Obama selects Leon Panetta to head CIA.
By on Jan 5th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Obama selects Leon Panetta to head CIA.
NBC News reports that Leon Panetta, former chief of staff to President Clinton, will be named as President Obama’s nominee to be CIA Director. The former California congressman “has a reputation in Washington as a competent manager with strong background in budget issues, but has little hands-on intelligence experience,” writes the New York Times. Panetta would report to Dennis Blair, Obama’s nominee to be national intelligence director.
One of the factors that may have contributed to Panetta’s selection was Obama’s reported desire to pick intelligence officials who weren’t “associated with the Bush administration’s controversial interrogation policies.”
Update Flashback: It had been rumored that Michael Hayden would be asked to stay on as CIA Director, after John Brennan withdrew his name from consideration in November.
Update Panetta served as a member of the Iraq Study Group.
Update In a March 2008 op-ed, Panetta strongly condemned Bush's "fear" tactics:
More recently, President Bush vetoed a law that would require the CIA and all the intelligence services to abide by the same rules on torture as contained in the U.S. Army Field Manual. But all forms of torture have long been prohibited by American law and international treaties respected by Republican and Democratic presidents alike. Our forefathers prohibited "cruel and unusual punishment" because that was how tyrants and despots ruled in the 1700s. They wanted an America that was better than that. Torture is illegal, immoral, dangerous and counterproductive. And yet, the president is using fear to trump the law.
Update More from Panetta on torture:
We cannot simply suspend these beliefs in the name of national security. Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don't. There is no middle ground.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Fascinating choice!
January 5th, 2009 at 2:41 pmLets hope he does a better job screening agents than he did interns.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:42 pmHuh?
I guess I don’t know enough about Panetta…
January 5th, 2009 at 2:44 pmThat’s a weird one. Oh well, better to put somebody with integrity in charge of the spooks than put spooks in charge of spooks. At least we can’t complain that this guy’s been involved in extraordinary rendition, torture, etc.
This kind of points to a problem that Obama has: either you can get experienced people, or inexperienced ones. If you get experienced people, they’re either Bushites (and therefore tied to criminal activity) or Clintonistas (and therefore… well, Clintonistas). If you go with someone with no experience whatsoever, you’re basically gambling that they can handle it, and that’s not likely to work out well either.
I doubt if Panetta has a lot of spook experience, although he has had top-level clearance before. In this case, it sounds like all of Obama’s other options were worse.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:49 pmNo “spook experience” is an asset, IMO. Panetta with his strong governmental management background can ask the career CIA people to “enlighten” him on their procedures as a means of insuring that they are legal and in keeping with policy. He won’t be carrying the “we always did it this way” attitude.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:00 pmCliontonites and Neocons… So much for CHANGE…
ObamaShortChange has kept silent while Israel/USA/UK commit genocide in Gaza.
The argument that ‘one president at a time’ is bull.
If we were talking about some president elected of a country that did not support with weapons the Terrorist State of Israel, I would buy this argument. But we are Talking about a country that has blocked any resolution towards peace in the Middle East and provides Israel/War criminals with Weapons…
ObamaShorChange’s silence shows what we are going to get for the next 4 years… No change in US’s foringner policies.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:00 pmsacopenapa Says:
Cliontonites and Neocons… So much for CHANGE…
Everybody with half a resume going back for the last 16 years is going to be one or the other. Who would you suggest for the position?
.
sacopenapa Says:
The argument that ‘one president at a time’ is bull.
As long as that’s the position being used, you’re going to hate it. More people (maybe even you) would hate it even more if Obama were perceived as meddling or undermining whatever it is Bush is doing – even if that’s to do nothing.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:10 pmOh, the ISG…those bright minds:
Baker is a Texas oilman whose law firm has interests in debt repayment to Kuwait and other Gulf States.
Lawrence Eagleberger has ties to Halliburton and Philips Petroleum, and is a former head of Kissinger Associates, a corporate consulting firm whose clients remain secret [Paul Bremer was managing partner of the Associates].
Vernon Jordan is a power lawyer at Akin Gump who is closely associated with the secretive Bilderberg Group [as well as the Clinton circle and civil rights firms].
