Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, January 6, 2009

CIA choice may mean shake-up coming

January 6, 2009

Advertisement

— President-elect Barack Obama will name former congressman and Clinton White House chief of staff Leon Panetta to head the CIA, tapping a veteran government manager who once oversaw the top-secret U.S. intelligence budget but has no hands-on espionage experience, Democratic officials said on Monday.

If he’s confirmed by the Senate, Panetta would take over an agency that’s leading the fight against terrorism as it struggles to overcome the damage dealt to its credibility and integrity by its Sept. 11 and Iraq intelligence failures and by its use of interrogation methods on suspected terrorists at secret prisons that many experts consider torture.

Panetta’s selection suggests that Obama intends to shake up the agency, which has had little public accounting of its role in detaining top terror suspects and transferring others to regimes known to use torture, a procedure known as extraordinary rendition.

The CIA, which denies subjecting detainees to torture, is part of a 16-agency intelligence community whose annual budget now exceeds $47.5 billion. The agency keeps its own budget and number of employees secret.

Comments

Flap Doodle 5 years, 11 months ago

Wasn't Panetta under investigation for serial mopery back in the 1980s?

Confrontation 5 years, 11 months ago

Madmike and Tommy Boy really need to hurry along to Canada. Perhaps the high number of whites will suit your taste.

BigPrune 5 years, 11 months ago

Panetta had no clue that Clinton was bopping his intern, while he was Clinton's Chief of Staff. A very non-perceptive guy. Perfect for Obama's America.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

logicsound04....The "tangible reason" to question Obama is because of his "tangible" decision to appoint Panetta to head the Central INTELLIGENCE Agency when he has zero intelligence experience.I thought you said you were be the first to criticize Obama if he made a mistake. But what a surprise you rush to defend Obama, even though I am sure you are more than happy to criticize a Bush appointment who you thought was less than qualified. You just can't seem to face the fact you condemn others for doing exactly what you are doing, being blinded by bias.

Strontius 5 years, 11 months ago

Somehow, I doubt the people questioning every choice Obama is making were doing the same thing with Bush. In fact, they were the ones attacking me for years every time I even suggested something Bush was doing was wrong or a bad move. Hypocrites.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

I guess Obama supporters just don't mind a person in an extremely important position affecting their safety having zero experience. After all, they support Obama who doesn't have any experience.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 11 months ago

Clinton Lite, opening Jan 21 in Washington, DC.

beawolf 5 years, 11 months ago

So many people, with so little intelligence have so much to say. No one one this board, pro or con for Panetta, have a clue as to whether he is qualified or not. logicsound04 -You've presented the most concise (and thoughtful) comment so far.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Logicsound04….What a surprise, defending the appointment like a mindless sheep. -------------“Panetta has no hands-on espionage experience, but has overseen the U.S. intelligence budget” – LS04ROTFLOL, LOL, LOL, LOL….LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL. So any accountant has the experience necessary to run the organization whose books they are overseeing? LOL, LOL, LOL. Please tell me you can see how ridiculous your argument is. ---------------------The only defenses I have heard to Obama’s screw up’s is…”yeah but, but Bush.” As if two wrongs somehow make a right. “a choice that has yet to pan out and therefore is unable to be criticized or praised” – LS04--------------------Your logic that any appointment should get a pass until they screw up is naïve. Perhaps we should just hand the keys to the car over to a 6 year old and assume he will do a fine job until he wrecks the car. Of course not, you want to make sure the person meets the qualifications necessary to fill the job BEFORE taking over to avoid the wreck. Applying your rule of allowing one free screw up before deciding they are imcompetent to the CIA could be catastrophic. ----------------“Conversely, nothing has yet happened that any sane person would see as evidence of Obama's ability.” – LS04I could cite about a dozen, but his claim that the Surge would make Iraq worse comes to mind; or the fact he said he was going to accept public financing then turned it down because he is obedient to the almighty dollar and only cares are money influencing politics when it is helping his opponent.

Danimal 5 years, 11 months ago

I love how Obama die hards can't admit that this is a horrible selection. This guy is so unqualified for the position that Congressional Democrats won't endorse the decision.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

logicsound04....“Conversely, nothing has yet happened that any sane person would see as evidence of Obama's ability.” – LS04I just realized how hilarious your comment really is: If there is no evidence of Obama's ability, one way or another, than why did anyone vote for him? Oh yeah, empty rhetoric without any evidence, almost forgot. Thanks for reminding me!

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Logicsound04....If you ever need some work done on your house and you decide to hire a contractor, will you hire me if I can prove I was once a bookeeper to a contractor who did that kind of work?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.