NBC: Obama picks Panetta for CIA director

Originally posted by marg6043
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.

I absolutely do NOT know that! The country is going to go deeper into recession, it's true, but that ship has already sailed. In other words, it doesn't matter WHAT the government or ANYONE does or doesn't do for the next year or so, the groundwork for this recession has been laid and it WILL happen. Obama's plan isn't going to make that happen OR stop it. The best his plan can do is make the depression we're about to experience not as bad as it would have been without it.

Many of his supporters will become impatient and "turn against him" because perhaps they thought he would PREVENT a recession or save the world, but he has consistently said that it was going to be VERY tough FOR US and we'd have to sacrifice. HE REALLY MEANT THAT. It's going to be VERY hard. This has been coming for several years now. Many of us have seen it coming and have prepared for it. It doesn't just get "fixed" in a few weeks.

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.

Creating jobs that cannot be outsourced is a large part of his plan. He simply cannot do EVERYTHING at once. He's against outsourcing jobs, for the record.

www.ecogeek.org...

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.

He may not have addressed it in his campaign speeches, but I have heard him talk about it. I listen to Obama's YouTube Channel and really listen to what he says, not what I want to hear.

NO, that was the Transportation Secty Mineta who was in the bunker with Cheney and overheard the conversation on 911. Re the Panetta pick, he is another Clinton carryover and despite his lack of indepth intelligence experience he does have some superficial experience in the area. Obama's first pick (Brennan) backed out and this choice was made more for loyalty to the team (as a former WH Chief of Staff). JFK didnt appoint a CIA head (instead wanted to dismantle it after the Bay of Pigs fiasco) and that lack of "loyalty" apparently did him in.

reply to post by WestPoint23


Westie! It's good to see you!

As far as your question goes, Obama is not Clinton. I know, he's drawing on a lot of the same people Clinton had around him, but they were implementing Clinton's policies. People are continuing to be surprised at how "centrist" Obama is. And the people surrounding him will implement HIS policies, not Clinton's. Obama has become much more aware of what we are dealing with in the Middle East and (as if he needed more on his plate) he will implement HIS policies with the people he has chosen to support him.

I understand your thinking that this will be another Clinton era, but I have the opinion that in some ways, it will and in some ways it definitely will NOT. This will be the Obama era, something different that we've seen before.

As I've said before, you can ride in a Lamborghini with a little old lady at the wheel or a professional driver and you're going to get a very different experience. Same car, different driver. Obama is a new driver, even though the car is very similar. I will wait until the ride starts to decide whether or not it's the same old thing. I'm looking forward to the ride.

Obama's too smart to let our military go. In fact, I think you'll see it strengthened and the US return to it's rightful position in the world.

Originally posted by jerico65
NO intel background, but a strong background in budgetary issues?

Read a little about other CIA Directors with NO Intelligence experience. Go on. Educate yourself. I dare you!

John Alex McCone

George H W Bush

re "someone else picking these people"...maybe it is the same group that picked out his family's red and black color scheme wardrobe on election night (red and black have a lot of symbolism: anarchy, black power, communism, piracy and satanism....that should about cover it all).

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
[Read a little about other CIA Directors with NO Intelligence experience.

Go on. Educate yourself. I dare you!

John Alex McCone

George H W Bush

So Obama is just taking the easy way out, going with the flow, and doing what everyone else has done in the past, right?

So much for the "change" he's been bragging about.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


One of the things that I can not denied is that if he is to have any success he needs to stop the policies and laws enacted by both Clinton and Bush that got us into the mess we are now.

Will he be able to do that? I don't think so.

that alone doesn't give me any hope at all.

Originally posted by jerico65
So Obama is just taking the easy way out, going with the flow, and doing what everyone else has done in the past, right?

Talk about "damned if you do, damned if you don't". You deride him for doing something new and innovative, by picking someone without intelligence experience and then turn on a dime and deride him for "doing what everyone else has done in the past". Classic! Make up your mind. You look silly when you keep changing it like that.

Originally posted by marg6043
One of the things that I can not denied is that if he is to have any success he needs to stop the policies and laws enacted by both Clinton and Bush that got us into the mess we are now.

I ABSOLUTELY agree, marg! And I think he will. I guarantee he will not do everything the way I think he should, but I think he's going to get some fantastic results. I'm sorry you don't have any hope, but to be fair, I think we should give him a few days on the job before we lose all hope. I judge by results, not prophecy.

Well, George Bush senior says he was never in the CIA before they made him director. When the J Edgar Hoover memo on the JFK assasination came out and named George Bush as one of the 2 CIA agents to visit him the day after he was shot. He denied it saying he was never in the CIA. So if he was telling the truth, this is not the first time someone with no intelligence experience as been appointed to the Director Position.

George Herbert Walker Bush actually DID have some CIA 'experience', albeit "off the books"....Operation Zapata (Bay of Pigs support) for one.

This choice should not be such a surprise. Obama has made some very critical remarks to and about the CIA and its policies regarding Guantanamo and torture. To appoint a CIA "insider"would not be a clean break with past policies. An insider would be entrenched in the attitudes and methods of the CIA in the past, which in many ways has operated above and outside the reach of Congress and even presidents. Clearly, Obama wants some change there.

