See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. ButAsForMe! » Another day, another clueless Clinton crony
2. Obama and his manboobs clueless again, picks another uber-cool Clinton retread with NO intelligence experience to head the CIA. | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
3. Is CIA’s Panetta NSA’s Berger or is Obama marching to Bin Laden’s orders? « Mark Epstein
4. Today’s Coup De Grâce « Jane Q. Republican
5. The Media, Not Obama, Will Overreach « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
6. Obama’s Cabinet continues to stumble « Wellsy’s World
7. Op For
8. Leon E. Panetta to head Central Intelligence Agency, Some Dems not happy | Political Byline
9. Jules Crittenden » Keep Your Friends Close
10. Feinstein wanted “intelligence” in CIA « America, You Asked For It!
11. ChooseTheHero.com » Blog Archive » Leon E. Panetta to head Central Intelligence Agency, Some Dems not happy
12. On Obama’s CIA Pick:Political considerations will trump competence and experience | Right Voices
13. Donklephant » Blog Archive » Say What You Will About the Tenets of Neo-Conservatism, At Least It’s An Ethos
14. Jeremiah Films
15. Another day, another clueless Clinton crony « Top Daily Digest Reading
16. Transformers 2: With the Spirit of Obama « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #583632
   On January 5th, 2009 at 4:49 pm, MTConservative said:

   I startin’ to get a reeeeaaaaallll bad feelin’ about this Obama guy . . .

2. #583633
   On January 5th, 2009 at 4:49 pm, MTConservative said:

3. #583634
   On January 5th, 2009 at 4:50 pm, MrOlympia said:

   Terrible appointment, but a great for our enemies!

4. #583636
   On January 5th, 2009 at 4:52 pm, rfjjulie said:

   Maybe Barry O can ask Vince Foster what torture is? This just keeps getting worse and worse.

5. #583638
   On January 5th, 2009 at 4:54 pm, bradley said:

   Being unqualified for the position is the only qualification, apparently, for any Democrat from the top down. Of course, Obama COULD just appoint all his corrupt black cronies from Chicago and finish it.
   Hopenchange actually means “Clinton Administration II”. I wonder if Obama will find Monica a job in the White House too? Bill probably still has her phone number, maybe he could get it from him.

6. #583639
   On January 5th, 2009 at 4:54 pm, letget said:

   Wonder what is under a rock of Penetta? It seems bho has a almost uncanny knack everyone he has named has a shaddy past. I’m sure if there are things to be found, it will be found by MM, HA, etc.
   L

7. #583648
   On January 5th, 2009 at 5:05 pm, simcoe said:

   Clinton years redux.

   But, it’s not all bad. If it’s so, there’s no reason for conservatives to get caught off guard. By studying the history of the cronies previous moves our POL’s should be there to head them off and beat them at the game.

8. #583652
   On January 5th, 2009 at 5:06 pm, Mixer14 said:

   On January 5th, 2009 at 5:05 pm, simcoe said:
   Clinton years redux.

   Yup. We’re (democrat) partying like it’s 1999!

9. #583655
   On January 5th, 2009 at 5:10 pm, seveneleventy said:

   WTF is going on? This must be PeBO’s Harriet Myers mulligan.

10. #583658
    On January 5th, 2009 at 5:11 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    Mr. Panetta … has little hands-on intelligence experience.

    More correct now.

11. #583660
    On January 5th, 2009 at 5:13 pm, EonTopaz10 said:

    I’m sorry, but this appointment makes no sense at all. Most of the previous ones I could see the justification, even if I disagreed with it. This one is senseless.

    So how many days till our first “Intelligence Failure”? I’m going to say it happens by day 100.

12. #583661
    On January 5th, 2009 at 5:14 pm, Jimnospin said:

    My idea to fly my flag upside down after January 20 is looking better and better every day!

13. #583671
    On January 5th, 2009 at 5:27 pm, MTNEER said:

    Leon Panetta is going to provide Obama with the intellegence reporting he WANTS, not what he SHOULD HAVE. I forsee a near wholesale reduction in the number of experienced CIA analysts. They will be replaced by bureaucratic hacks who know what the boss wants to hear.

14. #583675
    On January 5th, 2009 at 5:30 pm, Durangodarlin said:

    These friends-of-Clinton appointments just shows what a rookie the President-Elect is. He hasn’t been at this political stuff long enough to acquire any real buds of his own.

15. #583682
    On January 5th, 2009 at 5:31 pm, Durangodarlin said:

    This will be a fun and interesting 4 years. Reid and Pelosi will run circles around this guy.

