Flint, it's not about you.

"BRUCE! Where's my BAN button?"

Forget it...just shoot me.

Ok.

No way! :lol2:

If you would be so kind as to state what you did mean, then.

You can easily judge the character of others by how they treat those who can do nothing for them or to them.
-- Malcolm Forbes

Naw, not worth the time or effort.

PANETTA .. THE PERFECT APPOINTMENT
Neil weighs in. He has an interesting perspective on things.

By Neal Boortz @ January 7, 2009 9:01 AM

For Barack Obama, that is - but perhaps not necessarily for America.

I don't know many people who are thrilled with Obama's pick of Leon Panetta to head the CIA. The guy has less experience working in intelligence than our own Washington correspondent Jamie Dupree. Of course I strongly suspect that Dupree is actually working under cover as a journalist. You should see the armament he carries. Anyway ......

One of the first to really speak up was Dianne Feinstein. She got her feelings hurt that Obama didn't consult her before making the selection. Well, she's right. You do talk to the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee about your pick to head the CIA .. but that was quickly corrected with some obsequious fawning by Obama and Biden.

Other thoughts on Panetta run the gamut. Dick Morris thinks he's being sent to Langley to effectively emasculate our premier spy agency. The destruction of the CIA began under Jimmy Carter. Will it become a fait accompli under Obama? There is much liberal angst over this phony torture controversy. Is Panetta the payoff to the left?

Others are saying that Panetta's experiences in the Congress and the Clinton White House qualify him for this position. After all, as the president's Chief of Staff he was a "consumer" of intelligence information. By that reasoning, since I bought a new GM vehicle a few weeks ago I'm now qualified to run GM. Than again, who isn't?

http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/01...ppointmen.html

All I'll say it that there is a difference between reading a book and writing one.

There you go, then.

... because that was a major mental task for the wacko Merc. It takes some minimal education to post something useful you shitbag. Oh. Another word that makes the least educated among us feel at home - you George Jr lover because you are so dumb.

[quote=tw;520934.....wacko....Merc......shitbag. ......George Jr ......[/QUOTE] :lol2:

Who knows better than the consumer what they need and in what format? Isn't that what the top people at the CIA do, glean the info the President needs from all the stuff being passed up the chain?

I just think if you are going to appoint a politico to a job, put him in the one that is most political, the over all director of national intel, not the head of the CIA. I think he had them switched, maybe it was a typo and he read them backwards.

The consumer in this case is like the aftermarket. How is he qualified to determine what "info the President needs"? Hell he could be the best directer ever, but it just seems to make more sense to put a guy in here with some in the field experience. I know there were several others, including Bush Sr. who did well. I'm not gonna bury the guy yet. I guess all we can do is see what happens. He does have the political & boatloads of managerial experience - perhaps thats half the battle.

Considering the large number of appointments praised from both 'sides of the aisle', it is rather silly to take cheap shots at one appointment. If the appointment does not work out, Obama is expected to fix it. Cheap shots are to criticize an appointment only because the president does not represent interests of wacko extremists.

There is much to question in the Obama administration. And virtually no facts to justify any criticisms. Panneta has a history of being a good administrator. He now has a new challenge and an assistant with much practical experience from that organization. Beyond that, the criticism is based only in recent Limbaugh commentaries.. Demonstrates the only justification for that Pannetta criticism.

That's what I was addressing.

This guy brings up some interesting questions. Not that it will make much of a difference, what's done is done. But someone needs to ask him during the confirmation hearings.

What Did Leon Panetta Know About Rendition And When Did He Know It?

Thus far, defenders of Director-designate of Central Intelligence Leon Panetta make the following points in defense of the proposition that he would make a good DCI:

In response to arguments that Panetta is not experienced, Panettaphiles tell us that because of his experience as a consumer of intelligence–both as a member of the Iraq Study Group and as Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton–Panetta actually has lots of intelligence experience and would, in fact, be super-awesome as DCI. In addition, as Chief of Staff, we are told that Panetta played a key role in shaping intelligence policies.
Panetta is against torture, rendition and other bad stuff.
Okay. But here’s the thing: If you believe Panettaphile Argument No. 1, then you really have to be concerned about the viability of Panettaphile Argument No. 2.

What do I mean? Well, in her book, The Dark Side, Jane Mayer pointed out that rendition policies began not during the Bush Administration, but rather, during the Clinton Administration. As Mayer writes, in 1995, the Clinton Administration proposed to the government of Hosni Mubarak that Egypt be a rendition destination, a proposal that the Egyptians accepted (pp. 112-113). Eventually, renditions became routine and a “Rendition Branch” was added to the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center and President Clinton signed a directive that authorized “Apprehension, Extradition, Rendition and Prosecution” of terrorist suspects in 1998 (p. 114). Other countries, in addition to Egypt, were used as rendition destinations but Egypt remained the most popular destination.