Leon Panetta served on the board of the New York Stock Exchange.
The expert working groups for the ISG include leaders of Bechtel, PFC Energy, and two representatives of Citygroup, Inc., the firm of Robert Rubin, leading neo-liberal advocate and member of Clinton’s cabinet.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1208-31.htm
January 5th, 2009 at 3:21 pma portion of his resume:
Panetta started politics in 1966 as a legislative assistant to Republican Senator Thomas Kuchel, the United States Senate Minority Whip from California, whom Panetta has called “a tremendous role model”. In 1969 he became the assistant to Robert H. Finch, Secretary of the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare under the Nixon administration. Soon thereafter he was appointed Director of the Office for Civil Rights. Panetta chose to enforce civil rights and equal education laws, even under political pressure not to from then-president Nixon, who was implementing his “Southern strategy”.
Panetta switched to the Democratic Party in 1971, because he thought that the Republican Party was moving away from the political center, and it was working against Civil Rights legislation. In 1976, Panetta was elected to the U.S. Congress to represent California’s 16th congressional district (the 17th district after the 1990 census), and was reelected for nine terms. During his time in Congress, his work concentrated mostly on budget issues, civil rights, education, health, and environmental issues, particularly preventing oil drilling off the California coast. He wrote the Hunger Prevention Act (Public Law 100-435) of 1988 and the Fair Employment Practices Resolution. He was a major factor in establishing the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.
His positions included:
·Chairman of the U.S. House Committee on the Budget
·Chairman of the Agriculture Committee’s Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations, and Nutrition
·Chairman of the Administration Committee’s Subcommittee on Personnel and Police
·Chairman of the Task Force on Domestic Hunger created by the U.S. House Select Committee on Hunger
·Vice Chairman of the Caucus of Vietnam-Era Veterans in Congress
·Member of the President’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Panetta
January 5th, 2009 at 3:45 pmWhile I welcome Obama choosing someone who cares about human rights for once, I wonder, was there no one with intelligence experience he could’ve chosen? It seems like not everyone in the CIA worshipped Bush.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:45 pmWow…what a bizarre choice. I get that they agree on torture, but isn’t there anyone with actual Intel experience who is against torture? Why not Richard Clarke?
I guess we will now find out if this position matters or not on combatting terrorist plots. I’ll tell you, should AQ succeed in hitting us while Panetta is in charge, there will be a political liability for Obama there. It will be very easy to criticize this choice if something terrible happens.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:09 pmDoes one need national security experience to be head of the CIA? Or does one need to have a lot of experience in running a huge operation (like presidential chief of staff) while gathering security information from all sources as it is presented to the president?
January 5th, 2009 at 4:21 pmMarie Says:
Does one need national security experience to be head of the CIA? Or does one need to have a lot of experience in running a huge operation (like presidential chief of staff) while gathering security information from all sources as it is presented to the president?
They’d tell you, but then they’d have to kill you.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:22 pmKeltoi at Night Says:
I’ll tell you, should AQ succeed in hitting us while Panetta is in charge, there will be a political liability for Obama there. It will be very easy to criticize this choice if something terrible happens.
Nah, ya just blame the previous administration and move on.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:23 pmBesides being on the correct side of human rights, Leon Panetta has decades of experience as a manager of the unmanageable (think Clinton) and he must be discreet (think Clinton). He’s been on both sides of the aisle and he’s liked by people on both sides of the aisle. After the decades of CIA failures, the last thing the agency needs is to promote one of the products of that failure. Leon Panetta is an inspired choice.
The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com
January 5th, 2009 at 4:32 pmI hope that included with more humanitarian leadership
January 5th, 2009 at 4:34 pmof Penetta that the CIA will be made more fitting in a democracy rather than it’s long history of pander in corporate deals and illegal drug operations. Rather
than being an asset, very much of it’s non-supervised
work is a serious liability burden to the US national security.
ElBruce Says:
Nah, ya just blame the previous administration and move on.
Unless the attack comes on September 12 2010 or later, in which case it will be completely and totally Obama’s fault per the Bush-Clinton rules.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:50 pmUnless the attack comes on September 12 2010 or later, in which case it will be completely and totally Obama’s fault per the Bush-Clinton rules.
