Obama's Cabinet and Staff

[lostfan]

Leon Panetta CIA head in waiting.

 

 

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01...ia-director/?hp

That's a garbage ass pick IMO. Smells like a political appointment. Politics has NO place in intelligence WHATSOEVER, if the two don't line up, the IC doesn't adjust itself, the politicians need to.

[Balta1701]

That's a garbage ass pick IMO. Smells like a political appointment. Politics has NO place in intelligence WHATSOEVER, if the two don't line up, the IC doesn't adjust itself, the politicians need to.

I think the logic is pretty simple.

 

The fact is, the last 8 years (Drink!), the CIA has corrupted itself to the core by supporting Bush's torture program and his illegal warrantless wiretapping program, not to mention the fact that they took the blame for Bush's Iraq debacle. If you basically say that you need someone who comes in with a clean slate to rebuild, you're not left with many options.

 

It's probably worth pointing out that there is a history of CIA directors not being appointees from within the agency. Stansfield M. Turner, John M. Deutch, John McCone and George H.W. Bush serve as some examples.

 

On the other hand...I agree with you on a different level, because we saw in 2003 exactly what happens when you allow facts to be "Fixed" around a policy by intelligence directors willing to sell their souls on behalf of a politician who's support they want.

 

In this case, I think that given the war crimes that have occurred on the watch of the people running that organization in the last 8 years (Drink!), I'm willing to risk some political interference in the intelligence agency if it gives them a fresh start and puts an end to Bush's torture programs. But on this...yes, we must be cautious.

[lostfan]

I think the logic is pretty simple.

 

The fact is, the last 8 years (Drink!), the CIA has corrupted itself to the core by supporting Bush's torture program and his illegal warrantless wiretapping program, not to mention the fact that they took the blame for Bush's Iraq debacle. If you basically say that you need someone who comes in with a clean slate to rebuild, you're not left with many options.

 

It's probably worth pointing out that there is a history of CIA directors not being appointees from within the agency. Stansfield M. Turner, John M. Deutch, John McCone and George H.W. Bush serve as some examples.

 

On the other hand...I agree with you on a different level, because we saw in 2003 exactly what happens when you allow facts to be "Fixed" around a policy by intelligence directors willing to sell their souls on behalf of a politician who's support they want.

 

In this case, I think that given the war crimes that have occurred on the watch of the people running that organization in the last 8 years (Drink!), I'm willing to risk some political interference in the intelligence agency if it gives them a fresh start and puts an end to Bush's torture programs. But on this...yes, we must be cautious.

You hate my liver.

 

I didn't so much want the appointment to come from within the CIA, in fact I don't really care about the CIA as it's just one section of a big picture (as much as they like to think of themselves as the picture itself), I just want the guy to know his way around the community like the back of his hand. Bush 41 for example, he knew his stuff, he was the US ambassador to China at the time I think. This guy could very well know, but I still smell politics, and I don't like it. As an intel professional there is probably nothing worse for morale than having politics shoved down your throat and being forced to conform. I don't really have any problems with who he picked as DNI though, he seems pretty sharp.

[Balta1701]

You hate my liver.

 

I didn't so much want the appointment to come from within the CIA, in fact I don't really care about the CIA as it's just one section of a big picture (as much as they like to think of themselves as the picture itself), I just want the guy to know his way around the community like the back of his hand. Bush 41 for example, he knew his stuff, he was the US ambassador to China at the time I think. This guy could very well know, but I still smell politics, and I don't like it. As an intel professional there is probably nothing worse for morale than having politics shoved down your throat and being forced to conform. I don't really have any problems with who he picked as DNI though, he seems pretty sharp.

To speak directly to Panetta's qualifications, he has served on the board of the National Security think tank "Center for National Policy" and he was a member of the "Bush is going to listen to us!" Iraq study group. He has also spoken out Vehemently on Mr. Bush's torture and spying programs.

 

His past suggests he may be more of a budget person, but there's also talk that a major overhaul of intelligence spending is long past due.

[Balta1701]

On a different appointment, not only does IU get the head spot at the Office of Legal Counsel (torture-king John Yoo's position), but her title at IU actually includes the word "Batman".

[NorthSideSox72]

I think the logic is pretty simple.

