Obama picks man with no experience for CIA

[Sea Demon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090106/wl_afp/uspoliticsobamaintelligence_090106030435

Political pick? I think so. We've seen Bush's FEMA pick as an inexperienced and reckless choice. What about this? This is far worse. Leon Panetta will be running the CIA. He has no experience in the intelligence community in any way. Nor does he have experience in anything similar. What the heck is Obama thinking? So basically our new President feels its more important to pay back friends than give value to the American taxpayer that funds it's operations.

[FIREWALL]

Demo Gloria Feinstein sure was miffed.

I think she thought she had it in the bag.

[AntEater]

After having read Weiners "Legacy of Ashes", I'd say:

1. The CIA as an institution is not what it was. It used to be primus inter pares, nowadays it is just one intelligence service of many, with many functions taken over by the Pentagon and private contractors.
The Office of DCI was abolished in 2005.

2. There's no one left with a real intelligence backround. The veteran officers that could've become the new head of the CIA were all pretty much burned by Iraqui weapons of mass destruction, failure to prevent 911, black sites and all that.
The only man left alive with real creds in intelligence and a (relatively) clean record is Bob Gates, and even he failed to predict the collapse of the USSR.
Also it is fitting that the US' most experienced intelligence officer is now SecDef, not head of the CIA, as the military does most of the intel work now.

3. From what I read about Panetta on the Wikipedia, he's a jurist and a bleeding heart liberal. Exactly what the CIA needs now.
After years of basically being permitted to do everything, somebody has to put them back into place.
Also, many administrations have given the post of DCI to people with zero intelligence experience. The most prominent example is George H. W. Bush.
AFAIK Robert Helms and Robert Gates were among the few DCIs who actually came from within the ranks of the service.

[Aramike]

Nation picks man with no experience for Presidency...

[Onkel Neal]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090106/wl_afp/uspoliticsobamaintelligence_090106030435

Political pick? I think so. We've seen Bush's FEMA pick as an inexperienced and reckless choice. What about this? This is far worse. Leon Panetta will be running the CIA. He has no experience in the intelligence community in any way. Nor does he have experience in anything similar. What the heck is Obama thinking? So basically our new President feels its more important to pay back friends than give value to the American taxpayer that funds it's operations.

Well, since we will be letting our guard down again, as we did under Clinton, it probably doesn't matter who heads the CIA. Anyway, the Messiah will speak face to face with the evil-doers and hope for change. :cool:

[baggygreen]

Well, since we will be letting our guard down again, as we did under Clinton, it probably doesn't matter who heads the CIA. Anyway, the Messiah will speak face to face with the evil-doers and hope for change. :cool:Well some of those crazies in the M.E. don't seem willing to play ball.

Didn't the SITE institute just release a tape of some wacko telling the muslim world that obama was a false man who brings absolutely no change to the US, and that the west will continue its crusade against islam, blah blah...?

How would mr Obama go havnig a face to face with these guys and hoping for change with them? I predict he would see change, if you have time to see the explosion from a suicide vest before one of these nutjobs he sits down with blows up...

[nikimcbee]

What I learned from the pick is this: We'll be attacked in 6 months.

[nikimcbee]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090106/wl_afp/uspoliticsobamaintelligence_090106030435

Political pick? I think so. We've seen Bush's FEMA pick as an inexperienced and reckless choice. What about this? This is far worse. Leon Panetta will be running the CIA. He has no experience in the intelligence community in any way. Nor does he have experience in anything similar. What the heck is Obama thinking? So basically our new President feels its more important to pay back friends than give value to the American taxpayer that funds it's operations.

Well, since we will be letting our guard down again, as we did under Clinton, it probably doesn't matter who heads the CIA. Anyway, the Messiah will speak face to face with the evil-doers and hope for change. :cool:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_dKaj1oOFv_c/SPdEkhVZViI/AAAAAAAAAhg/XiJlkAz0e8c/s400/Yes+we+can+-+Believe+Barack+Jones.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_dKaj1oOFv_c/SPdEkhVZViI/AAAAAAAAAhg/XiJlkAz0e8c/s1600-h/Yes+we+can+-+Believe+Barack+Jones.jpg)

[Christopher Snow]

For my part I'm holding out hope that the "Obama isn't eligible to BE president anyway" stuff has some merit to it.

Supreme Court, tomorrow (1-9-2009)

If Berg's case ISN'T heard tomorrow, then I think I might well give up on the whole thing.