16. #583697
    On January 5th, 2009 at 5:40 pm, jenmom said:

    So much for “hope and change” and not being your typical politician and coming in from the outside! All Obama has done is just put in a bunch of Clinton people. So, what are the dim Democrats who voted for him thinking now? Hmmm…he sure pulled a fast one on all you Dems!

17. #583702
    On January 5th, 2009 at 5:45 pm, Paul-Cincy said:

    Leon Panetta? I’ve heard that name before. Somewhere. Can’t place it.

18. #583706
    On January 5th, 2009 at 5:47 pm, behiker said:

    If confirmed by the Senate

    If the NYT admits he “has little hands-on intelligence experience”, what would it take for the Senate not to confirm him? Who do we need to start calling… crap, I’m in Virginia, I’m stuck with Webb and M. Warner. I miss living in a red state already.

19. #583709
    On January 5th, 2009 at 5:49 pm, Paul-Cincy said:

    I sense a pattern in Obama’s appointments. By and large they have a very well-crafted public personna. Like Obama himself. It’s a cabinet of rock stars, a veritable Comstock Lode of celebrities.

20. #583712
    On January 5th, 2009 at 5:50 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    Leon Panetta IS one oily political hack that is to be sure with his only qualification being a Obama sycophant. But this quote:
    

    the C.I.A., an agency that has been unwelcoming to previous directors perceived as outsiders, such as Stansfield M. Turner and John M. Deutch

    The CIA has set itself up as a shadow government beholden only to itself. Like much of the Federal Bureaucracy it is filled with left leaning government only loyal dead heads. Until WE can get back in and have a President with the stones to clean house I am sure Leon Panetta will fit right in at Butt Covering.

    our first “Intelligence Failure”?

    100 days seems about right.

21. #583714
    On January 5th, 2009 at 5:51 pm, zorro said:

    We are so screwed.

    Pray for our men and women in the field who may have to take direction from this, this novice.

22. #583715
    On January 5th, 2009 at 5:52 pm, right_on said:

    Leon Panetta will head Obama’s CIA

    The CIA in this case, it is the “Clintonian Inept Associates.” What better way to avoid investigations/prosecutions, than to have your own people in the positions which to deflect them? It worked with Janet Reno, did it not?

    Remind me again…who was elected Queen President? More and more change? Hillary gets her (own) administration after all…unless the pusillanimous members of the Republican Party grow a spine, and actually delve into the Clinton Family closet of skeletons.

    The associations they have with the Chinese Government, the Russian oil Baron, and Middle Eastern oil magnates (political campaign contributors, all) should disqualify her, once and all, from ever holding federal office again.

23. #583719
    On January 5th, 2009 at 5:53 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    In regards to the man making this selection…

    Fact Checking Annenberg Political Fact Check

    They made at least two very clear factual errors.

24. #583722
    On January 5th, 2009 at 5:57 pm, lgm said:

    If you’re a conservative, you think the CIA botched the Iraq invasion intelligence, so that the agency is incompetent and needs an outside leader.

    If you’re a liberal, you think the agency has become corrupt after 8 years of Bush and needs a house cleaning.

    Either way, a competent outside administrator will be good for the agency. That’s what Panetta is.

25. #583723
    On January 5th, 2009 at 5:58 pm, et said:

    Every Clintinista appointed to the Obama administration makes Barry look more and more like an affirmative action pick surrounded by his minders.

26. #583726
    On January 5th, 2009 at 6:02 pm, derekinseoul said:

    this is insane!!!!! he was part of the group of idiots who did nothing except gut the intel community throughout the 90’s and led to multiple attacks which ultimately brought down the WTC!!!

    this is scary but at the same time expected with the large exodous of qualified agents heading for the hills in fear of another clinton administration

27. #583731
    On January 5th, 2009 at 6:06 pm, Kevin K. said:

    I’m seeing government of the liberal democrats, by the liberal democrats, and for the liberal democrats. WE are being given the privilege of paying for it all.

28. #583733
    On January 5th, 2009 at 6:12 pm, prendad said:

    Gee, I was hoping they would bring the Sopranos seris back with some new episodes. My wish has been granted! Coming, in January 2009, THE SOPRANOS, FEDERAL-STYLE!

29. #583738
    On January 5th, 2009 at 6:18 pm, simcoe said:

    Sounds like Barry is sitting down and studying on who would be the best in this or that position. However, odds are that all these clintonistas back in the mix was the price he had to pay to the Clinton machine for his presidency.

    The machine is running smooth and quiet.

    Guess who’s in control!

