NBC: Obama picks Panetta for CIA director

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
It's quite comical

The choice between Hillary and Obama

With Obama's cabinet...I'm not sure we didn't elect Hillary.

We're getting the 'same people'....lol

Yes We Can, get another Clinton term.

Well what do you expect. Obama is only qualified to tie his shoe, so he needs a plethora of oldies and has bens to run the country.

Or do the Hitlarys have something on Obama? Hmmmm. lol

Now with this guy Panetta. Hmmmm. Yeah, lets hire a guy for our Intelligence department who has ZERO experience. Maybe he has watched enough James Bond movies

All I can think is, someone is picking these people and it ain't Obama.

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
With Obama's cabinet...I'm not sure we didn't elect Hillary.

Yep .. another Clintonista. Dig that 'change'.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Well what do you expect. Obama is only qualified to tie his shoe,

Can't argue with that.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
All I can think is, someone is picking these people and it ain't Obama.

Obama is a bildeberger tool. Nothing more. THEY are picking everyone.




[edit on 1/5/2009 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

I think he was the Transportation Secretary too, or maybe that was here in Colorado or I am confusing him with Pena, probably confusing him with Pena!!!

Oh, I know so very little, I am new at the Political theatre.

I must say, a lust for power must be some sort of illness.

[edit on 023131p://bMonday2009 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by greeneyedleo


I did not support Barrack nor do I yet, I did not support McCain nor do I yet...

That being said I do wonder why the heck you people are already slamming this President Elect? Has he taken office? Has he done anything yet? I just think we ought to wait until he takes Office and does something before we start talking about his Administration or him. I know that it appears he is doing a lot to revive the Clinton Cabinet in some ways but there are also those that are outside that group being appointed and his people keep saying he wants all sides information and HE WILL DECIDE. If this is true then great if not sure t looks like the Clintonistas will win the day, but let's wait til that day arrives. Ever ear of putting the cart before the horse or counting chickens before they hatch? I think some of you are doing that. I will tell you I do not expect change and I expect more of the same we have had since Bush Sr. took office, more Free Trade, more open borders, more economic problems, more job loss, more strife in the world BUT...

I hope to be surprised with real substantive change and until I see different out of a Sitting President I won't comment on what might be, just in case I am wrong and would then look stupid...

For those that are bashing Barrack already, don't rush it you will have 4 years at least (probably) to bash this guy if he does wrong, why would you start before he had done anything? It makes you look partisan and not really concerned for America and what is best for her...

reply to post by habu71


Well you don't really know if he worked for intelligence or not . They tend to like to keep their agents id's secret. You know the whole spy thing.

i just laughed when sean hannity said that Leon was clinton's chief of staff and claimed to have no knowledge that clinton was involved with monica lewinsky. sean said "what kind of spy chief is that?".

For those of you talking about 9/11...it was Norman Minetta, not Leon Panetta.

I have no idea who this Leon guy is, but like always, he's not here to help the American people.

I bet he was recruited directly out of the Army:

In 1964, Panetta started fulfilling his military obligation when he entered the U.S. Army as a second lieutenant.

Serving as an intelligence officer during his two years of military service, Panetta found that the experience helped him hone his leadership skills. He was stationed at Fort Benning in Georgia, Fort Holabird in Maryland, a brief time in Washington, D.C., and ended his Army time at Fort Ord near Monterey.

He was out of army intel and into a Nixon administration position within 3 years. .

[edit on 1/5/2009 by clay2 baraka]

reply to post by theindependentjournal


Calm down there cowboy

My opinions, er criticisms, are based on his resume, his acquaintances and what I have seen thus far of him I believe everyone has a right to criticize on what a person does, especially in this type of position.

I dont get why its OK to judge him in a positive way, but not OK to judge him in a negative way.......both are based on who he is and his resume. I would do it for ANYONE who is to be president.

I find absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing the man who will be president and who is president.

Most of my comments are said in jest anyways and I didnt vote for either.