CS

[Enigma]

Won't you all be disappointed of Obama is a good President, or the CIA director doesn't get us "attacked in 6 months". Some of you need to take a long hard look at yourselves....

[Enigma]

Niki, you've proved yourself over and over to have the ability to post a picture you found on the internet, 'scuse me, internetS, but as I've asked you before, with no response of course, do you have any substance? Any original thought? Anything you haven't been spoon fed? Or is a dumb picture from some half assed web site all you have? Just sayin.....

[nikimcbee]

Won't you all be disappointed of Obama is a good President, or the CIA director doesn't get us "attacked in 6 months". Some of you need to take a long hard look at yourselves....

now that is funny
:rotfl:

hope
hope
hope
hope
hope

[Enigma]

hope
hope
hope
hope
hope

Niki, you've proved yourself over and over to have the ability to post a picture you found on the internet, 'scuse me, internetS, but as I've asked you before, with no response of course, do you have any substance? Any original thought? Anything you haven't been spoon fed? Or is a dumb picture from some half assed web site all you have? Just sayin.....

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[Aramike]

Won't you all be disappointed of Obama is a good President, or the CIA director doesn't get us "attacked in 6 months". Some of you need to take a long hard look at yourselves....I doubt that anyone here would be disappointed if Obama has an effective presidency. People here aren't hoping to be hit by terrorism. They FEAR that Obama will leave us vulnerable to it due to Obama's own track-record.

I don't know how you contorted that fear into some perverse hope that we'd be hit, but alas...

Heh, besides, I thought it was the left that hoped for US failures... Didn't Harry Reid say "...this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday."

[nikimcbee]

Won't you all be disappointed of Obama is a good President, or the CIA director doesn't get us "attacked in 6 months". Some of you need to take a long hard look at yourselves....I doubt that anyone here would be disappointed if Obama has an effective presidency. People here aren't hoping to be hit by terrorism. They FEAR that Obama will leave us vulnerable to it due to Obama's own track-record.

I don't know how you contorted that fear into some perverse hope that we'd be hit, but alas...

Heh, besides, I thought it was the left that hoped for US failures... Didn't Harry Reid say "...this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday."

I think the problem is that he has zero experience, so who know's how he'll react. Looking at a different angle, I wonder how he'll react to another rwanda situation?

[AntEater]

And W. was prepared for national security policy by what experience?
Managing a baseball team?
The Texas air national guard?
Or does he somehow telepathically share the experiences of his father?
What previous experience did Reagan have?
Hollywood?

The only presidents with real experience in security/intelligence matters was Bush Senior.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

http://www.forumspile.com/Blank-Picard_Facepalm.jpg

Just let him get on with it for christ sake. He was voted into office, so has the same right as anyone to be there. If a terrorist attack is planned, there's very little to be done to stop it, short of completely closing off everything and waiting. These people arent ones who would be intimidated by the CIA or the FBI or the NSA, the simple fact of the matter is, there's only so much you can do.

A good analogy might be: If you step on one cockroach, three more take its place.

[Dowly]

Just let him get on with it for christ sake. He was voted into office, so has the same right as anyone to be there. If a terrorist attack is planned, there's very little to be done to stop it, short of completely closing off everything and waiting. These people arent ones who would be intimidated by the CIA or the FBI or the NSA, the simple fact of the matter is, there's only so much you can do.

A good analogy might be: If you step on one cockroach, three more take its place.
The Funky Ferret agrees with this post! :up:

[August]

Won't you all be disappointed of Obama is a good President, or the CIA director doesn't get us "attacked in 6 months". Some of you need to take a long hard look at yourselves....

No Enigma I won't be disappointed. I won't because this ismy country, my home, and I would never wish for the failure of it's elected government. Unlike the Democrats who practically cheered to every bit of bad news out of Iraq, to every difficulty George Bush experienced.

[SteamWake]

Isnt this guy another former Clintonista?

Is it just me or do I see a pattern here.

[Enigma]

No Enigma I won't be disappointed. I won't because this ismy country, my home, and I would never wish for the failure of it's elected government. Unlike the Democrats who practically cheered to every bit of bad news out of Iraq, to every difficulty George Bush experienced.

Yes, I see how supportive you are of your country, by spewing hatred of some 50% of it's citizens. (I.e= people like me.)