30. #583741
    On January 5th, 2009 at 6:23 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    On January 5th, 2009 at 6:06 pm, Kevin K. said:

    I’m seeing government of the liberal democrats, by the liberal democrats, and for the liberal democrats. WE are being given the privilege of paying for it all.

    Replace “liberal democrats” with “Democratic Socialist Communists” or “Communist Party” …

    government of the Communist Party, by the Communist Party, and for the Communist Party.

    Seriously, tell me how the priorities of the Democrat[ic Socialist] Party are any different from the priorities of the Communist Party USA:

    The Communist Party USA is the party of and for the U.S. working class, a class which is multiracial, multinational, and unites men and women, young and old, employed and unemployed, organized and unorganized, gay and straight, native-born and immigrant, urban and rural, and composed of workers who perform a large range of physical and mental labor—the vast majority of our society. We are the party of the African American, Mexican American, Puerto Rican, all other Latino American, Native American, Asian American, and all racially and nationally oppressed peoples, as well as women, youth, and all other working people.

    The living standards of workers and the natural environment on which life depends are under constant attack due to the drive for maximum profits inherent in capitalism. Our party fights for jobs and economic security, a decent and rising standard of living, peace, justice, equality, a sustainable environment, gay rights, health care, education, affordable housing, the needs of seniors, democracy, and a fulfilling life for everyone, with socialism as our goal. Only through the abolition of the capitalist system and the socialist reorganization of society can exploitation of human beings by others, and the evils of oppression, war, racism, environmental degradation, and poverty be ended. We seek to build a socialist society which puts people and nature before profits.

    Our country’s founding Revolution exalted the ideals of equality, justice, and democracy, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. Marxists have long hailed its progressive significance, while recognizing its historical limitations, chief of which was the failure to abolish slavery. The Communist Party today upholds the continuing struggle to realize these ideals. The revolutionary democratic traditions of the United States call for radical change when injustice, inequality, and exploitation become unbearably oppressive. This legacy gives us, the working class and its allies, the right and responsibility to build a new society. We advocate an expanded Bill of Rights to guarantee religious, political, and individual freedoms, but also freedom from poverty, hunger, joblessness, and racism.

    Racism plays a particularly destructive role in the life of our country, imposing severely impoverished living standards on tens of millions of the specially oppressed, and lowering the quality of life for all workers. Racism harms all workers, obstructing the development of working-class consciousness, driving wedges in class unity to divert attention from class exploitation, and creating extra profits for the capitalist class. The Communist Party is unalterably opposed to all manifestations of racism, national oppression, U.S. national chauvinism, male supremacy, homophobia, and anti-Semitism, which are used by the enemies of progress to divide the working class and people’s forces. The principles of democracy, equality, justice, and class self-interest require a joint fight against all expressions of racism and gender oppression. We fight for full equality for all who suffer from racial, national, and gender oppression as an essential aspect of the unity that is basic to all social progress.

    Issues of war and peace, wealth and poverty, ecology and pollution, racial and national division, gender discrimination, and international conflict are all connected to class struggle, and have common features on which to build unity among peoples, organizations, and coalitions. The working class as the necessary leading force along with the other core forces—all racially and nationally oppressed groups, women, and youth—can build a movement that also includes the many streams of our working people—such as family farmers, small business owners, and the self-employed—who united together have the power to make fundamental progressive change.

    Peace is essential for the survival of the planet and humanity. The pursuit of world domination to further enrich capitalists has resulted in destructive wars, environmental devastation, and massive poverty. The Communist Party fights for solidarity among the working class and peoples of all lands and supports their pursuit of self-determination over their own lands and economies. In the spirit of working-class internationalism, the Communist Party builds the closest bonds with Communist and Workers Parties throughout the world.

    Founded in Chicago in 1919, the Communist Party of the United States has an outstanding history in the struggles for peace, democratic rights, racial and gender equality, economic justice, union organization, and international solidarity. Our Party is organized on the principle of democratic centralism, combining maximum democratic discussion and decision-making with maximum unity of will and action, ensuring our ability to play a strong organizing role in the class struggle. We focus our efforts on increasing our ability to organize millions into struggle, fighting anti-communism as a divisive weapon of the capitalist class. With Marxism-Leninism guiding our actions, the Communist Party strives to build the broadest unity against global capitalist imperialism now headed by U.S. imperialism, for immediate gains and reforms that benefit working people, and for a progressive democratization of the government, the economy, and society of our country on the road to and after winning socialism.

    With pride in our past and confidence in our future, we hereby establish this Constitution of the Communist Party of the United States America.