Oh, please.
If details emerge, that he was warned this month, it might hold water.
Otherwise, the comparison falls apart from logical inconsistency.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:00 pm9/11 was made possible by a supervisor at the CIA, presumably in the Couter Terrorism Group, who forbid telling the FBI about a terrorist with multi-entry visa for the US. Nor did the CIA put either of the two terrorists that they lost track of in Asia on the no-fly list. None of these were mistakes of the generally incompetent director of the CIA, George Tenet. As to Tenet’s reported comment about Moussaoui, if true, that would be the fault of the director.
My personal belief is that anything short of dismantling the Directorate of Operations and putting the NSA under the CIA is rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:02 pmbarfly Says:
——————————————————————————–
Unless the attack comes on September 12 2010 or later, in which case it will be completely and totally Obama’s fault per the Bush-Clinton rules.
Oh, please.
If details emerge, that he was warned this month, it might hold water.
Otherwise, the comparison falls apart from logical inconsistency.
You really don’t think such detail will emerge if there is a successful attack? The public has access to multiple warnings about terrorist plots, I can only imagine what Obama knows. But knowing something is possible and stopping it are two different things.
But I don’t have any interest in a 9-11 rehash. My point is, Panetta has no experience in running an intelligence agency. Should something horrible happen, questions will be asked about the wisdom of his selection, to put it mildly.
Again, why not Richard Clarke?
January 5th, 2009 at 5:09 pmLeon Panetta is an excellent choice. No wonder Sen. Feinstein is so upset. Panetta will shine some light on the CIA hidden activities and clean house.
I am a Californian. I trust Leon Panetta, NOT Sen. Feinstein.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:12 pmIt will be very easy to criticize this choice if something terrible happens.
And yet criticizing Bush when something terrible happened was (and still is for the 23 percenters) tantamount to treason! Go figure.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:39 pmlivelongandprosper Says:
——————————————————————————–
It will be very easy to criticize this choice if something terrible happens.
And yet criticizing Bush when something terrible happened was (and still is for the 23 percenters) tantamount to treason! Go figure.
Well, I am not one and don’t think that. But Bush kept Clinton’s CIA director – you couldn’t very well argue Tenet didn’t have experience, and yet the CIA failed to stop 9-11 and was harshly criticized as a result – justifiably.
Again, we will really find out now if experience matters in this position. It is an ideological choice rather than a choice based on resume. I have always assumed it was plenty damn important to know how to run intelligence operations; that is just not Panetta. Valerie Plame would have been a stronger choice. It is just a very odd decision that opens him to political danger, needlessly IMO.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:44 pmObamaShortChange is going to do a Pelosi on you. Just wait and see. As per “Brand Obama”, I don’t buy it! I despise Republicans, however, Democrats have done nothing to end the war nor to CHANGE failled foringner polocies. You know, the ones that made North America being HATED around the globe.
January 5th, 2009 at 6:36 pmObama, should have said something against Israel agression and he has remained silence.
I’m sorry folks, but I’ll not follow Obama as if he was a god of some sorts… He is the President Elected of the USA. And the argument “A president at a time” is very convinient to hide and support Israel.
I am liberal and I am Left. And Obama, like Clintons and Bushes, are in no way, above criticism!
Gates for example! He is well known to be behind the scene on IRAN-CONTRA scandal. It is shocking to see him being part of someone who advocated CHANGE!!!!
And one more thing, Number 8 Hussein: I don’t call people (Not the trolls) morons just because they criticise my cadidate! We can argue if you like. You, sort of DEMOCRATIC talk.
But then again… 8 years of FACISM may have clouded your judgment.
And for as long as Gates and others ARE being part of a goverment that got elected advocating CHANGE are there, I’ll be calling Obama as ObamaShortChange. I hope he will actually do something meaningfull for Change.
January 5th, 2009 at 7:02 pmHe is not changing the course of the Afeghanistan occupation so far… see my argument?!
I was able to tell you this #8 Hussein, without calling you names.