No, the Republicans would neeeever do what those dirty democrats do! I'm really tired of your nanny nanny boo boo tactics. It bores me to death. Moving on.....

[August]

No Enigma I won't be disappointed. I won't because this ismy country, my home, and I would never wish for the failure of it's elected government. Unlike the Democrats who practically cheered to every bit of bad news out of Iraq, to every difficulty George Bush experienced.
Yes, I see how supportive you are of your country, by spewing hatred of some 50% of it's citizens. (I.e= people like me.)

No, the Republicans would neeeever do what those dirty democrats do! I'm really tired of your nanny nanny boo boo tactics. It bores me to death. Moving on.....

Apples and oranges. You aren't an elected leader of my country Spanky. Do try to stay on topic...

[fatty]

What I learned from the pick is this: We'll be attacked in 6 months.

But I thought seven years of war had made the world such a safer place?

[SteamWake]

What I learned from the pick is this: We'll be attacked in 6 months.

But I thought seven years of war had made the world such a safer place?

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3427026&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/

[Enigma]

Apples and oranges. You aren't an elected leader of my country Spanky. Do try to stay on topic...

Ok, buckwheat.

[Aramike]

And W. was prepared for national security policy by what experience?
Managing a baseball team?
The Texas air national guard?
Or does he somehow telepathically share the experiences of his father?
What previous experience did Reagan have?
Hollywood?

The only presidents with real experience in security/intelligence matters was Bush Senior.In fact, that is true that most US Presidents don't have much experience in the way of national security.

That being said, it is therefore prudent to use historical precedence to predict what any given president may do. Doing so, we see that presidents on the left side of the aisle tend to weaken national security whereas presidents on the right side of the aisle tend to make it a priority.

Therefore, it is not at all unfounded that some people fear what an Obama Administration may do to our intelligence community and armed forces.

I know I do...

[fatty]

That being said, it is therefore prudent to use historical precedence to predict what any given president may do. Doing so, we see that presidents on the left side of the aisle tend to weaken national security whereas presidents on the right side of the aisle tend to make it a priority.


I'd be interested in hearing you expand on this a little more.

[Enigma]

Therefore, it is not at all unfounded that some people fear what an Obama Administration may do to our intelligence community and armed forces.

I know I do...

Wah. I lost. Wah.
:lol:

[Aramike]

That being said, it is therefore prudent to use historical precedence to predict what any given president may do. Doing so, we see that presidents on the left side of the aisle tend to weaken national security whereas presidents on the right side of the aisle tend to make it a priority.


I'd be interested in hearing you expand on this a little more.No problem. I'll start broadly.

To start, use the chart and statistics provided on this page: http://truthandpolitics.com/military-relative-size.php

Go from Nixon, to Carter, to Reagan, to Bush I, to Clinton, to Bush II and see if you can tell a difference. And, keep in mind that a percentage point isn't just $100.

...that's just military spending and doesn't even account for intel.

[Tchocky]

Well, GWB has spend massively on the military, and I'd say that he's weakened national security.

It's not like money is a reliable indicator. Military-industrial complexes are hugely wasteful, as are things like the TSA.

[Enigma]

Well, GWB has spend massively on the military, and I'd say that he's weakened national security.

It's not like money is a reliable indicator. Military-industrial complexes are hugely wasteful, as are things like the TSA.

:yep::yep::yep:

[AntEater]

I know I shouldnt post here as this is basically an american debate, but as someone interested in history.....
1. Military spending is not dependent on administration alone, but rather on the political situation.

- Nixon cut the military drastically, due to the Vietnam war
- Eisenhower was looking for a cheap cold war (nukes and covert action) instead of a WW2 scale full military build up
- Kennedy increased the funding over Eisenhower

So the deciding factor on military spending is not the party affiliation of the president, but rather the world situation.

2. Increased military spending does not automatically mean an increase in military capabilities

Today's pentagon is maybe the least effective military procurement system ever devised by any nation, especially with today's consultant firms and other private enterprise involved.
Its prime purpose is not to provide armed forces with weapons and logistics, but to generate profit for the persons involved.
Maybe the last president to really get some effect out of the military-industrial complex was Reagan, and in many ways the problems started with him.
Also, you don't need to spend so much all the time.
Clinton had the advantage that during his administration, all that Reagan era cold war stuff was brand new and he had lots of it for the now downsized US military.
Now even the youngest cold war equipment is over 20 years old and much of it needs replacing, hence more money has to be spent.