31. #583743
    On January 5th, 2009 at 6:25 pm, Tennessee Dave said:

    On January 5th, 2009 at 5:57 pm, lgm said:
    If you’re a conservative, you think the CIA botched the Iraq invasion intelligence, so that the agency is incompetent and needs an outside leader.

    If you’re a liberal, you think the agency has become corrupt after 8 years of Bush and needs a house cleaning.

    Either way, a competent outside administrator will be good for the agency. That’s what Panetta is.

    I want what you’re smoking!

32. #583747
    On January 5th, 2009 at 6:30 pm, Laree said:

    Monica Crowley pretty much concurs.

    http://monicamemo.typepad.com/weblog/2009/01/four-reactions.html

33. #583748
    On January 5th, 2009 at 6:30 pm, TiminPhx said:

    Look, the Clinton White House and the slimy Panetta led more black bag operations (granted they were all political/donation gathering) that worked than the CIA has in years.

    The CIA is already stocked fully with Panetta’s ile.

    Secret Agent girl, Plame is the typical spook today. The few warriors they have had to leave for years, to go to private institutions so the dainty CIA doesn’t get its hand’s dirty.

    President Bush didn’t clear it out when he could, so now we just have them having a boss that is already on of their own.

34. #583765
    On January 5th, 2009 at 6:55 pm, Fat Jolly Penguin said:

    This is hilarious. Obama’s appointing all these Clintonistas because he hasn’t the first clue what to do with the office now that he’s actually been elected to it, and he thinks they do.

    The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if this is Hillary’s compensation for giving up the nomination. Whether she got it or not, we would have a third Clinton term inflicted upon us.

    Anyway… On January 5th, 2009 at 6:25 pm, Tennessee Dave said:

    I want what you’re smoking!

    Ew, I don’t. It could turn you into a barking moonbat.

35. #583769
    On January 5th, 2009 at 7:02 pm, JustAThought said:

    I have to let my paranoid, cynical side out for minute here.

    Seems a bit odd to me that the Clintons had such big roles at the DNC wing ding, Shrillery is now in line to be SecState and so many of the Clintonistas are coming back to town. Billy-boy’s name has actually come up multiple times as a candidate for {shudder to think} Supreme Court Justice!

    At some point, an extended period of related coincidence(s) (coincidii?) need to be examined a bit more closely.

36. #583772
    On January 5th, 2009 at 7:07 pm, bayou22 said:

    WOW. This virtually guarantees that we will be hit with another terrorist attack in the next four years because our enemies NOW KNOW we have no plans to pursue them vigorously…just as Clinton didn’t. Any and all possibilities will be treated as law enforcement matters and not as national security matters. Just look at the border!!!

    The more our media treats him as a celebrity, the more he will be viewed as a joke of a president by the world.

    By reinstalling the most lax, inexperienced security figures of the modern era – Clinton’s peeps who allowed the most number of unresponded or unprosecuted terror attacks in US History – he is proving himself to be very dangerous for the safety and security of our (their?) country.

    I feel confident we will be hit with another large attack on American soil…I just hope it isn’t mushroom shaped.

37. #583781
    On January 5th, 2009 at 7:29 pm, graysonret said:

    I have a feeling that if Panetta is confirmed, he will do nothing more than fill an empty seat. The CIA will continue to run, and allow him some credit; give him just enough to make some decisions that will justify him being there, while the major decisions are decided and carried out elsewhere. In other words, daily briefings on nothing substantial with minor decisions and committee naming.

38. #583792
    On January 5th, 2009 at 7:50 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

    We’re screwed. Leon Panetta? What was he thinking? (smoking?)

    Wow, putting in someone with absolutely NO intelligence, law enforcement, security or military experience in charge of one of the most important agencies in our country.

    Unbelievable.

    But then again, the stupid herd mentality crowd just voted the most inexperienced person as president, all because he “looked” cool.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if we didn’t get attacked again in the first year. The jihadists must be besides themselves just laughing at us now.

39. #583794
    On January 5th, 2009 at 7:58 pm, sbw999 said:

    This is yet another step in the long downhill slide that our Country, dying of liberlism, is in. America’s glory days are gone, gone, goneeeeeeeee.

40. #583795
    On January 5th, 2009 at 8:03 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

    BlameAmericaLast said:
    Wow, putting in someone with absolutely NO intelligence, law enforcement, security or military experience in charge of one of the most important agencies in our country.

    He does have some military experience; here’s his bio.

    He also served as a member of the Iraq Study Group.

