.
***
John Bibb

rocketman on January 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Mountain out of a molehill. Read NPP’s post or otherwise educate yourself regarding the current organizational and operational structure of the US intelligent community.

dakine on January 6, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Baxter Greene

The amazing part of The One’s incredible foreign policy and military stupidity is that most voters think that he was prescient. That he opposed the war and found a withdrawl schedule that had some relation to reality after the surge worked. Poor Juan’s charge that The One had opposed the surge was foiled by inane comments about a political solution being preferable and other sideways talk.

Leon Panetta suits him. Like a clown with a rubber sword. The One is a coward.

IlikedAUH2O on January 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM

SO…. one could assume that he couldn’t make it as a civilian lawyer, and joined the Army as a JAG off…. and then after his short stint in the military, went into directly into politics/government bureaucracy.

LegendHasIt on January 5, 2009 at 9:41 PM

I wonder if he was passed over for captain.

Johan Klaus on January 6, 2009 at 4:36 PM

One short, teeny, tiny factoid. Ft. Holabird did have an intel school at that point in time. Probably a 3 month course.
Our country is in great danger and I live way too close to DC to survive the next attack. If we all survive the next 4 years it will be a miracle.

BetseyRoss on January 6, 2009 at 5:20 PM

Dr. Michael Scheuer says the U.S. will suffer another 911 within a year because of this, Scheuer hasn’t been wrong yet.

nelsonknows on January 7, 2009 at 2:36 AM

It’s Clinton 2: Electric Bugaloo!

Starting to think Hillary was the real winner in ’08…

SuperCool on January 7, 2009 at 4:42 AM

Mountain out of a molehill. Read NPP’s post or otherwise educate yourself regarding the current organizational and operational structure of the US intelligent community.

dakine on January 6, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Can you clarify what you mean by this?? Are you saying that inflating a resume with “1st Lieutenant/political hack” to say he is qualified to be the CIA director is making a mountain out of a molehill?

We are in the middle of a war that has been going on since about 700AD and we get a political hack. At least the Soviets would pick a qualified political hack for their agencies

bullseye on January 7, 2009 at 9:09 AM

bullseye, do you understand the current organizational and operational structure of the national intelligence infrastructure? Educate yourself. Or read NPP’s post earlier in this thread.

dakine on January 7, 2009 at 2:04 PM