Leon Panetta was Chief of Staff from 1994-1997, according to Wikipedia.

As I see it, only one of three scenarios is possible:

Leon Panetta, as Chief of Staff, was involved in the decision to craft the rendition program, and the program was crafted with his approval.
Leon Panetta, as Chief of Staff, was involved in the decision to craft the rendition program, and the program was crafted over his objections. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that Panetta left the position of Chief of Staff in protest over the rendition policy (Wikipedia states that his resignation took effect on January 20, 1997, which is the date Bill Clinton was sworn in for his second term, likely demonstrating that Panetta just picked the beginning of the second term to leave and did not leave over any policy difference).
Leon Panetta, as Chief of Staff, was entirely out of the loop when it came to crafting the rendition program, thus opening the door to questions over whether Panetta was really as involved in intelligence matters as Panettaphiles claim that he was. I mean, if one is the Chief of Staff to the President and one does not take an active role in helping shape the policies by which terrorists like the ones in al Qaeda are captured and interrogated, one is pretty darned ineffective and not a major player, nyet?
So I ask: What did Leon Panetta know about rendition and when did he know it? Will he come forward and give answers to those questions? And hey, what about all of those pundits who claim that the incoming Administration will forswear torture and other cruel and inhuman interrogation activities. Are they the least bit concerned over whether the DCI-designate meets up to their purported standards? And will they to and write about their concerns in public?

It would be dramatically hypocritical if they didn’t, wouldn’t it?

http://www.redstate.com/pejman_youse...id-he-know-it/

So this may be number two in his error list. The guy clearly did not pay taxes and was actually paid for and signed a statement to the effect that he knew money the government was giving him was to pay Social Security taxes, but yet he still did not pay it. No double standard here. This could clearly have been business as usual for people who worked for that orgainzation, as in everybody does it, which may be fine for the average cheat, but not everyone is being nominated by the President elect.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/...transition.php

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123187503629378119.html

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../01/022552.php

Nah, I think it is a great pick. Just switch the government with China and Social Security taxes with United States debt. Perfect choice.

If the parties were switched there would be an burning in the square and a meltdown on the internet.

That is why Obama is a genius. He knows Republicans are on a shorter leash than Democrats, hence why he picks Democratic cheats.

Double standard. Makes him look very bad.

It makes him look bad to people that already see the double standard, majority of them are not Obama supporters.

And that was a pretty small number of people who did not vote for him, right?

I think what bothered me more was that he didn't finally pay till Obama had spoken to him about his potential appointment. That was one report I heard. IIRC they laid out the timeframe pretty well. I dunno, CNN could have been biased on it, but they a re usually pretty good.
I think its great that Obama was so organized and made all the potentials fill out those questionnaires. This seems like an issue where the guy told Obama what the deal was and Obama made a decision to go forward anyway. I think it'll probably turn into a non issue just like the Clinton stuff. Perhaps its just the GOP flexing what little muscle they have left.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1231...cle-outset-box

Sounds like a person with questionable standards to me, esp if you are going to be in charge of guiding Treasury.

I understand that, Merc. Apparently there was confusion (can you believe that about our income tax structure) about those 4 years.

IIRC - When he was notified by the IRS he paid for 2003 & 2004. The issue was that there was a statute of limitations about the other two years and his lawyer was negotiating with the IRS about 2001 & 2002. When Obama started talking about the appointment - he paid up. AGAIN - IIRC.

The way I see it is that public opinion of Obama isn't going to change much until he does not live up to his expectations. Every president is going to surround themselves with questionable people and the only people that care are the people that already don't like him.

One of the biggest problems with the whole thing is that we, as average taxpayers, are rarely given that much leeway unless we hire a lawyer to interface between you and the IRS. I am pretty sure he will still be confirmed. It just taints his pick and will keep him under a microsope, something the Sec of Treas does not need in these troubled economic times.

I think thats EXACTLY what is needed - especially now.

We need to put every politician under that microscope.

Yup - and hold them accountable - We really need to have some serious consequences. Too many times they get caught and then there is no punishment. The sentence needs to be quick and PAINFUL! A lot of examples need to be set and soon.

*rolls out guillotine and leaves it beside Senate entrance*

Yea, sort of like not skipping out on paying your taxes til Obama nominates you for a post that involves all of the countries money. :3eye:

After promising transparency and change. It sure seems like its the same ole same ole...
Tom Daschle, picked to spearhead U.S. health care reform, failed to pay more than $128,000 in taxes.