    I’m definitely not saying any of this in support of Obama selected him as head of the CIA. Just wanted to set the record straight.

41. #583798
    On January 5th, 2009 at 8:07 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

    selected = selecting.

42. #583799
    On January 5th, 2009 at 8:07 pm, bjc said:

    Why not just bring in Jamie Gorelick to start rebuilding that wall she made so famous; Makes about as much sense; To say PEBO is in over his head is to say the Titanic is just a tad bit below the surface of the North Atlantic.

43. #583800
    On January 5th, 2009 at 8:11 pm, jsr said:

    With every passing day I try to rationalize the disaster I see unfolding in this nation by telling myself “Well, it could be worse” and sure enough, everyday I prove myself right. I think I am going to stop saying that.

44. #583802
    On January 5th, 2009 at 8:16 pm, Wellsy said:

    The Panetta pick is downright irresponsible. Even Feinstein is pissed off about this, and when Senate Democrats are indicating they may oppose this, you know you’ve screwed up. The “smoothest transition in the history of the country” crap needs to go out the window NOW. Between this and Bill Richardson, I know my confidence in Obama’s judgment has sunk even lower.

45. #583804
    On January 5th, 2009 at 8:24 pm, Send_Me said:

    On January 5th, 2009 at 8:03 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:
    He does have some military experience; here’s his bio.

    Fair enough. “He served as a First Lieutenant in the Army from 1964 to 1966 and received the Army Commendation Medal.” So, he rose to the immensely high rank of 1LT. I’m blown away. His depth of experience and knowledge must be endless. And he got an ARCOM? Just about everyone gets one of those when they leave the service (at least for officers). Privates get that award for a yearlong deployment to Iraq. This is not meant to disparage the Private or 1LT ranks or the ARCOM. I know you’re not supporting him, 30. This was not an attack on you at all. Thanks for putting this info on here. I’m merely trying to show how woefully unprepared this man is for the job. Obama never ceases to amaze me with his ineptness.

46. #583805
    On January 5th, 2009 at 8:30 pm, Mookie said:

    Anyone know when Obama makes his selection of Sec. of Army, Navy, etc.?

47. #583806
    On January 5th, 2009 at 8:34 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

    On January 5th, 2009 at 8:24 pm, Send_Me said:

    No problem at all. You’re welcome.

48. #583809
    On January 5th, 2009 at 8:44 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

    Mookie,

    Here’s some info., on the Sec. of the Navy. More research is needed for the rest.

49. #583810
    On January 5th, 2009 at 8:46 pm, docflash said:

    lgm,I guess it is fine with you that we get a stooge that needs OJT while we are at war?He is one of the big reasons we got hit before.

50. #583812
    On January 5th, 2009 at 8:48 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    When queried, representatives from the U.A.E. responded. “Praise Allah! We couldn’t be more pleased with the cabinet selections of Barack Hussein Obama! This latest selection is even better than we could’ve pai…er…prayed for. It is good to see the U.S. on this enlightened path.”

51. #583813
    On January 5th, 2009 at 8:50 pm, DerKrieger said:

    Hey – I had my letter to the editor published in the WSJ today. It was in response to a story titled “Treasury to Ford…Drop Dead”

    “It’s unfortunate that GM and Chrysler didn’t get a chance to hear from the American car-buying public before accepting their bailouts from the Treasury. Many of us who opposed the bailout vowed to never buy another car from any company that accepted federal money. I own a Chevy Tahoe and I love it but I’ll never buy another GM or Chrysler product. Ford will get my next vehicle purchase — as long it rejects government intervention, that is. So my message to GM, Chrysler, the Treasury, the United Auto Workers union, and Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the gang is — Drop Dead.”

52. #583814
    On January 5th, 2009 at 8:50 pm, DisplacedAvenger said:

    Surprised no one’s pointed this out yet, but this article gives a great “name that party” moment:

    …an agency that has been unwelcoming to previous directors perceived as outsiders, such as Stansfield M. Turner and John M. Deutch.

    Not knowing either of these names, I had to turn to good old google to figure out who appointed these “unwelcome” directors. There are two of them, so one’s probably from a dem and one from a republican, right? Right?

    Wrong. Turner was appointed by Carter, Deutch by Clinton. What a surprise. Wonder why that wasn’t mentioned in the original article…

53. #583816
    On January 5th, 2009 at 8:52 pm, Mookie said:

    On January 5th, 2009 at 8:44 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

    Mookie,

    Here’s some info., on the Sec. of the Navy. More research is needed for the rest.

