Comments on: Why Panetta Is the Wrong Man to Lead CIA

By: Hold Obama Responsible For Dismantling American Intelligence « Start Thinking Right

Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:01:26 +0000

[...] Holder engage in pardoning terrorists, but he “was part of a Clinton Justice Department that erected that infamous “wall” between the FBI and the CIA, preventing the exchange of vital intelligence on suspected terrorists.”

By: spike

spike — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:16:51 +0000

welcome to change….hope we survive

By: narciso

narciso — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:47:51 +0000

That’s a ridiculous notion to entertain, specially considering his understanding of the ‘negative rights’ like speech, assembly, right
to bear arms, that interfere with any government project. The current incumbent generally left us alone, we shopped supported the economy, many griped and cursed at the little incoveniences.
The next will not allow you to become ‘unengaged’
as Michelle herself said, and ‘dissent will be no longer patriotic’

By: deguello

deguello — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:06:21 +0000

Panetta is EXACTLY the right guy for CIA chief. The last thing you want is competence.Let the Obama freak show stew in its own ignorance and stupidity;when another 9/11 happens,maybe the idiots who voted for Obama,and live in blue target cities, will begin experiencing the consequences of Obama style change.

By: narciso

narciso — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:59:38 +0000

Seriously, what happened to you guys at Winds; the CIA doesn’t have a track record back home, but the people working in Baghdad, Kabul, Mogadishu, et al are first rate, working under extraordinary conditions. Yet this incoming crew did everything to stigmatize and criminalize these valuable operations. You know what the Iran NIE shows about the DNI, and Gates wasn’t particularly interested in what Rumsfeld wrought through the SSU, and CITA. Would it be too hard to ask for someone who hadn’t tried to hamstring the field men, at every step of the way.

By: Trent Telenko

Trent Telenko — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:17:25 +0000

Narciso,

The traditional way the US Federal government has done in dysfunctional bureaucracies is to create new bureaucracies to do the mission that the dysfunctional bureaucracy used to do, while slowly starving the dysfunctional bureaucracy of funds and political clout.

The CIA’s rebellion under Bush has marked it for replacement by the Defense Department in the roles of HUMINT and intelligence analysis.

By: Tom Holsinger

Tom Holsinger — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:39:52 +0000

narcisco,

Tell us more about building another CIA. Tell us how that won’t cause headlines about national security. Tell us that President Obama just loves headlines about national security, because he wants to focus public attention on national security instead of domestic issues.

Panetta’s No. 1 job is to keep the CIA out of the headlines. And, as even Michael Ledeen noted, he’s perfect for that.

By: narciso

narciso — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:48:23 +0000

So if the CIA is irrevocably broken, tear it down and build another; maybe along the lines of the fictional “Foreign Intelligence Service” in Charles McCarry’s novels, which operated through corporate fronts, without diplomatic cover. I can’t say I’m terribly impressed with the DNI considering their disastrous national intelligence
estimate on Iran, among many other snafus.

The CIA challenged Bush, because he challenged their view of eternal predominantly Arab Sunni oligarchies in perpetuity. the kind like Egypt
that gave birth to Atta, and Zawahiri, Seif Al Adel, the various Al Masri’s including the plotter of the transatlantic plot. Or Jordan with Zarquawi, or ultimately Saudi Arabia, the Wahhabi Ilkwan center of the universe. McCarry was very prescient about that, with the Arab prince of Hagreb, and his followers in the Eye of Gaza (which could either be AQ or Hamas

By: Tom Holsinger

Tom Holsinger — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:44:25 +0000

TexEd,

Reconsider your statement that Panetta is a Clinton loyalist in light of his resignation as Clinton’s White House chief of staff. Ask why he resigned.

By: Tom Holsinger

Tom Holsinger — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:42:08 +0000

narcisco,

You also assume that the CIA is at least marginally effective. Given what it did to President Bush, no future President, and this includes Barack Obama, will trust it until it is thoroughly under control. IMO it never will be, nor will it ever be marginally effective at producing useable intelligence, but Panetta’s appointment is clear evidence that Obama won’t let the CIA do to him what it did to Bush.

The CIA deserves what will happen to it.

And the Obama administration will continue the Bush administration policy of shifting as much as possible of the CIA’s nominal intelligence functions to other groups in the intelligence community.