Obama's first failed appointment
 

This is a complete mistake and I predict this will be a total failure.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/...iref=hpmostpop

Panetta has a strong background in economics but little hands-on experience in intelligence. However, he is known as a strong manager with solid organizational skills.

This is great. His latest experience is that "he sat in on the daily intelligence briefing with the Clinton administration."

Panetta for CIA director? Is this some kind of joke? What's next? Dr. Phil for Secretary of Defense?

That would be my guess. Dr. Suess for Sec of Health and Human Services.

Do you think the head of the CIA should be a spy or ex-spy?

Someone that knows something about intelligence would be nice.

Panetta does not have the credentials for this job.

I assume you mean by intelligence, how it is gathered.
So they can judge the validity of the information passed up to them?
So they can tell the President what is, and is not, possible to obtain?

I don't know what the duties of this job really are, but it makes me wonder what experience they need. I'm sure the head of Verizon can't install a vios line in my house, but (hopefully) is adept at running a company.

Absolutely. Without a doubt. The system is to specialized. This is not a Fortune 500 company and it should not be run like one. Government is not business. We have been down that road before. I think Obama really screwed this up.

I think the rationale was that an outsider would be more likely to clean up the disgraced CIA. (failed intelligence leading to Iraq war, waterboarding, etc.) But I think it's just as likely that the career CIA folks will bristle under the scrutiny of an outsider and he will have a difficult time leading the agency.

I think that rationale was/is unfortunately flawed. I'd like to see some things changed, but I don't know if Panetta can do it. This is out of his area of expertise. Even some top D's question this pick.

I'd like to think that intelligent people have thatought this through before making the choice.

But, of course, the gut reaction is that... how can he change how things are done when the people under him are doing specialized things that he doesn't understand? I mean, they could tell him anything, couldn't they? How is he going to know the difference? And, if he makes decision based on having an incomplete knowledge of the system, and he has people under him disagreeing with him, does he trust their experience in the field, or does he ramrod a bone-headed management decision that isn't based in reality? I can't think of a good way this could turn out.

Of course, what do I know about it? All I did was listen to the same blurbs as all the other news consumers.

I know some intel folks and they are very protective of their little world. I think glatt hit it, with out their cooperation he may or may not get all the info he needs and they may just give him enough to fail.

I mean, these intelligence guys make a career out of being sneaky bastards, right? This Panetta must have a huge pair of balls, and an even bigger IQ, if he thinks he go in and change their internal world. The only way this makes sense is if he is some kind of Superman.

I mean how its gathered, and how to make decisions about what needs gathering and how to prioritize directives. How to allocate limited resources to a vast need. How to decide what directives should be carried out by humans and which should be left to technology. That was a huge problem in the CIA in years past - all the people got pulled out in favor of technological intel gathering and the quality of info dropped precipitously.

Not only so they can judge the validity of what they are handed but to know when info is being withheld - the "seeing what isn't there" instinct that only comes with experience. This is the spy business - much is withheld to suit underling agendas.

And yes, to advise the president. But how do you know how to advise the president when you don't know enough about what you are told by your reports to know if its bullshit or not?

Having an inexperienced person at the helm is going to result in the inmates running the asylum. And more different problems than what we've had from the current leadership which while experienced is also devious.

This isn't a partisan issue.

He isn't.

Either Obama has all of us outfoxed or he just screwed up badly.

Yeah, this one has me pretty confused too. And things were going so well.

What's that article writer know? He's just a former CIA field director. ;)

Obama knows what he's doing.

Interesting guy.

Robert Baer

I'm not sure I'd call that an explanation. The article starts by qualifying Panetta as a Washington insider saying that's just what the CIA needs.

The article finishes by saying that the agency is best served by distancing itself from Washington and excessive politics.

Furthermore...

I'm open to suggestion but I'm not getting much. The best answer I've heard yet is that "Obama knows what he is doing."

Besides, I never trust anybody who has a book to sell. Even if the author is a CIA field officer.

I suspect that's the best answer me or anyone else is going to get - rationalizations notwithstanding.

Like Pie, I'm confused on this one but I'm hoping there's a middle ground between your extremes. :confused:

All the Dems have done on this one is to give the Repubs a chance to totally tear the guy appart during the conformation hearings. I can imagine them sitting up there saying, "So Mr. Pannnetta, list your intelligence experience and acomplishments that you think make you qualified to be the head of one of the largest intelligence agencies in the world."

Joe Biden admitted that they should have consulted more members of Congress who were involved in Intell before they chose Pannetta. I could see if they chose him for overall intell director instead of head of CIA, but they didn't. Now they will have to put up with more problems on the inside and if he is not respected by the rank and file he is going to have huge problems.