    Bill White is the reason I asked. Imus has been close friends with White for years and said this morning that there is no one who would make a better Sec. of the Navy. Col. Jack Jacobs feels the same way. Could be interesting.

54. #583819
    On January 5th, 2009 at 9:04 pm, DerKrieger said:

    Meant to post to the UAW article. My bad.

55. #583823
    On January 5th, 2009 at 9:11 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    On the Bright side: When terrorist do hit us again and the Clinton retreads decide to bomb rock piles there are a lot of rock piles to choose from. I hear there is a really big rock in Mecca.

    When Barack Hussein, Allah Be Praised, BroBama decides to suck up to the ayatollahs will he send a Bible or a koran? He can call Carter for advice. Just do not let our people sit captive for 444 days BroBama.

56. #583825
    On January 5th, 2009 at 9:19 pm, TooMuchTime said:

    If you’re a conservative, you think the CIA botched the Iraq invasion intelligence, so that the agency is incompetent and needs an outside leader.

    No, lgm. If you’re a conservative, you know for a fact that the CIA is laden with Clinton bootlickers that did whatever they could to hurt President Bush.

    If you’re a liberal, you can’t understand why the CIA resists liberalism because you think it’s working fine in the Directorate of Foreign Affairs (State Department).

    But his selection points up the difficulty Mr. Obama had in finding a C.I.A. director with no connection to controversial counterterrorism programs of the Bush era.

    In other words, the BO didn’t want a CIA director that is on the same side of the terrorism issue as the intelligent people of this country that are actually concerned with national security.

    …with strong background in budget issues…

    Which means he knows just how to screw the american taxpayer to the best of his liberal indoctrination.

    Mr. Panetta has a reputation in Washington as a competent manager…

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

57. #583827
    On January 5th, 2009 at 9:23 pm, rightisright said:

    Where’s the change? We’re left with no HOPE!

58. #583828
    On January 5th, 2009 at 9:25 pm, TooMuchTime said:

    Let us not forget that Admiral Stansfield M. Turner is from the same Turner family that gave this country Richmond Kelly Turner. Read this book by Admiral Edwin Layton. It tells how the incompentence of Admiral R.K. Turner was the leading cause of the intelligence SNAFU before Pearl Harbor. Stansfield Turner was an incompetent, pushy, dominating, loudmouth, too.

59. #583833
    On January 5th, 2009 at 9:39 pm, TooMuchTime said:

    I feel confident we will be hit with another large attack on American soil…I just hope it isn’t mushroom shaped.

    My worry is that since they hit the east coast last time, next time they’ll hit the west coast. Since I live in the People’s Socialist Quagmire of California, I’m concerned.

    That’s different from a liberal point of view. The liberals would have had an orgasm if Cheyenne, WY or Anchorage, AK were attacked during the Bush administration. Seeing as those are fairly conservative states. It would have been the attitude of, if conservatives lose, Bush loses, so it’s all good.

    I take the opposing view. Personally, I think the BO is the world’s only living brain donor. BUT, I want him to do the right thing and protect this country. I know that if the BO loses, the country loses. Liberals just can’t get that.

60. #583838
    On January 5th, 2009 at 9:49 pm, Kevin K. said:

    ITookTheRedPill said (#30)

    Seriously, tell me how the priorities of the Democrat[ic Socialist] Party are any different from the priorities of the Communist Party USA:

    The Dems are not so honest. I can’t imagine the Dems saying this outright. (I see the CPUSA has recently revised its constitution as the language and terms are current for the trends of the last couple of years.) I don’t think the Dems would invoke Lenin, although they seem to like most of his programs (but there may be resistance to Lenin’s New Economic Program as it relied upon small capitalism to feed to country and keep daily life going until he could get more control.)

    Oh, and the Dems would be more restrictive as to which parties overseas they would work with–would have to be the right people, who bow at the altar of Global Warming (not just environmentalism).

    ————-
    Mookie said re potential nominee for SecNav (#53)

    Bill White is the reason I asked. Imus has been close friends with White for years and said this morning that there is no one who would make a better Sec. of the Navy. Col. Jack Jacobs feels the same way. Could be interesting.

    It could indeed be interesting. As the top civilian, his sexual activities, so long as discrete and non-blackmailable are not a scandal or against the rules. Awkward, yes. But if “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and related topics don’t come up, then his preferences will be irrelevant in an institutional/managerial sense.

61. #583844
    On January 5th, 2009 at 9:56 pm, Republicanvet said:

    On January 5th, 2009 at 5:13 pm, EonTopaz10 said:

    So how many days till our first “Intelligence Failure”? I’m going to say it happens by day 100.