And more, I am totaly open for exchanging arguments and ideas, so I can change my point of view accordingly. But I will not follow Obama blindly. Ididn’t do that on Reagan, Bush criminal senior, Clinton and WC Bush and I’m not prepeared to buy polititian Slogans now either.
For the record, I supported Obama’s election and I am hoping he will Change the course. But I haven’t seeing evidence of that yet. I, like evrybodyelse, is hoping for a good next 4 years!
I’m sorry if I expect Obama (the elected president, unlike the previous one, this one was actually elected) to say something about Israel Hollocaust on the Palestinian people, when he IS the elected president and the Palestinian people are being murdered with weapons made in USA! Sorry I can’t change my position on that!
No names calling!
Surrounding himself with Bushes and Clintonites is not CHANGE! You are going to tell me that in the vast land of USA there isn’t anybody NEW to do the job?!!! Obama himself was a bold and NEW choice! Why not replace the old with new and fresh and worldwise choice?!!
January 5th, 2009 at 7:09 pmHis choices somehow feel like Pelosi, who got there advocating ‘End of War and blank cheques for Bush’, but as soon as she was able to say something, she stab the American people in the back!
If Panetta says the right things about human rights, Blair’s actions were the opposite. Look at what he during the referendum period in East Timor a decade ago. As militia and Indonesian military violence was escalating in 1999 prior to Timor’s independence referendum, Blair went to Indonesia. Instead of delivering a strong message that the Indonesian military should back off and respect human rights, he offered understanding and further U.S. military assistance.He seems locked into the notion that human rights should be secondary in U.S. relations with other countries. The East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) describes this here
January 5th, 2009 at 9:00 pmShocking statement from Leon Panetta!!
January 5th, 2009 at 9:04 pmwatch Leon Panetta statement
I shocked! What that means?
Come on tell me about just one. One! Is that so hard?
January 5th, 2009 at 9:46 pmHippie_crusher Says:
Panneta is a Clinton man, so he is very experienced at doing nothing about
You found the right thread! Excellent start.
Now, take the time to read the posts above and you will see this appointment is bringing mixed reviews at best, as it should.
January 5th, 2009 at 10:01 pmHippie_crusher Says:
Oh, wow, dbadass, try not to have too much fun with this. You should alert Ralph at a more active thread so he can enjoy.
I gotta run, company coming over, sorry to miss it…
January 5th, 2009 at 10:04 pmYou made that up. Especially the escalade shit. I suppose you were drinking a little gin and juice my pretend wannabe Latin King friend. That whole stupid ass urban hip hop gangsta shit is so so lame as well as tired.
January 5th, 2009 at 10:06 pmHippie_Crusher.
January 5th, 2009 at 10:15 pmIt is spelled dbadass. Anyway that shit is still made up. I suppose your homies where crushing in your escalade too? So so tired…
Did you have some dumbass oversized pants on and maybe some idiotic FUBU wear or was this back in your Starter jacket days?
January 5th, 2009 at 10:16 pmHippie_crusher Says:
Panneta is a Clinton man, so he is very experienced at doing nothing about terror attacks on US installations.
Yay, a substantive comment! I’m interested to hear what he should have done… Perhaps increase the intelligence priority towards Afghanistan, gather more information regarding likely future targets, keep an eye on the situation, compile a thorough intelligence briefing, and hand it off to the next administration? Nah, they probably should have invaded Guatemala or something cool like that. Or Spain. That’d be awesome.
See, the whole “do something” argument fails when what you do is stupid.
.
Hippie_crusher Says:
Without a doubt the worst appointment ever by a President.
Michael Bolton.
.
Hippie_crusher Says:
Ok db!tchass, I’ll give you won example.
A few years ago I was driving home from a hard days work…
All I’m getting from this story is that you are a violent criminal.
January 5th, 2009 at 10:22 pmSo how do you feel about F-150 driving faded These “colors don’t fade” bumper sticker carhartt encased budweiser drinkers…
January 5th, 2009 at 10:27 pmI didn’t suggest you were. I asked How you felt about them. See we know you don’t like hippies and what was that again? Yo Yo boyz? So I just thought it would be fun to get your complete list of stereotypes you don’t like.
January 5th, 2009 at 10:36 pmSo you are down with emos, skinheads, and those surf punks?