 

The fact is, the last 8 years (Drink!), the CIA has corrupted itself to the core by supporting Bush's torture program and his illegal warrantless wiretapping program, not to mention the fact that they took the blame for Bush's Iraq debacle. If you basically say that you need someone who comes in with a clean slate to rebuild, you're not left with many options.

 

It's probably worth pointing out that there is a history of CIA directors not being appointees from within the agency. Stansfield M. Turner, John M. Deutch, John McCone and George H.W. Bush serve as some examples.

 

On the other hand...I agree with you on a different level, because we saw in 2003 exactly what happens when you allow facts to be "Fixed" around a policy by intelligence directors willing to sell their souls on behalf of a politician who's support they want.

 

In this case, I think that given the war crimes that have occurred on the watch of the people running that organization in the last 8 years (Drink!), I'm willing to risk some political interference in the intelligence agency if it gives them a fresh start and puts an end to Bush's torture programs. But on this...yes, we must be cautious.

I've done quite a bit of reading, and speaking with a few insiders, in the last few years, regarding CIA. My impression is that the single biggest problem there, in terms of their assesment results, isn't necessarily political influence. Certainly that plays a big part in some areas, and it can amplify other problems in a big way.

 

But the biggest flaw appears to be philosophical. Specifically, the intelligence analysts and low/mid-level decision makers SHOULD be questioning EVERYTHING they see. Instead, the culture (in some sections at least) embraces the opposite - some data comes across, a theory is built, its exciting, and its propelled up the line with great enthusiasm. People who say "wait, what is really going on here" are bullied to quiet, and the sexy theories bubble to the top, whether or not they are strong. Curveball was a perfect example of this.

 

CIA needs a culture shift. That has to start from the top of course, but it also has to fliter down through the ranks. You need a very good manager of bureaucrats to do that, but also someone who understands the nature of the intelligence community. Seems like Panetta is the former, but not the latter.

 

[lostfan]

Gates is/was someone who does both.

 

IIRC if you go back to say Vietnam, the CIA was dead-on with a lot of their negative assessments but they weren't in favor with the Johnson administration, they wanted to hear roses and sunshine.

 

You're absolutely right about the questioning everything though - you almost never believe any of your theories 100% unless you know them to be fact somehow. When you write, it's in this careful estimative language that leaves open the possibility that it's wrong. If you ever say "this is" or "this is not" that's a big deal, and you better be prepared to back that up if it's not something that's universally accepted as true (e.g., UBL runs al-Qaida).

[bmags]

my TPM obligatory, pro Obama copy paste. per TPM blog (talkingpointsmemo.com):

And from a career intel professional ...

 

I have 29 years of experience in the intel business both in government and as a consultant / contractor to the government. I recently retired after those 29 years as a Navy Captain (Intel). I have served with many in the "national intel community" and served on the WMD commission in 2004-05. This is my cred, now for my comment.

I think there is a lot more here than is being said. I believe that Feinstein did not want someone like Panetta who has a large and independent power base and network. If you get a career guy they are a lot easier to isolate and move around. Panetta has been around for a long time and has his own network. I actually think that it is a good choice. He knows how intelligence needs to be presented to the President - that is the critical issue here.

 

I do not discount the notion that many in the CIA feel slighted by the creation of the DNI and not being the "premier" agency anymore, at least when one looks at the totem pole. But if you look at the PDB more than 80% of the product still originates from the DI. It is the gold standard of intelligence agencies, both here and abroad. As a old colleague once said to me: there are a lot of jewels in the crown of the United States government but there are only a few large critical ones: CIA DI, NASA, NIH, State; that is where the intellectual might of the government is.

 

The issue is not intell guy or non-intell guy. The big issue for Blair and Panetta is strategic or tactical orientation. We are fighting two wars and the warfighter always screams they don't have enough intel or enough of anything for that matter. The dice are so loaded for support to the warfighter that critical strategic intelligence for the President and other senior leaders goes wanting due to time constraints on collection assets.

 

We need a significant re-orientation away from tactical support by CIA and other National agencies and back to their primary mission - direct intelligence support to the President. The last 15 years have seen an explosion of tactical intelligence capability with the advent of UAVs (which DoD fought against for so long due to the fighter pilot mentality). National systems need to be re-oriented to national priorities and away from tactical or operational desires of the warfighter.

