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.