    And on Day 101 blaming Bush starts.

62. #583851
    On January 5th, 2009 at 10:11 pm, winemkr said:

    Hey Obama, I know operators that can embarrass Leon in a heartbeat.

    It’s one thing for a prez elect to nominate an imbecile. It’s another thing that the imbecile accepts the job.

    Two pigs in a poke.

    Our intelligence community has just taken a swan dive into the boiling cauldren of America last, the rest of the liberal multicultural society first.

    Thank god for the second amendment. My grand children will appreciate those of us who INSIST on the right to bear arms so that their children won’t bear the harm that a lack of civilian arms will inevitably place on their freedom of expression and an inevitable tour de force of a liberal machine that worries more about gun rights than it does about the constitution.

    Leon you are not CIA material, you are a punk who toes the party line.

    Obama, you are crisis that our great country will eventually overcome.

    That’s a fact jack.

63. #583853
    On January 5th, 2009 at 10:14 pm, garydt said:

    LGM,,, I am going out on a limb here and see if you can answer the basic question. What war in this century, the 20th or 19th went as planned????. What was intelligence perfect???. CIA directors should be qualified with some field experience and giving it a person who has none is giving the chance for bungled intelligence a greater chance then perhaps a qualified candidate. By the way Obama is releasing Gitmo guys in your neighborhood.

64. #583858
    On January 5th, 2009 at 10:30 pm, Marc said:

    Obama is not the first liberal Democrat to use the CIA as a place to reward liberal supporters with no background in national intelligence. Jimmy Carter tried to give ole Kennedy hand Theodore Sorenson the CIA director position. Sorenson had been an early Carter supporter. Before Carter could complete the appointment, it turned out that Sorenson had been a conscientous objector to the US military draft during WW11. Seems incredible but it’s all true.

65. #583870
    On January 5th, 2009 at 10:49 pm, madchef said:

    The CIA will be spending ALOT more time spying on enemies of the Clintons, both real and imagined. Obama just stuck his head in a noose with this pick. Soon there will be smooth sailing for Hillary’s run in 2012 against Biden.

66. #583892
    On January 5th, 2009 at 11:29 pm, Flyoverman said:

    Given Obamas choice it would seem that Pee Wee Herman was not available to take the position, so The One decided to go with someone less qualified?

67. #583911
    On January 6th, 2009 at 12:03 am, Republicanvet said:

    Talk about bottom of the barrel. Now the drive-bys are saying writing something about spies qualifies as experience enough to head the CIA.

    From Yahoo.

    Despite his thin resume on intelligence issues, Panetta has written and spoken on a number of issues pertinent to the work of spies as well as to concerns by liberals that some potential CIA choices were too closely aligned with Bush administration stances on interrogation policy and warrantless surveillance.

    In August, he penned a piece for Washington Monthly headlined “No Torture. No Exceptions.” It concluded: “We cannot and must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that.”

    To borrow a common refrain from sniveling leftists before the war in Iraq started, “I need MORE evidence!”

68. #583920
    On January 6th, 2009 at 12:29 am, thegreatbeast said:

    Well, at least we won’t have to worry about the CIA politicizing intelligence.
    /sarc-off>

69. #583945
    On January 6th, 2009 at 1:51 am, leepro said:

    Not that he would actually possess active brain cells otherwise, but B-Zero is being played like a violin by the DC Machine!

    Makes me SICK and scares the very life outa’ me!

    

70. #583954
    On January 6th, 2009 at 2:30 am, AlohaGuy said:

    Isn’t that Blonde Bimbo available? Valerie Plame? After all, wasn’t she like – the heart and soul of the CIA – the genius behind proving that Iraq was never interested in Uranium?

71. #584007
    On January 6th, 2009 at 8:38 am, ThatSamIAm said:

    Obama bringing a knife to a gun fight.

    Panetta will do wonders for the CIA budget as he and the Dems work hard to decrease our security. The cost? Just the lives of Americans. But what the hell. Obama and the Dems blame Americans for everything anyway.

72. #584040
    On January 6th, 2009 at 9:32 am, Savage24 said:

    My guess is Putin was not available.

73. #584041
    On January 6th, 2009 at 9:33 am, James Felix said:

    If you’re a conservative, you think the CIA botched the Iraq invasion intelligence, so that the agency is incompetent and needs an outside leader.

    If you’re a liberal, you think the agency has become corrupt after 8 years of Bush and needs a house cleaning.

    And there you have it folks, a perfect summation of the Liberal thought process: making the facts subordinate to politics.

