RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

SilverMark -> RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (1/6/2009 5:04:22 AM)

I think the selection of Panetta has something to do with Obama's personal trust in the man....Panetta is known as a great administrator and very good with congress. If there is an agency that needs it's trust re-developed it is the CIA. Not exactly a rookie move, nor strictly a political move....
Since the start of the 9/11 crisis, the Iraq war etc. the CIA has not exactly been the most highly thought of agency in the government. If one looks past the usual political sniping perhaps there is a bit more to the selection that what appears from the surface?



Sanity -> RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (1/6/2009 6:54:01 AM)

I'll give him this - it's a pretty gutsy move on Obama's part. It takes a lot of balls to nominate someone who has absolutely no intel experience to the head of the CIA only a few short years following the worst terrorist attack on our soil in history.

A lot of us may die, but that's a risk he's willing to take...



SilverMark -> RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (1/6/2009 8:15:04 AM)

Another un qualified CIA director John McCone...but look at his hsistory...even Walter Beddel Smith was not an intelligence officer...his background was as a Chief Of Staff to Eisenhower, Dulles basically served in intelligence for all of 5 years yet was highly respected as Director of the CIA....William Webster was FBI not intelligence.
There is precedent and the staff of the CIA are basically not political appointments, they are career government employees, and with the change of Directors they do not change. Who knows, they might even be able NOT to disclose the names of opperatives as it occured under Georgie Boy.




Sanity -> RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (1/6/2009 8:30:34 AM)


"Georgie Boy" hmm? LOL...

Well, Baracky boy is running into opposition from even his own party for suggesting such a naive appointment as this.

According to the New York Times:

quote:

Among the lawmakers who expressed skepticism about the choice was Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and the new chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Ms. Feinstein, who would oversee any confirmation hearing for Mr. Panetta, issued a statement that signaled clear disapproval and said she had not been notified about the choice.


“My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time,” she said.A second top Democrat, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the departing chairman of the Intelligence Committee, shares Ms. Feinstein’s concerns, Democratic Congressional aides said.


Ms. Feinstein’s Republican counterpart on the Intelligence Committee, Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, said he would be “looking hard at Panetta’s intelligence expertise and qualifications.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28515915


What this amounts to is you have one rank amateur (Barack Obama, the Jr. Senator from Illinois) appointing another rank amateur to a highly critical position where this country needs real experience. This is such a stupid pick (and even Democrats are acknowledging that) that it might not even make it to the confirmation hearings, let alone past them.







Owner59 -> RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (1/6/2009 8:45:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArticMaestro

I imagine I will get challenged on my claim that the Clinton Administration engaged in Extraordinary Rendidtions.

The American Civil Liberties Union alleges that extraordinary rendition was developed by CIA officials in the mid-1990s who were trying to track down and dismantle militant Islamic organizations in the Middle East, particularly Al Qaeda [14].
According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke:




“
'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'" [15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition




Yeah,we went and grabed the guy who planned the 1st bombing of our World Trade Center.Grabbed him right up and tried and jailed him,where he rots today.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/

Ramzi Yousef

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/1_hi.html

Yeah,...so?

Perhaps if bush hadn`t fucked this effort(the war on terror) up as much as he has fucked everything else up,I don`t think there would be much of a to-do over it.

But he and his keystone cops were renditioning and torturing innocent,law abiding  people.

I think that`s what got people so ticked off.

And those now world famous cases have ruined our good name and reputation(in the world),hurt our relations with our friends in the world and have also hurt our ability to work with our friends (overseas) in the war on terror.

You can`t fight an affective and pro-active war on terror if no one`s cooperating.



Owner59 -> RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (1/6/2009 9:13:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

Another un qualified CIA director John McCone...but look at his hsistory...even Walter Beddel Smith was not an intelligence officer...his background was as a Chief Of Staff to Eisenhower, Dulles basically served in intelligence for all of 5 years yet was highly respected as Director of the CIA....William Webster was FBI not intelligence.
There is precedent and the staff of the CIA are basically not political appointments, they are career government employees, and with the change of Directors they do not change. Who knows, they might even be able NOT to disclose the names of opperatives as it occured under Georgie Boy.




I heard George Bush Sr. had no experiance and became head of the CIA after being an elected official.

Is this true?

Don`t remember many complaints,but then again I wasn`t old enough to follow politics at the time.

Does anyone remember?



celticlord2112 -> RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (1/6/2009 9:22:02 AM)

quote:

I heard George Bush Sr. had no experiance and became head of the CIA after being an elected official.

George Herbert Walker Bush served as Ambassador to the United Nations and Chief of the U.S Liaison Office in the People's Republic of China (the office was not officially an embassy so  Bush was technically not Ambassador to China, although that was his function in all practical respects).

Leon Panetta's prior experience was as White House Chief of Staff and Congressman from California's 16th District.




