Lawmakers demand intelligence experience (CIA)
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Dianne Feinstein – like Mr. Panetta, a California Democrat – issued a statement saying “my position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time.”
An aide to the current chairman of the committee, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia Democrat, said his boss had similar concerns.
“He believes the director of the CIA needs to have significant intelligence experience,” the aide said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. Read More
Why now lawmakers? You didn’t demand intelligence experience when you supported Barack Obama for president. See its unexperience picking the unexperience!
LINKS:
(1) Clinton Chief Of Scandal To Head CIA Even key Democrats are concerned that the agency under fire for intelligence failures involving the 2001 terrorist attacks and the Iraq war will be headed by a scandal-plagued Clinton Administration official with no intelligence experience
Barack Obama’s controversial choice to head the Central Intelligence Agency—Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta—has caused quite an uproar among high-ranking members of his own party.
(2) Biden: Not consulting Senate on Panetta “a mistake”
(3) Obama’s CIA Pick from “Left Field” Agents Say; President-Elect Wants It That Way
A little more experience in the workings of the intelligence community would probably be best. But, given the woefully inadequate response of the intelligence community in the last decade or so, a total outsider might not be a horrible choice, either.
Panetta has been around the block a few times, and he served on congressional intelligence panels in the past. And he was a member of the Iraq Study Group. So he’s not as stupid as, say, your average blogger.
As Bill Clinton’s chief of staff he was involved in a variety of scandals, including a massive illegal foreign campaign donation scheme that exchanged sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom for millions of dollars in contributions. Panetta was also heavily involved in Clinton’s affair with a young intern (Monica Lewinsky) who actually worked in the chief of staff’s office. Read More
“Panetta was also heavily involved in Clinton’s affair with a young intern (Monica Lewinsky) who actually worked in the chief of staff’s office. ”
Yeah. What a crock.
Panetta had already stepped down as Clinton’s chief of staff when the Lewinsky affair broke. And Panetta took a lot of flak for openly calling upon his old boss, Clinton, to come clean with the American public instead of stonewalling.
And for trying to do the right thing, Panetta gets tarred by rightwingnut bloggers saying he was”heavily involved” in the Lewinsky affair.
Twist, turn, spin any way you want: President Barack Obama in two weeks.
di, you may want to refresh your memory, say at Wikipedia. Bro Bill was “not having sex with” Lewinsky from Nov 95 to Mar 97. Panetta was Chief of Staff until Jan 97. In fact, since Monica started as an intern, Panetta was probably her boss. Hard to believe he didn’t know what was going on. Still, it’s important for the Director of Central Intelligence to be able to keep a secret, so he’s got that going for him.
Yeah, every boss knows exactly what’s going on with his subordinates and his own boss.
It’s getting quite sickening to see you guys cavalierly throw out terms like he “probably” was her boss and it was “hard to believe” he didn’t know, and having all those assumptions somehow be transformed into “facts” in your fantasy world.
Would it cross your mind that, even if he did know, Panetta may have thought that this was Clinton’s business, not his? (Which it was.) Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Panetta suspected, or even knew, of the affair, how does that translate into his being “heavily involved”?
This extremist partisanship is exactly what’s wrong with this country right now. Heck, if Jesus returned to earth and announced he was a Democrat, you’d immediately convert to Buddhism.
When can we get back to looking at people for who they are, instead of looking for ways of trashing them?
When can we get back to looking at people for who they are, instead of looking for ways of trashing them?
Can I forward that to “Bushie”?
So, back to Leon, which of your suggestions do you think more plausible? 1) Panetta, as WH Chief of Staff, didn’t know what was going on in the Oval Office, or 2) Panetta, as WH Chief of Staff, did know what was going on, but decided to ignore a potentially explosive scandal.
As a matter of fact, I thought Panetta an OK choice for DCI, but now that you’ve pointed out to us that he’s either a nincompoop or an irresponsible executive, I’m having second thoughts.
So what if Panetta did know about Lewinski? What would you have had him do, in that situation? Blow (pardon the expression) the whistle on the President? For all any of us know, that might have been why Panetta resigned. In any event, what Clinton did was not a national issue UNTIL he chose to commit perjury in furtherance of his deceptions.
How, in any unbiased view, can anyone claim that Panetta was “heavily involved” in the Lewinski affair? At worst, you might claim that Panetta knew or should have known about Lewinski. How does that translate into being “heavily involved”?
Answer: It clearly doesn’t, unless you’re a rightwingnut with an ax to grind.
And as for Bushie, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Hell, I VOTED for him in 2000. But, aftre paying clser attention to what the guy was about, and after reading numerous books about his administration, and paying close attention to what he was trying to do to public education, I came to the conclusion that the guy is a dishonest nitwit. It wasn’t a snap judgment at all.
Fair enough. Just now reviewed the Starr Report. Panetta’s West Wing Office was used for assignations and even for the famous Unveiling Of The Thong. Also, Panetta’s deputy was the agent of Monica’s departure for a Pentagon job, with Panetta’s approval. No evidence here that Panetta tried to do anything about the situation until his deputy decided on some proactive damage control. So, while it may be unfair to say Panetta was “heavily involved,” I think it is fair to say, as you’ve noted, that he was either remarkably oblivious or a passive enabler of his boss’ self-destructive ways. Neither version of his actions recommends him for DCI. Thanks for the tip!
And, as for giving a new president “the benefit of the doubt,” where is this doubt supposed to be coming from? What we can glean of Obama’s history suggests an unwholesome sympathy for radical socialists and more or less violent anti-Americans and a nearly congential racial grudge. What we can’t glean of his history is due to his massive efforts at concealment. Why should we cut this guy any slack at all?