Politicizing the CIA

[SecTrainer]

I had thought for a moment that Obama was going to reconsider his exceedingly poor choice for CIA director, Leon Panetta, a total political animal who has zero real intelligence chops ("he looked at intelligence material when he was chief of staff"), but nope. Obama had to shore up his selection by having Blair come out and say how thrilled he was over Panetta, but no one who knows anything about this agency on a professional level can possibly believe him. This is a very, very bad omen, but was utterly predictable.

[curly]

Well, seeing who he has associated with and the trouble they are in now should one be surprised?

[Curtis Baillie]

I had thought for a moment that Obama was going to reconsider his exceedingly poor choice for CIA director, Leon Panetta, a total political animal who has zero real intelligence chops ("he looked at intelligence material when he was chief of staff"), but nope. Obama had to shore up his selection by having Blair come out and say how thrilled he was over Panetta, but no one who knows anything about this agency on a professional level can possibly believe him. This is a very, very bad omen, but was utterly predictable.I've received some feedback from the "intelligence community" about this pick - very scary.

[SecTrainer]

I've received some feedback from the "intelligence community" about this pick - very scary.

One of my contacts, who was on the "bubble", had told me that if Panetta was chosen he would take early retirement and accept a position in the private sector. I haven't talked to him today, but I doubt he's changed his mind. I also doubt that there won't be many others who do the same. Most anyone in the agency would have little difficulty finding other employment.

[Bill Warnock]

SecTrainer, Curt:
A friend of some thirty years told me this morning they might as well close down the building. It sounded humorous, but he was serious when he stated don't be standing anywhere near the exits because you'll be trampled to death by those flying out.
Enjoy the day guys,
Bill

[Rooney]

I have heard the same responses. This is a very BAD choice. Although there is always some politics involved in intelligence, picking someone with absolutely no intelligence background and only a political background is suicide. I guess he and President Obama will have more to talk with Hamas and Iran about.

Change - The ability to resurrect the Clinton administration by appointing people with no experience in the fields of appointment.

I guess I should now appoint my 5 year old nephew to Chief of Business Development for Military projects.:rolleyes:

[SIW Editor]

What's the feedback on Adm. Dennis Blair as national intelligence director?

Panetta seems like an odd, odd choice.

Geoff

[integrator97]

I'm not defending Panetta as a choice, he wouldn't have been my pick. But it seems you have a very short memory, or is it just selective? Since the 70's, many of the CIA directors have had limited experience, basically a political background. I didn't look further back then the 70's, for no particular reason. Previous may have been the same or not.

G.H.W.Bush - Congressman, Ambassador, Chairman of RNC, DCI
Adm. Turner - Military, then DCI. Cut HUMINT by 800, while promoting TECHINT and SIGINT. We know the cuts were a mistake.
Casey - OSS in WWII, then lawyer, and non-intel gov't positions, DCI
Webster - Director of FBI, then DCI
Gates - CIA, then DCI
Woolsey - Foriegn Policy, Military Policy Background, then DCI
Deutch - Limited exp, a Deputy Sec. of Defence, then DCI
Tenet - Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, then DCI
Goss - CIA 60-71, Politician (mayor to US Rep), DCI
Negroponte - Career Diplomat, Ambassador, DNI
McConnel & Hayden - Military Intelligence Backgrounds, DNI, DCI

Personally, I feel in most cases if anyone at the CIA is ready to cut and run, they are not true patriots, and only political animals. I understand being apprehensive, but Admiral Turner is an example of who you would expect to be good, but made a mistake that hurt us. I say wait and see. And even in the CIA, at this level, they're basically managers and figureheads.

That's all I've got to say, I'm not going to get in a pissin' contest.

[Rooney]

What's the feedback on Adm. Dennis Blair as national intelligence director?

Panetta seems like an odd, odd choice.

Geoff

Here's the wiki article on him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_C._Blair

And heres a businessweek bio that goes into more detail.

http://investing.businessweek.com/businessweek/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=3263814&capId=107534&previousCapId=107534&previousTitle=Tyco%20International%20Ltd.

He was the Commander of my battle group when I was on the Kitty Hawk. He seemed like a very straight up officer and was very diligent at his duties, from what I remember.