ArticMaestro -> RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (1/6/2009 10:10:31 AM)

That has nothing to do with Ramsy Yousef, Owner59.  And you know it. 



subrob1967 -> RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (1/6/2009 11:12:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

This explanation makes a good deal of sense -

"Obama is sending an unequivocal message that controversial administration policies approving harsh interrogations, waterboarding and extraordinary renditions — the secret transfer of prisoners to other governments with a history of torture — and warrantless wiretapping are over, said several officials."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090105/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_spy_agencies


Psst, it was Clinton who signed the executive order approving renditions, fyi.



Owner59 -> RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (1/6/2009 1:17:49 PM)

And george bush abused it.Taking is to it`s lowest ends....now they`re trying cover their asses.

Neo-cons don`t get a pass on fucking up just b/c Clinton signed the EO.



celticlord2112 -> RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (1/6/2009 2:07:47 PM)

quote:

Neo-cons don`t get a pass on fucking up just b/c Clinton signed the EO.

Of course not.....that would be anti-Democratic[8|]



lronitulstahp -> RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (1/6/2009 2:08:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: awmslave

Obama nature as a "rookie" starts to show.
i suppose one isn't experienced enough until they've sucked and swallowed on BigOil's cock long enough to become respectable[8|]....



Vendaval -> RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (1/6/2009 3:32:34 PM)

Clipped from my earlier post, #7, in this thread

"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. "

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/panetta-to-be-named-cia-director/#more-8145




quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
I heard George Bush Sr. had no experiance and became head of the CIA after being an elected official.

Is this true?



Vendaval -> RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (1/6/2009 3:34:16 PM)

 
I understand what you are saying here, that is a very good point. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
    Panetta might know public opinion, but if the CIA is doing their mission properly, there isn't any public opinion, because what the agency does isn't on public display.

     That Obama doesn't get this is deeply troubling to me.



ArticMaestro -> RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (1/6/2009 4:48:14 PM)

So Obamas stated reason, someone un associated with torture and renditions is in fact false....What does that leave us with. 

It is of no surprise that the Democratic partisans do not care about intentionally, illegally turning people over for torture with no trial. 

"'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'" [15] "  Al Gore, said while laughing....



corysub -> RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (1/6/2009 6:02:11 PM)

All this "sound and fury" over George Bush abusing...what?   As far as I know President Bush has kept us safe from attack since 9/11 and I pray that Obama, Panetta, DeeDeeMyers, Hillayr, and who ever else is coming on board from the Clinton era continues the record.  The democrat party has a history of being soft and PC in its politics.  That might be fine dealing with France or Germany but we are involved with idealoges who believe it is a service to Allah to destroy Israel and the United States at all costs.  The naievete of Americans with respect to the threat facing us is unreal....What is it going to take to make people on the left accept the facst that muslim exrtemeists are out to kill us, an attack on another city, a mall, a school, a plant, a train?

No thank you, give me the tough tactics of Bush, the wire taps and all....I don't know anyone whose life has been negatively impacted or their freedom compromised in the past eight years of the Bush Presidency, although I don now a women who is convinced that the NSA is tapping her phone!  Why the over-burdend security people in our government who have done such a great job would want to tap the phone of a middle aged, insurance broker from Long Island I find hard to discern.  It does give her a feeling of self-importance, I do believe.



Owner59 -> RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (1/6/2009 6:43:46 PM)

  "Bush has kept us safe from attack since 9/11"

Yeah,but letting 9/11 happen was more than enough fuck-up,just plenty.

And the 4000 plus GI`s(who were killed in Iraq,for nothing more than bush`s ego) and their families?

Are they safe and sound?

The "tough tactics" have turned into the terrorist`s best recruiting tool ever and terror attacks world-wide are way up.

And he let bin-laden get away with 9/11.

He let the Cole bombers get away.

The countries that actually had something to do w/ 9/11....Saudi Arabia and Dubai?....

bush/cheney let them slip by too.They`re even doing business with them.Sad.

And the taliban(who bush claims was destroyed)are on the rise and getting stronger.Another huge failure.

bush(and neo-con policy) has been an utter failure.



Vendaval -> RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (1/6/2009 7:03:10 PM)

What is your reasoning behind this claim?  Can you show any wrongdoing on the part of Panetta?



quote:

ORIGINAL: ArticMaestro
So Obamas stated reason, someone un associated with torture and renditions is in fact false....What does that leave us with. 



ArticMaestro -> RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (1/6/2009 9:01:22 PM)

Vendeval, I already posted evidence that Clinton's team was sending people off for torture with out trials, blatently laughing that it was illegal.  You guys are making the claim that Panetta was in the loop.  That he does have experience with National security Intell.  You can't really claim that he was part of the decision making team and using the intell, and that he was out of the loop, at the same time.  Can you?  It is clear that at least one Democratic partisan on this thread simply refuses to accept the facts, but you are better than that aren't you? 



Owner59 -> RE: Clinton Chief Panetta to head CIA (1/6/2009 9:31:24 PM)

 
And I posted evidence that Clinton went after known criminals,like ramzy yousef.

Not innocent people,like this guy.

Or innocent countries,like Iraq.

Funny how no one was upset when bushco was screwing someone else.Now that they lost all that money,now people are paying real attention.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.980469E-02