******
But really, this is about a man who will run our intelligent agency(s)....who probably (yet to be discovered fully) has as much experience as Daniel Craig (

Wow! This guy has a LOT of experience in various fields. He seems like an intelligent, natural leader. The way the Intelligence Agencies of this country have been operating, I think some "inexperienced in Intelligence" might be just what's called for.

Panetta Institute

Panetta was appointed Chief of Staff to President Clinton on July 17, 1994, and served in that position until January 20, 1997. He was the principal negotiator of the successful 1996 budget compromise, and was widely praised for bringing order and focus to White House operations and policy making.
...
Mr. Panetta has served as a leader in numerous community and national public policy organizations throughout his career. In March 2006, he was chosen to serve on the Iraq Study Group, a bi-partisan committee established at the urging of Congress and organized by the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Center for the Study of the Presidency and the James A. Baker III Institute. Since 2005, he has served as member of the Independent Task Force on Immigration and America’s Future. In November 2004, Governor Schwarzenegger appointed him co-chair of the Council on Base Support and Retention.

Mr. Panetta served a six-year term on the Board of Directors of the New York Stock Exchange beginning in 1997. He was chairman of the Committee for Review for the New York Stock Exchange Board of Directors and was co-chair of the Corporate Governance and Listing Standards Committee for the Stock Exchange.

Obama Picks 2 Men with Scant Experience in Intelligence

WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Barack Obama's decision to fill the nation's top intelligence jobs with two men short on direct experience in intelligence gathering surprised the spy community and signaled the Democrat's intention for a clean break from Bush administration policies.

Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, a longtime congressional veteran and administrative expert, is being tapped to head the CIA. Retired Adm. Dennis Blair is Obama's choice to be director of national intelligence, a selection expected for weeks, according to two Democrats who spoke on condition of anonymity because Obama has not officially announced the choices.

Sounds like a fresh CHANGE, to me.

Edited to add one more.

Chuck Todd says it's "hard to characterize Panetta as a Clintonista" because of his long career in politics. He is a solid Centrist. Most of Obama's picks are overqualified.

Source



[edit on 5-1-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

It really is amazing that eight years and the worst president in history later, I'm hearing the same inane conservative rhetoric about Bill Clinton who hasn't held a political post in nearly a decade that people were saying in the late 90s. Especially ironic considering we just had a conservative religious right president who #ed this country up worse than any other administration in history. I guess make sure you dust off the reasoning why Clinton is the source of American evil.

And what is wrong with the 90s and the Clinton Administration? Oh no! Economic prosperity and peace. We should stay as far away from that kind of national success as possible. Oh yeah, he squirted in some chick's mouth. Well that certainly is reason to discredit all the successes and allow for the last eight years. I'd much rather have Clinton Administration people in office than the cluster# morons of the last eight years in office.

Considering how corrupt and out of control the CIA has become, I'm happy an outsider strongly connected to the reformist President is in charge.

You people are #ing silly. Our nation is in grips of economic collapse, we've engaged in an illegal nonsensical war and international actions and policies that have bred an entire generation of people that hate and want to destroy this country, the very fabric of our identity and society as Americans is in doubt and you want to complain about Bill Clinton?

[edit on 5-1-2009 by CuriousSkeptic]

reply to post by theindependentjournal
Holy Cow! is right. Panetta knows too much, so they either had to kill him or make him head of the agency. Did he blackmail Cheney for the job? What about Daschle? He was anthraxed by the same crew that did the 911 attacks (namely the Pentagon) and now he has a cabinet position lined up too. So are the Democrats cashing in 911 in their own corrupt way too? I would love to believe that they would both like to get to the bottom of these attacks now that they're in power, but I wish I could win the MegaMillions lotto too. The Dems' recent track record on Iraq betrays a continuation of the Bush agenda, which is the NWO
blueprint. The Dems are part and parcel of it. Just witness Senator Dianne Feinstein's (total warmonger) hysterical outbursts about having Panetta in the Director's chair at Langley. She's nervous he may spill the beans on 911 too. After the Richardson debacle yesterday, it'll be a miracle if Obama can make it to Inauguration Day without being dragged into even more embarrassing muck &mire. What SHOULD happen is that all the 911 criminals should be rounded up and arrested on January 21st for treason against the United States of America. Of course, that's a little too much to hope for here on the brink of the new Nazi -esque USA.