It's been said on this thread already, but I emphasize: If Obama picked an insider people would say "no change!" and now he picks an "outsider" and the same people say "Too much change!" Which is it?

I'm personally shocked that nobody seems to be outraged ?

Obama voters...

you don't care that Obama is putting Clinton's blood all over his White House?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I don't think you can credit Clinton with all that economic prosperity of the 90's. He had things working for him, like the .com boom, and the natural cycles of economics.

There's no reason to assume that the same policies and politicians would bring the same prosperity now.

Am I the only one who thinks "the Office of Management and Budget" sounds totally generic and made up?

I'm not so sure this guy is as inexperienced in intelligence as you guys may think.

Just look at his resume.....he's dabbled in a lot of important fields.

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
There's no reason to assume that the same policies and politicians would bring the same prosperity now.

I'm not assuming that. That's why I made such a big deal in my response to WestPoint about the difference between a team implementing Clinton's policies as opposed to a similar team (with some important differences) implementing Obama's policies.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

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]

Amazing how people forget that the prosperity of the 90's was a product of Reagan-era economics. It hadn't NOTHING to do with Clinton, absolutely nothing! The reason we didn't have a deficit at the end of his term was because he raised taxes on every household earning over $30K annually, or had you forgotten that?

reply to post by sos37


Well, if you only care about the wealthy and how they came through it. But I'm not buying it. Reagonomics FAILED miserably for the country as a whole! But I'm not interested in arguing about Trickle-down Economics here.

Reagan's Economic Legacy

His policies helped spur the 1990s boom and were integral to the high-tech revolution. But the poor paid a price

Economic Performance of Presidents

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
How exactly is he qualified to be the director of the CIA? His bio doesn't really have anything that stands out in the intelligence field.

He isn't qualified and this is why people like this get picked to positions of incompetence when the guy that chose panetta pinata (whatever his name is) is also unqualified, inexperienced, unknown, un-tested, un-trustworthy and ulitimately unfit to be in the oval office.

You ain't seen nothing yet, this guy is going to CRUSH our economy and I mean DEAD. Pinetta will turn the CIA into a bunch of impotent, milk toast, candy azz, boyscouts and most will quit. The guy knows NOTHING about security, the guy knows NOTHING about intelligence gathering but I don't blame him for accepting the job, I blame the other guy who has NO executive experience, is a rookie senator at best who ran un opposed to get his senate seat playing dirty tricks on those that helped him get a foot in the door. He has around 600,000 new jobs lined up ALL Government and we all know how successful Government is at staying in the black.

So these Jobs will ultimately be Tax subsidized positions and while this man claims his new "stimulus plan won't be a free for all" is like αму ωнιηєнσυѕє assuring us of her new no drug policy.

The biggest claim they have for pinetta is his alleged management ability.

WHAT?!?! lol yeah that is just wonderful, I can just imagine the CIA guys relishing having to take orders from Leon Pinetta with that W.C. Feilds wine nose with his tequila breath.

This is all part of the change we can all believe in and just when you thought things couldn't get any worse


This guy will have the CIA neutered

[edit on 7-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

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]

Amazing how people forget that the prosperity of the 90's was a product of Reagan-era economics. It hadn't NOTHING to do with Clinton, absolutely nothing! The reason we didn't have a deficit at the end of his term was because he raised taxes on every household earning over $30K annually, or had you forgotten that?

Yeah I agree and the article heretic leaves in that link is far more in praise of Reagan than it argues against him.


With the exception of the last two paragraghs but this is easily argued.

"Instead, these economists believe far greater kudos go to President Bill Clinton for raising taxes and bringing down the budget deficit. "As for Reagan being responsible [for the 1990s boom], that's far-fetched," says another Nobel prize winner, Robert Solow of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "What we got in the Reagan years was a deep recession and then half a dozen years of fine growth as we climbed out of the recession, but nothing beyond that."

This is flat wrong, Reagan Inherited Jimmy Carters double digit inflation and recession he didn't create one he fixed one.

and Clinton didn't bring down the budget deficit, Newt Gingrich did in the gavel slamming government spending slashing, contract with America.

No the credit Clinton gets is not getting bin laden when we had him literally in our gun sights, giving the Chinese all out best top secret weaponry by not doing anything about the chinese hacker working for him. After repeated warnings he finally checks it out and by that time, they had all of it. The biggest legacy we have from slick willy is when he changed the legislation making it easier for minorities to buy a house and what he now admits was a mistake, causing the biggest economic collapse since the depression but hey, that doesn't have to blemish bill at all,,

He can always BLAME BUSH!

[edit on 7-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Talk about "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

You deride him for doing something new and innovative, by picking someone without intelligence experience and then turn on a dime and deride him for "doing what everyone else has done in the past".

Classic! Make up your mind.

You look silly when you keep changing it like that.

Really? I did deride Obama for doing something new? Where? I haven't seen him do anything new. Same old face from the Clinton years.

BH, you're starting to look silly for defending anything this guy does, regardless if it's good or bad.