 

I think the Panetta selection is another indication of the change coming. I was concerned that the selection of Jones as National Security Advisor and Blair as DNI underscored the great concern that I have about the militarization of intelligence. The selection of Panetta, with a much wider and deeper power base than either of them, makes me hopeful in this regard. Panetta is a skilled operator, he knows how to get things done. He knows how to get a budget approved and to make the wheels of government work. He will be a force - both in the Administration and on the Hill -- much larger than any career guy could be. This is good. It gives the CIA the opportunity to re-create itself within the current structure.

 

 

[kapkomet]

Panetta is good to all Dems because he will do things according to their way of thinking. Duh.

 

[Balta1701]

CNN's Sanjay Gupta for Surgeon General?

[jasonxctf]

CNN's Sanjay Gupta for Surgeon General?

 

love it!!!

[mr_genius]

love it!!!

 

Controversy ensues.

 

Gupta disagreed with Michael Moore on Health care and debated Mr. Moore on CNN. The left wing is angry at the appointment.

Edited January 10, 2009 by mr_genius

[southsider2k5]

Controversy ensues.

 

Gupta disagreed with Michael Moore on Health care and debated Mr. Moore on CNN. The left wing is angry at the appointment.

 

Apparently it was over universal health care which Gupta took the arguments of Moore's film and argued against them. I would kind of surprised if Obama really did want someone against universal coverage in office.

[NorthSideSox72]

Apparently it was over universal health care which Gupta took the arguments of Moore's film and argued against them. I would kind of surprised if Obama really did want someone against universal coverage in office.

You can be against Moore's views, and still support universal coverage in some fashion. I think the Gupta request makes it appear that's exactly Obama's view.

 

[bmags]

Or just that Gupta would be a great communicator as Surgeon General.

[NorthSideSox72]

Or just that Gupta would be a great communicator as Surgeon General.

That too. And other factors I'm sure.

 

 

[Cknolls]

Will this pose a problem?

 

 

 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzJjO...jhlMWQ2MWZiNTA=

 

 

 

Filling out re-imbursement forms for taxes you didn't pay seems like more than an oversight, no?

Edited January 15, 2009 by Cknolls

[NorthSideSox72]

Will this pose a problem?

 

 

 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzJjO...jhlMWQ2MWZiNTA=

 

 

 

Filling out re-imbursement forms for taxes you didn't pay seems like more than an oversight, no?

This has the potential to take away some of Obama's cross-aisle political capital. The smart move here is to ask Geithner to withdraw, and then Obama gets another nominee. Or do the same thing via the back door - quietly allow Geithner to fail in the confirmation process.

 

[bmags]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9011403682.html

 

not really. Geithner isn't a democrat pick, he's one of the most qualified candidates for this position.

 

further, there is 58 (soon 59) dem. senators, you think any of his people are really going to fail?

Edited January 15, 2009 by bmags

[lostfan]

A simple majority is all that's needed to confirm, no? More yeas than nays?

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9011403682.html

 

not really. Geithner isn't a democrat pick, he's one of the most qualified candidates for this position.

 

further, there is 58 (soon 59) dem. senators, you think any of his people are really going to fail?

The fact that he was a bridge pick makes it even more likely he'll run into problems now. GOP'ers will be upset, Dems were already not so happy. And if they want him in (the Dems), obviously, he gets in. That's my point. If they want him to fail now, they may elect to let him fall out that way. If, again, that is what they want.

 

[lostfan]

It's too bad, because Geithner is otherwise an excellent pick.

[Balta1701]

It's too bad, because Geithner is otherwise an excellent pick.

Everything I've read or seen so far still suggests he'll be confirmed.

[bmags]

hmmm...I posted an article.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's too bad, because Geithner is otherwise an excellent pick.

The guy skipped out on thousands in taxes over multiple years, and took offset money for payments he didn't make. And, again I point out, this is the TREASURY secretary nominee we are talking about. I don't care if everything else is perfect, to me, this make him a non-starter. Unfortunately, he will probably be confirmed anyway.

 

Its funny, people yell about things like Richardson maybe steering funds to a certain campaign-friendly construction company, or the Clintons getting campaign money from places that were benefited by government actions. Those are accusations unproven, and even if true, are not (IMO) at as bad a level as knowingly evading large amounts of taxes, which is what Geithner did.