[fatty]

No problem. I'll start broadly.

To start, use the chart and statistics provided on this page: http://truthandpolitics.com/military-relative-size.php

Go from Nixon, to Carter, to Reagan, to Bush I, to Clinton, to Bush II and see if you can tell a difference. And, keep in mind that a percentage point isn't just $100.

...that's just military spending and doesn't even account for intel.

As a percentage of discretionary spending, it increases under Carter's Democrat administration by a few percentage points, and decreases under Nixon and Ford's Republican administrations by a whopping 21%, the outcome of their détente policies which lead to large-scale arms reductions....

[Aramike]

No problem. I'll start broadly.

To start, use the chart and statistics provided on this page: http://truthandpolitics.com/military-relative-size.php

Go from Nixon, to Carter, to Reagan, to Bush I, to Clinton, to Bush II and see if you can tell a difference. And, keep in mind that a percentage point isn't just $100.

...that's just military spending and doesn't even account for intel.

As a percentage of discretionary spending, it increases under Carter's Democrat administration by a few percentage points, and decreases under Nixon and Ford's Republican administrations by a whopping 21%, the outcome of their détente policies which lead to large-scale arms reductions....Are we looking at the same numbers? It DECREASED under Carter's administration.

I'm not going further back than that because modern democrats are not very similar to dems from about 50 years ago.Well, GWB has spend massively on the military, and I'd say that he's weakened national security.What, exactly, do you base this statement upon? Many people, myself included, believe that quite the opposite is true using verifiable facts as our reasonings.

Again, though - this is just military spending. Remember how Clinton practically dismantled the CIA? Or Carter's DISASTEROUS moves in the middle east?

[August]

I was in the Army for the last three years of Carter's term and the first 4 years of Reagan's and there was a vast difference in funding, morale, training, equipment... you name it, it got better once Reagan became CiC.

[fatty]

No problem. I'll start broadly.

To start, use the chart and statistics provided on this page: http://truthandpolitics.com/military-relative-size.php

Go from Nixon, to Carter, to Reagan, to Bush I, to Clinton, to Bush II and see if you can tell a difference. And, keep in mind that a percentage point isn't just $100.

...that's just military spending and doesn't even account for intel.

As a percentage of discretionary spending, it increases under Carter's Democrat administration by a few percentage points, and decreases under Nixon and Ford's Republican administrations by a whopping 21%, the outcome of their détente policies which lead to large-scale arms reductions....Are we looking at the same numbers? It DECREASED under Carter's administration.

I'm not going further back than that because modern democrats are not very similar to dems from about 50 years ago.

I'm citing whatever page you posted. The second table.

1976 51.2
1977 49.5
1978 47.8
1979 48.7
1980 48.7
1981 51.3
1982 57.0

A dip at the start of his administration but ends [slightly] higher than it began.

[August]

Aren't spending amounts listed actually decided by Congress the year before they are implemented?

Also ,which side controls Congress is important here since they are the ones who determine funding levels, not the Executive.

[fatty]

Also ,which side controls Congress is important here since they are the ones who determine funding levels, not the Executive.

Well, in that case, every house that sat under Reagan had a Democrat majority. So I guess they can claim at least some of credit for the renaissance that you experienced during your service?

[August]

Also ,which side controls Congress is important here since they are the ones who determine funding levels, not the Executive.
Well, in that case, every house that sat under Reagan had a Democrat majority. So I guess they can claim at least some of credit for the renaissance that you experienced during your service?

Sure, then again they are always happy to spend taxpayer money, especially when it land lucrative government building contracts in their districts, but just as or even more important than equipment is the direction from the top. As I said we could feel the difference in attitude between Carter and Reagan was striking.

[Aramike]

No problem. I'll start broadly.

To start, use the chart and statistics provided on this page: http://truthandpolitics.com/military-relative-size.php

Go from Nixon, to Carter, to Reagan, to Bush I, to Clinton, to Bush II and see if you can tell a difference. And, keep in mind that a percentage point isn't just $100.

...that's just military spending and doesn't even account for intel.

As a percentage of discretionary spending, it increases under Carter's Democrat administration by a few percentage points, and decreases under Nixon and Ford's Republican administrations by a whopping 21%, the outcome of their détente policies which lead to large-scale arms reductions....Are we looking at the same numbers? It DECREASED under Carter's administration.