[tacticalguy]

Well, I am going to toss my .02 in. I understand that Leon may not be many in the intelligence community's first choice. The problem from what I understand is, who hasn't been tarred with the same water-boarding brush? All of the senior people who have been in place for the last 8 years are linked. Any of those people who are eminently qualified aren't getting the job, for that reason. Go out of the House? NSA? FBI? Are there other qualified people out there? Sure. Leon has name recognition. And we're selling the American people a can of Coke. Do you have some blonde from down the block do it? Or do you get Britney Spears? Just my thoughts.

[SecTrainer]

I'm not defending Panetta as a choice, he wouldn't have been my pick. But it seems you have a very short memory, or is it just selective? Since the 70's, many of the CIA directors have had limited experience, basically a political background. I didn't look further back then the 70's, for no particular reason. Previous may have been the same or not.

G.H.W.Bush - Congressman, Ambassador, Chairman of RNC, DCI
Adm. Turner - Military, then DCI. Cut HUMINT by 800, while promoting TECHINT and SIGINT. We know the cuts were a mistake.
Casey - OSS in WWII, then lawyer, and non-intel gov't positions, DCI
Webster - Director of FBI, then DCI
Gates - CIA, then DCI
Woolsey - Foriegn Policy, Military Policy Background, then DCI
Deutch - Limited exp, a Deputy Sec. of Defence, then DCI
Tenet - Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, then DCI
Goss - CIA 60-71, Politician (mayor to US Rep), DCI
Negroponte - Career Diplomat, Ambassador, DNI
McConnel & Hayden - Military Intelligence Backgrounds, DNI, DCI

Personally, I feel in most cases if anyone at the CIA is ready to cut and run, they are not true patriots, and only political animals. I understand being apprehensive, but Admiral Turner is an example of who you would expect to be good, but made a mistake that hurt us. I say wait and see. And even in the CIA, at this level, they're basically managers and figureheads.

That's all I've got to say, I'm not going to get in a pissin' contest.

I agree that we don't want a "pissin' contest" nor can I review here the history of the agency. I would just point out that some of the folks on the list you provide merely add fuel to the criticisms of Panetta as director because the agency did not do well under their leadership. By the same token, of course, we have to acknowledge that intelligence expertise does not guarantee leadership abilities so the argument can cut both ways.

I think that most who understand the culture of this agency and the complexity of the operations it is conducting around the world is very uneasy about this choice at a time when we can least afford a blunder in this arena. Certainly, there were much better choices available and Panetta wasn't on the "short list" of any of the intelligence experts that I'm aware of. Obama says Panetta was involved in intelligence as COS for Clinton, but others who were definitely involved in national security can't remember him being involved...and it would be a little odd if he had been in his role.

Well, the confirmation hearings will be interesting, at the very least. Meanwhile, I'm sure terrorists around the world are rejoicing at the legislation Feinstein, who uses a very large Swiss cheese for brains, introduced that will restrict the intelligence community to working under the Army interrogation manual and following the "rules of armed conflict". One only wonders how long it will be before she forces covert operatives to wear U.S. military uniforms - according to the "rules of armed conflict".

[integrator97]

. . . .

[integrator97]

I agree that we don't want a "pissin' contest" nor can I review here the history of the agency. I would just point out that some of the folks on the list you provide merely add fuel to the criticisms of Panetta as director because the agency did not do well under their leadership. By the same token, of course, we have to acknowledge that intelligence expertise does not guarantee leadership abilities so the argument can cut both ways.

I think that most who understand the culture of this agency and the complexity of the operations it is conducting around the world is very uneasy about this choice at a time when we can least afford a blunder in this arena. Certainly, there were much better choices available and Panetta wasn't on the "short list" of any of the intelligence experts that I'm aware of. Obama says Panetta was involved in intelligence as COS for Clinton, but others who were definitely involved in national security can't remember him being involved...and it would be a little odd if he had been in his role.

Well, the confirmation hearings will be interesting, at the very least. Meanwhile, I'm sure terrorists around the world are rejoicing at the legislation Feinstein, who uses a very large Swiss cheese for brains, introduced that will restrict the intelligence community to working under the Army interrogation manual and following the "rules of armed conflict". One only wonders how long it will be before she forces covert operatives to wear U.S. military uniforms - according to the "rules of armed conflict".