Oh so after he gets the appointment and realizes that this is gonna blow up in his face, he decides to come clean. Better late than never? I don't think so. Seems as though these guys still think they are above the law. I dunno, maybe they are.

Well isn't that special.

"A pattern is developing," Cantor said. "The pattern is solidified. ... It's easy for the other side to sit here and advocate higher taxes because -- you know what? -- they don't pay them."

Change my ass. I've never seen more people turn a blind eye to the duplicity and double standards in the Demoncratic controlled Congress. And people bitched about the Republickins. Poppycock. Must be the blinding light from Obama's halo.

It certainly has some measure of familiarity with the Bush years.

But the Executive Orders issued to-date suggest change...perhaps not as much as some (like me) would like.

The restoration of the Freedom of Information Act and the Presidential Records Act that Bush gutted with EOs.

Far more ethics standards for senior political appointees during their time in office as well as during their return to the private sector.

Banning of torture.

One small step for more transparency and accountability.

Or maybe this is the wrong place to bring all this up. I'm a little rusty here.

I don't totally disagree. But the democrats are talking out of both sides of their mouth and this one and no one is calling them out on it.

What politician has ever not talked out of both sides of their mouths?

"Change, yes we can!"

I will settle for more transparency and accountability of the executive branch as a start.

That will be a "change" that most Americans wanted to see.

Not if they continue to do business as usual by allowing the double standards for standards of conduct among the appointees and those they present to Congress for approval in key leadership positons. There isnt a damm thing bipartisan about them, which actually I can live with, because they get all the responsiblity for it.

Appointments have never been bi-partisan.

Most presidents get the cabinet level appointments they want unless there are questions of serious impropriety or serous questions of qualifications. Personally, I think the tax issues are embarrassing but trivial

The most glaring rejection was of John Towers as Bush Sr. Defense secretary. His colleagues in the Senate knew he was a drunk and were not prepared to put the US armed forces under his control

And I have run up my post count enough for one setting....but its nice to be back and discuss the issues intelligently...or at least I hope that is the standard here!

I don't disagree. That was not the point. "Change. Yes we can!" was about doing things differently. Rhetoric about corrupt politicans in the White House and Bush administration are being ignored when tax dodging cheats are nominated for posts in the Obama administration and suddenly pay back taxes they never intended to pay.

Sure..you can criticize this lack of change.

I would hope you can also acknowledge the change resulting from the first EOs that provide greater transparency and accountability.

I will believe it when I see it. I will believe it when Reid and Pelosi stop constructing bills that spen 850 billion dollars of tax payer money behind closed doors and push them through the houses of Congress. I will believe it when they stop telling me that jobs are going to be created when they are doing nothing more than spending on social programs that don't create jobs but further the idea that government is there to foster dependency. Change my ass.

Nothing like writing a review of a movie or a play before the final act!

The first act has been written and performed.

Two weeks is the first act of a four year play?

Not in my theaters.

No, the Demoncrats have controlled Congress for over 2 years. It has little to do with Obama at this point, other than his rubber stamp.

A 51-49 majority in the Senate for two years, with more minority (republican) filibusters than any time in history is not what I would describe as control.

Come on now, you know it is not about numerical majority. It is about control over all committes, over all bills that come to the floor for a vote, you seem like a much more intelligent guy than that. Don't blow smoke.

Committee control is absolutely a benefit...but the number and content of bills that make it to the floor for a vote really doesnt matter if the minority has the numbers and uses parliamentary procedures to block their passage.

The beauty of democracy I guess. It is a double edged sword.

The 111th Congress will be a far more objective measure to view the Democrats.

The House Dems are off to a shaky start (despite the lies or mischaracterization of Pelosi's new "rules")...the Senate Dems appear to be proceeding on the stimulus bill with a far more open mind and certainly not a rubber-stamp.

Filled with pork and other bull shit social agendas, not economic stimulus and job creation and promised. There is no mischaracteriztion of what Pelosi and Reid have been doing for the last 2 years. They owned it before, they really own it now.

In fact, the Democrats. in one of their first acts under Reid and Pelosi, enacted the most comprehensive ethics and earmark reform in the last 20+ years.

It doesnt go far enough for me, but again, its a start and more than we saw from the Republicans.

Really? Like this:

"The American people told us in the election that they expect us to work together for fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical standards and civility.

"After years of historic deficits, this new Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

Pelosi speech on 4 Jan 2007.

I would encourage you to read the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007.

As I said, its far from perfect and not nearly enough for me..but far more than any recent Republican Congress.

Thats a fact.