January 5th, 2009 at 10:41 pmPanetta will report to Adm. Dennis Blair who is a highly
experienced military officer. Panetta, himself appears to be an an extremely bright and experienced individual with broad government experience, yet lacking foreign or domestic intelligence experience.
One key is that Panetta must ensure that the egregious
mistakes of 9/11 are not repeated and that there is
strong coordination between intelligence agencies and
effective and timely analysis to the executive &
legislative branch on key issues/threats.
In addition, Panetta will need to effectively address
January 5th, 2009 at 10:43 pmthe adoption of new technologies, agency culture &
promotion incentives, morale, etc.
Check this on Youtube
The interview happened a while ago, but it is very relevant to today’s events.
Interview with Chalmers Johnson:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=j5SoE9vBc6I&feature=related
Sorry, never linked something before… I’m from the old school.
Here it is the title of the YouTube interview:
January 5th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Hippie_crusher Says:
You are an igorant troll a liar and a fool. It was BUSH who was deep into operation IGNORE terrorism and you are just too brainwashed to have any idea what you are talking about. Here is a free clue in return for your free clown show. Stupid, brainwashed and obnoxious is no way to go through life. I suggest a lobotomy since thinking for yourself is never going to happen anyway.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:02 pmHippie_crusher Says:
We know what you are, besides ignorant, a punk, and a brainless fool you are one of Pavlovs DOGS. When you are activated by the proper words you salivate then regurgitate what you were TOLD to think and I use the term THINK very loosely. My GOD you are ignorant.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:04 pmForgive me for pointing out the obvious, Hippie_Crusher, but I can’t find a single “view” that you’ve expressed here tonight, let alone one that is dissenting. All I see are hateful insults, and what appears to be signs of a possible anger management problem.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:45 amHippie_crusher Says:
I’m sure this is the same “regurgitated” post you’ve made hundreds of time to anyone who has a dissenting view.
We’ll let you know when you rate more than a stock copy/paste response. So far, all we’m getting is your likes and dislikes*. This ain’t your goddamn MySpace page.
You might start by trying to actually post a substantive comment. It works like this:
1. Have a position on the topic at hand
2. State the position
3. State the logically supporting reasons for your opinion
4. Alternately, explain why another person’s reasoning is unsound.
It doesn’t have to be good logical argumentation, but it should be something that we can freak out about and work up a proper righteous Liberal frenzy. With regular practice, you may be able to become a great TP troll, able to completely trash any thread with a single post. Good luck.
* Also, that you are a violent criminal.
January 6th, 2009 at 1:09 amAlso on YouTube:
Naomi Klein on Obama
RealNews interview
Cheers!
January 6th, 2009 at 2:40 am.
Ahh,
Good measured response from Leon Panetta concerning TORTURE…
… But it doesn’t answer the obvious question dying to be asked
Q U E S T I O N:
1) Is waterboarding an act of TORTURE?
2) To assert that somehow the policy concerning the US’ interrogation methods has been undignified, what does Leon Panetta suggest the consequences of said undignified act(s) of TORTURE and interrogation that have resulted in our reputation among the international community and fellow Americans that overwhelmingly paints a picture of an America that operates outside the rule of law, fails to prohibit the use of cruel and unusual punishment, should be?
I’m sorry, Leon seems to hint that America, she’s been raped by this last Administration…
… What does he hint that should be done about it?
.
January 6th, 2009 at 3:49 amMax-1 @ #54,
This isn’t the Bush Administration coming in. What you ask will not be up to Panetta to decide, it will be up to Obama. If Obama tells Panetta that our CIA agents will not torture anyone (or use techniques long condemned by the international community as torture), then Panetta will implement that order. It’s not going to be up to Panetta to decide whether or not we use torture.
That’s where the Bushies went wrong. Bush’s attitude was that the people he put in charge of various departments “knew best” how to run them, and so he had a totally-hands-off approach to their management. That’s why he was so ignorant of the details of his administration’s actions.
January 6th, 2009 at 7:26 amA government within our government that is pure evil.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:37 amTo Hippie Crusher – 911 was an inside job and your a fascist piece of Sh*t.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:38 am