I'm not going further back than that because modern democrats are not very similar to dems from about 50 years ago.

I'm citing whatever page you posted. The second table.

1976 51.2
1977 49.5
1978 47.8
1979 48.7
1980 48.7
1981 51.3
1982 57.0

A dip at the start of his administration but ends [slightly] higher than it began.Heh, then look at 1982. Bottom line is one must look at the AVERAGE of the term, however. There's no point in just looking at a single year as that is not representative of what the spending actually was throughout the term.

[Aramike]

Aren't spending amounts listed actually decided by Congress the year before they are implemented?

Also ,which side controls Congress is important here since they are the ones who determine funding levels, not the Executive.The federal budget is submitted to Congress by the President. Congress can then review and make changes to the budget, which then goes back to the White House for Presidential approval.

[August]

Aren't spending amounts listed actually decided by Congress the year before they are implemented?

Also ,which side controls Congress is important here since they are the ones who determine funding levels, not the Executive.The federal budget is submitted to Congress by the President. Congress can then review and make changes to the budget, which then goes back to the White House for Presidential approval.

So the spending level in any given year is actually a compromise between the two branches of government and not indicative of the preferences of the executive alone.

[fatty]

Heh, then look at 1982. Bottom line is one must look at the AVERAGE of the term, however. There's no point in just looking at a single year as that is not representative of what the spending actually was throughout the term.

So all that demonstrates is that Reagan's first year in office saw a small jump in the funds spent on defence. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that the left (whatever that is) is categorically worse for America's security.

[Aramike]

Heh, then look at 1982. Bottom line is one must look at the AVERAGE of the term, however. There's no point in just looking at a single year as that is not representative of what the spending actually was throughout the term.

So all that demonstrates is that Reagan's first year in office saw a small jump in the funds spent on defence. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that the left (whatever that is) is categorically worse for America's security."Small jump"? You're kidding, right?

The average percentage under Carter was 49.13%. Under Reagan it was 61.02%. And, AGAIN, that doesn't include intelligence spending.

Here's a great editorial with FACTS demonstrating why Democrats have been weak on defense: http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=247450843953666

The parts on Carter are awesome reading. Yet, the guy still gives speeches at Democratic conventions.

I mean, this isn't uncommon knowledge. Americans tend to vote Democrat when the key issues are domestic and Republican when the issues are national defense.

[Aramike]

Aren't spending amounts listed actually decided by Congress the year before they are implemented?

Also ,which side controls Congress is important here since they are the ones who determine funding levels, not the Executive.The federal budget is submitted to Congress by the President. Congress can then review and make changes to the budget, which then goes back to the White House for Presidential approval.

So the spending level in any given year is actually a compromise between the two branches of government and not indicative of the preferences of the executive alone.Technically, yes. However, Congress usually gives the Executive extensive leeway when it comes to budgeting, especially defense spending. This goes both ways regarding the parties.

That's why you typically see higher defense spending with those presidents who make it a priority.

[Frame57]

I was in the Army for the last three years of Carter's term and the first 4 years of Reagan's and there was a vast difference in funding, morale, training, equipment... you name it, it got better once Reagan became CiC.Yeah! I liked Ronnie. Remember that 12% pay raise we got. The very next day the base movie theater went up and so did the NCO club by about 20%.

[August]

I was in the Army for the last three years of Carter's term and the first 4 years of Reagan's and there was a vast difference in funding, morale, training, equipment... you name it, it got better once Reagan became CiC.Yeah! I liked Ronnie. Remember that 12% pay raise we got. The very next day the base movie theater went up and so did the NCO club by about 20%.

I forgot about the pay raise. Now that you reminded me they also increased the Airborne pay from $50 to $100 per month. First raise since WW2.

[SteamWake]

Wait till you see whom he has tapped as the "Global Warming Czar" (as if we need such a thing)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/

[nikimcbee]

Did you see who bo has chosen as his surgeon general, some guy from cnn. Cnn was all excited that he picked him.:roll:

[SteamWake]

Did you see who bo has chosen as his surgeon general, some guy from cnn. Cnn was all excited that he picked him.:roll:

Meh.. CNN gets excited when Barry gets up in the morning.

[baggygreen]

Does this CNN bloke have any medical experience? I can understand to an extent any old bureaucrat being elevated to most roles, but Surgeon-General, I would've thought 25 years medical experience would be a bare minimum?