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.