It doesn't matter who it is. We're screwed either way. He's just another politician.

It's going to be an enjoyable the next few months watching our countries debt continue to skyrocket. Obama is not change no matter how much people want him to be. He is just more of the same breed of BS politicians that have been running this country for ages.

Change would be to stop all the ridiculous spending. Change would be to dramatically shrink our government. Change would be protection of our rights. He has opted to do none of these to my knowledge.

He's more of the same. He's more like GB than many would want to think...

Democrats/Republicans....they're all the same to me.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Most of Obama's picks are overqualified.

Yeah, like Bill Richardson: Already under suspicion for playing Illinois politics down in NM...

Bill Richardson bows out of commerce secretary job

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
And what is wrong with the 90s and the Clinton Administration? Oh no! Economic prosperity and peace.

And JOBS! Don't forget jobs! These changes are going to be great for this country!

[edit on 5-1-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

I am speechless, the hopes I had about the Obama administration has been withering in my hart.

Another blunder by Obama.

At least Clinton didn't Inherited the catastrophic deficit and ailing economy that Obama is to inherit, still he surround himself with people that were under Clinton and the ones that help facilitate the economic downfall we have now thanks to the pursued achievements of our last 8 year president taht didn't do a darn thing to stop the economic woes.

I truly, truly believe we are heading for the biggest downfall this nation will ever have.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


My dearest friend you know very well that Obama plan is going to plunge the nation deeper into recession and to help the nation surviving we will be selling the rest of whatever is left to the Arabs as they are the ones willing enough to lend the money now.

And as for the jobs we are expected to lose another 1 million jobs in the first 6 months of the year and Obama job proposition will not help at all if he doesn't stop the outsourcing oversea.

Our nation is bleeding from inside and without major surgery and removal of the disease it will not stop the bleeding.

None of the core issue has been in any of Obamas speeches none of them so either he is ignoring the problems of he is unable to do anything about it.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


But at what cost BH? Clinton essentially gutted and neglected the military/defense establishment of the U.S. in favor of social programs and policies. (Deja Vu anyone?) For most of his tenure in the 90's our intelligence agencies were also reigned in and not allowed to do what they do best. Political consideration was placed on a higher pettegree than the reality of security. This view, to an extent, indirectly facilitated the 93 WTC bombing, U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, U.S.S. Cole bombing, and of course all of this culminated on September 11th 2001 for a devastating blow to the United States. Clinton failed to take proactive steps and tough (controversial) stances when it came to properly securing the U.S. A political consideration meter was used to judge any potential action. Including letting Bin Laden have free reign, first in Sudan then Afghanistan and watching the spread of international terror organizations, like Al Qaeda. Sure an old time political vet heading the CIA makes sense if you want to completely dull the activities of that organization and have them under complete control, less of a liability I guess, never mind the security implications. For all of Bush's faults at least he got things done, it might not have been popular but that man increase U.S. security orders of magnitude from the Clinton years. God help us (that coming from an agnostic) if Obama compromises the gains we've made in that field.

I couldn't agree with all of you and the OP in this post more.

Since 1989 when HW Bush got into office until now it's been nothing but Bush/Clinton show in the executive branch.

Now it looks like it's more of the Clinton's for the next 8 years assuming that Obama will be the Democratic nominee 4 years from now.

The deck has been stacked for about 20 years now as you all have noticed.

The joke is really on all of us. Sigh.

NO intel background, but a strong background in budgetary issues? Great, he'll be counting the pencils that people at CIA are using instead of making some good decisions.

In disclosing the pick, officials pointed to Mr. Panetta’s sharp managerial skills

Great! That means we can get a discount on paper at Staples!!!!

Earth to Obama: We are at war!!

A bean counter in charge of the CIA. Change we can believe in!! Welcome to the new world.


And for those that are whining, "Why are you picking on Obama? He hasn't done anything yet!!" Yes, he has. He's picking his cabinet!!!