I don't care whose side I'm on...that is a great political cartoon. :)

I think it's about time the "rank and file" stopped stroking their petty egos and started doing what's best for the country. Not only in the CIA, but most of the government agencies.

I think that's what I've been trying to say all along: quit bitching and moaning about someone peeing in your spot and get on with the business of getting on board to do what's best for this country.

This article lists four CIA directors appointed as "outsiders", two who were "unwelcome", and "two of the agency's most successful directors".

I see what ya did thar

I think this is an odd choice for the post, but I have a very, very strong preference for allowing the commander in chief to staff his branch how he sees fit.

I think the job of the congress it to ensure that there is no gross negligence or blatant corruption in the nomination process, not to vet candidates based on ideological concerns or who they think might be a better fit for the gig. If you're going to hold someone accountable for how a job is done (and we will hold Obama accountable), you have to let them pick their people.

I believe they have been doing that all along. You seem to think otherwise, but the rank and file of this country has been doing what is right for a long time. It is the people at the top who keep screwing it up. This appointment is just opening the chance for another of those screw ups to do it again.

Which is it? :eyebrow:

pwned

Both. The rank and file are well-intended folk who will screw up if not managed by competent leadership. But, like any group, they will screw up in a different way if they feel their leader does not represent or understand them.

Not everyone who thinks Panetta was not the best choice is advancing a right-wing agenda but I can only speak for myself. I'll settle for anybody who can effectively use the resources of the agency to carry out the wishes of the President. And its not obvious to me how Panetta is the ideal candidate to answer that call of duty.

The fact that other people who were also not obvious choices did a good job as an argument in support of Panetta is utterly devoid of merit.

Oh yeah? Your face is utterly devoid of merit.

True. Fortunately, I have other redeeming features. ;)

The premise of the first quote wasn't incompetence; it was a lack of respect for an outsider. If the rank and file let their resentment for an outsider cause "huge problems", then they are not "doing what is right". If he proves incompetent later, that's on him.Correct. It is not an argument in support of Panetta. It is a counterexample to one of the arguments against Panetta.

You know how in cartoons dude will get hit in the head with a frying pan, and his head is all flat, then he shakes his head and makes that "blblblblblblb" noise and his head pops back out? I need a smilie like that. ;)


Ok, I just reread the last few posts, slowly. I think I have it now.

You are quite confused between people who do not want to do what is right by their boss and those who do the right thing everyday in their job. Fail.

You actually have to have a job of substance to understand, I can see why you don't.

Wtf?

WTF?

Did you just tell Shawnee she didn't understand something because she has no job of substance? Whose measuring the substance of jobs now, and on what scale?

WTF? No.

Oh. I misunderstood this:

No I'm confused by you making contradictory statements to further your vendetta against all democrats, because they pushed you out of your cushy job in the military.

That will be quite enough of that. :eyebrow:

You should be ashamed.

And all this time I thought we were discussing the merits of an important political appointment.

I'll never learn.

Heh...I wonder what I should be doing that would make Merc think I was doing something of substance? He seems to like hookers, exotic dancers, and people who shoot things.

I really need to give back to society. I'm shamed, I am.

<mental image of Shawnee as a gun-toting exotic dancer...>

OH NO! That image even frightens me...shudder shudder. lol

Merc shows his true colors once again.

Nasty nasty man.

Hmmmm

To be fair to Merc, when i queried him on it he said that wasn't what he'd meant. I'd be interested in knowing what he did mean.

You won't get a response. That's the usual MO (and I've said this elsewhere): THATs not what I meant...I didn't mean THAT, you don't get what I MEAN" but you will never hear a response when asking for clarification, because that clarification does not exist; that is what he meant.

So, whatever...fair shmare.

And Bruce...why you devil you. :blush:

It'll be interesting to see if an explanation is forthcoming, because it certainly looked like a mean-spirited put down to me.

Mean-spirited put downs are only okay when I post them!

I hope this doesn't destroy your image, Flint. But my impression is that you only play at being mean-spirited.

It's funny to me, and I understand that it might not always be funny to everyone reading it. So, in that way, there is a callous part of me that disregards the reader who doesn't understand what I'm doing. I'll even say, outright, that insomuch as you can't account for every person's tastes, my methodology is (largely) to simply act however I feel like acting, and to hell with the consequences. People, generally, put up with me.

omg, Flint has defined free will.
:notworthy

Oh Flint, hey...this isn't about you.

Seriously...your sense of humor can be acidic, but you are not a mean person.

Don't ever tell me that something isn't about me.