DL13 on January 7, 2009 at 11:28 PM

Thats what I like about you. You see the positive contribution the Democrats can make to our society. You put their best foot forward. I feel very relieved now knowing they will be on the job soon. Thank you! ;)

I am going to speak up in defense of the appointment. The Intelligence Reform Act was designed to reduce the power of the DCIA to the level shared by the Defense Combat Support Agencies (NSA, NGA, DIA)and centralize control of IC in the Director, National Intelligence. Denny Blair, who by the way is an operator who did not come up through the Office Intelligence, was picked to run the IC.

CIA is in need of reform and having someone with no institutional memory or axes to grind is a positive trait not a negative.

jerryofva on January 6, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Excellent comment, jerry–I had forgotten all about the Intelligence Reform Act and the creation of the Director of National Intelligence.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the DNI’s power trump everyone else’s?
So, the DNI, be it McConnell or Blair, will be the real one in charge, so it doesn’t matter if Urkel appoints an empty suit like Panetta to “play” with the CIA.
What can we say about Denny Blair, after his weird conduct during the 1999 East Timor incident?

Brat on January 6, 2009 at 12:01 PM

It is a sign of the value of the Hillary voting bloc which would have lost him the election, that he is top loading with Clinton people

O could govern without paying his debts but if he wants a second term it helps. It also makes it a lot easier to make his big grab which starts on day 2 of taking the oath and only lasts a couple months before the enemy regroups

He has no trouble using people. He doesn’t care about the details and he needs a supply of scapegoats

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer

I bet on the Clintons. They do not lay down and die. If he vanquishes them, they would become formidable

Because of the late start on the transition for GWB due to the 2000 election issues in Fl and then the total disruption of 9/11 ,there are still today vast numbers of hold overs from the Clinton administration and a major who’s who of White House staffers who were put into many of these positions as the Clinton years came to an end.

For a number of reasons these people are still already in place and are familiar with and supportive of the Clinton agenda.

The balance were mostly salted away into various left side think tanks and beltway places and all work hand and glove together.

Obama can’t even hold a candle to that base of support and his choice and vetting issues are not the best.

In all reality he will be at the head of the table but the people at the levers of power will still be all Clintonistas no matter what he does.

One last point can be made to reveal the media’s hypocrisy here. Remember the universal mantra chanted by the media about Gov. Sarah Palin? The media decried her supposed lack of experience to take on the role of vice president. But now, all of a sudden, experience doesn’t matter in the case of Panetta? Is the role of vp so much more important than that of CIA chief, especially in this day and age?

Yet, now no experience at all in the most delicate and important position for our times is a virtue. It’s simply unbelievable. This is sycophancy of the sickofanciest kind.

To paraphrase Forrest Gump, Inexperienced is as inexperienced does. At least that is what comes to my mind when hearing that Barack Obama has picked the inoffensive, completely inexperienced and unqualified Leon Panetta to be the new director of the CIA. Really. Leon Panetta? The onetime director of the Office of Management and Budget Panetta, that Leon Panetta? This old Clinton partisan has absolutely no experience whatsoever with intelligence gathering or the administration of the same. None. Zip. Nadda.

Now, if George W. Bush had picked such an inexperienced man for any government position much less one at cabinet level, the media would have crucified him — in fact, it did if you recount the Harriet Meyers for SCOTUS debacle. So, in “Obama’s intel picks short on direct experience” does the Associated Press scoff at the pick? Do they lambast Obama for picking such a completely unqualified man for CIA in a day when we are besieged on all sides by enemies from whom our ability to gather intelligence is a major weapon of protection? Do they decry this pick of a man with not even the tiniest amount of experience for one of the most delicate and important positions of the day?

Nope. In fact, the AP celebrates it as some sort of proof that Obama made this pick to show he is making a “clean break from Bush administration.” A clean break? How is picking a man with no experience with the intelligence or law enforcement communities to be the new head of the CIA any kind of proof that Obama is breaking with Bush?

Panetta is really an unknown quantity. He could be a real asset to fighting the war on terror or he could be just another liberal politician who cuts the legs out from under the USA effort to defeat terrorism.

I question why Obama would pick someone with no intelligence experience at this critical time. It tells me Obama may be naive enough that our enemies will be able to mount another attack during Panettas training period of 12-18 months.

The left has historically been critical of the USA intelligence capability. During the Carter and Clinton years they have systematically tried to destroy CIA. For Carter it led to Iran being taken over and our embassy captured. Any other president would have declared war but Carter never did. How might the world look today if he had. Clinton went a long way toward disabling our intelligence capability and crippling our military. Today our military is stretched thin due to Clinton and the republican congresses that let him do it. If he had listened to CIA and went after the terrorists would 911 have happened? I doubt it.

Now we have Panetta who is not widely viewed as up to the task of running CIA. It doesn’t look good but during this curcial time it could prove disasterous. I pray for our nation. May God allow us victory in this war even though we stupidly elected people to dumb to know the difference between our enemy and us.

Some suggest that if Kagan does ok for them at Solicitor General a SCOTUS nomination may be in the cards. For them she has all the background and the right stops all punched on her judicial history for that without having went the judgeship route.

With the recent events in India, I really find it hard to justify taking such a risk with intelligence matters just over his issues with 3 people getting water boarded that were part of 9/11 planning.

He has an AG to play that end of the game and Hill at SOS.

Sorry but this is putting too many chips in to push a non major point.

If the CIA gets on your bad side it is like the second coming of J Edgar Hover and his background files.

They can really make you day not a fun place real quick.

Heck right now the company has totally transitioned in a lot of ways since 9/11.

There are more outside contractors than there are insiders now.

The infighting for turf between the yellow and blue badge types is a problem also.

The only time Hill really zinged him was on drivers licenses for illegals.

Something that he could easily spin and mirror later and the other time was a love tap over Bill Ayers / Wright.

Do you think she would let any body off that easy if she were really headed to the White House?

Does that fit to her past actions?

Just what we needed: more ‘peace dividend’, condoms on the Christmas tree, interns. . .

I wonder if Obambi likes interns. . .

If he is comfirmed, I will stock up on Cipro and non-perishables.

And possibly a gun.

I kid you not.

Har