    There can’t really be any argument about the CIA botching our pre-invasion intelligence. They did, period. That’s an objective fact. Their performance is somewhat mitigated by the fact that everyone else on Earth also got it wrong, but the fact remains they were 100% wrong.

    And when have Liberals ever not thought that the CIA was corrupt? The military too, for that matter.

    This is one more example of how the Democrats see the world. Left-wing politics uber alles and to hell with the job they’re actually supposed to be doing. And that’s what we’ll have as long as our population tolerates it.

74. #584083
    On January 6th, 2009 at 10:30 am, DBNinKY said:

    Either way, a competent outside administrator will be good for the agency. That’s what Panetta is.

    Hahahahah! You definitely need to read what Dick Morris has to say about this nominee, as well as several of Obama’s other designates.

75. #584097
    On January 6th, 2009 at 10:44 am, lgm said:

    TooMuchTime said (#56):

    If you’re a conservative, you think the CIA botched the Iraq invasion intelligence, so that the agency is incompetent and needs an outside leader.

    No. If you’re a conservative, you know for a fact that ……

    James Felix said (#73):

    They did, period. That’s an objective fact.

    (Thinking means doubting. Certainty is for fools.)

    But then you should agree with my larger point: If you think the CIA is incompetent, you should welcome an outsider coming in to fix it.

76. #584101
    On January 6th, 2009 at 10:46 am, jt3151 said:

    I’ve never understood how some political hack can be put in charge of anyagency, This only happens in Government and in non-profit.

77. #584111
    On January 6th, 2009 at 10:52 am, DBNinKY said:

    If you think the CIA is incompetent, you should welcome an outsider coming in to fix it.

    Panetta: No experience, no acumen, and no innate aptitude to be instrumental and forceful in a job that demands nothing less to keep us all safe!

    He’s a loser nominee and will not be approved by the senate; Senator Feinstein as much as said so.

78. #584204
    On January 6th, 2009 at 11:49 am, Flyoverman said:

    If the Democrats are in charge and want to appoint a Democrat, how in the world could they have not appointed Rep. Jane Harman from CA to that position.

    Even as a Conservative, she has always impressed me with her service on the House Intelligence Committee. She would have been a superb choice. She would have been unanimously confirmed in 10 minutes.

    But then Pelosi hates her so…..

79. #584215
    On January 6th, 2009 at 11:57 am, heathermichelle said:

    Hey, maybe they’ll bring back Janet Reno for Commerce Secretary!

    Oh, please MM…don’t give him any ideas! *shudder*

80. #584314
    On January 6th, 2009 at 1:20 pm, James Felix said:

    They did (get pre-invasion intel wrong), period. That’s an objective fact.
    —–
    (Thinking means doubting. Certainty is for fools.)

    No, mindlessly parroting cliches is for fools.

    Did the CIA make assertions about Saddam’s capabilities, pre-war? Yes. Were those assertions incorrect? Yes. Can one therefore say that they botched pre-invasion intelligence? Yes.

    Contrary to the dearly held notion of Liberals, there are such things as facts.

    But then you should agree with my larger point: If you think the CIA is incompetent, you should welcome an outsider coming in to fix it.

    Sure I would. But it does not logically follow that I’d welcome someone solely because they’re an outsider. I’d prefer someone who’s, you know, actually qualified for the job. Call me crazy but that’s what I think.

81. #584385
    On January 6th, 2009 at 2:19 pm, lgm said:

    James Felix said (#80):

    But it does not logically follow that I’d welcome someone solely because they’re an outsider.

    A quandary. Having “experience” means having been in the intelligence world, hence, not an outsider.

    Did the CIA make assertions about Saddam’s capabilities, pre-war? Yes.

    This information is classified. But there have been reports that what came from the CIA was more accurate than what was fed to the American people. Without knowing for sure, I guess that the “inaccuracies” were in fact “distortions” by the White House.

    I understand if you think I’m wrong, but I doubt that you know for sure. If you think you do, that speaks ill if you.

82. #584985
    On January 7th, 2009 at 7:57 am, Mostly Annoyed said:

    Given his background, Mr. Panetta is a somewhat unusual choice to lead the C.I.A.

    That should read, unusual unless you want to undermine or destroy the C.I.A.

83. #585053
    On January 7th, 2009 at 10:06 am, Cogs said:

    On January 5th, 2009 at 5:57 pm, lgm said:
    …Either way, a competent outside administrator will be good for the agency. That’s what Panetta is.

    Wrong. The CIA does not need an administrator; it needs a competent and experienced leader.