Feel free to rate them. It would be interesting to see if there is a definite correlation. Bear in mind that some of these inexperienced leaders served during the cold war. We couldn't afford blunders then either.

Feinstein has nothing to do with the conversation about Panetta. But I also think it's not suprising that the new congress or administration would do something to reign in torture. Did anyone not expect something like this? But if you want to go off on a tangent, we'll sit back and watch.

[SecTrainer]

Feel free to rate them. It would be interesting to see if there is a definite correlation. Bear in mind that some of these inexperienced leaders served during the cold war. We couldn't afford blunders then either.

Feinstein has nothing to do with the conversation about Panetta. But I also think it's not suprising that the new congress or administration would do something to reign in torture. Did anyone not expect something like this? But if you want to go off on a tangent, we'll sit back and watch.

"Tangent?" Gee, I thought we were having a discussion, but nice try at "poisoning the well" anyway.

Looking at your sig line, perhaps you should "park elsewhere"...this isn't a handicapped zone and the rest of us want to discuss the subject intelligently. And you've got a long 4 years ahead of you if you can't tolerate thoughtful questions about Obama's decisions as they're already coming - from both sides of the aisle.

[integrator97]

"Tangent?" Gee, I thought we were having a discussion, but nice try at "poisoning the well" anyway.

Looking at your sig line, perhaps you should "park elsewhere"...this isn't a handicapped zone and the rest of us want to discuss the subject intelligently.
Yea, I thought we were having an intelligent discussion on Panetta as DCI. The tangent is just your way of steering away from reasonable responses that don't agree with your opinions. Or is this going to be an everything that's wrong with the intelligence community thread?

Hmm, whenever there's something you don't like, I always seem to have that poison, and there's always a well. :rolleyes: But I'd like you to explain how I poisoned the well, or tried, if you're going to accuse.

BTW, I was serious if you want to rate them, but it wasn't a challenge. At a glance, it looks to me like the CIA hasn't fared better or worse under non-intelligence experts then it does under experts. In other words, the intelligence background alone, of the DCI hasn't meant good or bad for the CIA.

[SecTrainer]

Yea, I thought we were having an intelligent discussion on Panetta as DCI. The tangent is just your way of steering away from reasonable responses that don't agree with your opinions. Or is this going to be an everything that's wrong with the intelligence community thread?

Hmm, whenever there's something you don't like, I always seem to have that poison, and there's always a well. :rolleyes: But I'd like you to explain how I poisoned the well, or tried, if you're going to accuse.

BTW, I was serious if you want to rate them, but it wasn't a challenge. At a glance, it looks to me like the CIA hasn't fared better or worse under non-intelligence experts then it does under experts. In other words, the intelligence background alone, of the DCI hasn't meant good or bad for the CIA.


I've no idea where your "tangent" thing comes from. I merely said this was a matter of concern - as it is - and also said that on the other hand intelligence experience doesn't guarantee management ability "so the question could go both ways." Just how that's a "tangent" I'm sure no one on the forum can possibly understand.

Park elsewhere. I'm not going to deal with your childish tantrums every time someone raises a question or expresses some reservations about what the Obama administration does.

[integrator97]

I've no idea where your "tangent" thing comes from. I merely said this was a matter of concern - as it is - and also said that on the other hand intelligence experience doesn't guarantee management ability "so the question could go both ways." Just how that's a "tangent" I'm sure no one on the forum can possibly understand.

Park elsewhere. I'm not going to deal with your childish tantrums every time someone raises a question or expresses some reservations about what the Obama administration does.
Your tangent was going to Feinstein, when the discussion was Panetta and the administrations selection of him. Nice how deftly you avoided explaining the well.

Next time maybe you should call your thread "politicizing the CIA and supporting arguements to my comments only please. No real discussion is desired".

I will leave your thread to those who want to sit around with you and say: yes, sure, that's what I thought, uh-huh, you're absolutely correct.


Note: No offense is meant to those who agree with Sec Trainers OP, only to those who have no desire to hear alternate opinions.