Terrorists are no doubt rejoicing as Obama taps Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton's former chief of staff, to head up the CIA.Thus far, Obama has been surprisingly conservative in choosing his staff members. Perhaps as a self-aware man, he realized that his facade is what Americans really bought on November 4.
At a closer glance, it becomes painfully obvious that Obama is not only inexperienced, but unsure. He has wisely surrounded himself with staff members who are experienced and more knowledgeable than he is...up to this point.
During a time of war, choosing a 70-year-old liberal to take charge of an agency that has the ability to determine the physical fate of the country may not have been the best decision. While Panetta has had access to intelligence in the past, he is lacking in any vocational experience in intelligence. He also opposes some methods of terrorist interrogations that have kept Americans safe during the years since 9/11.
During a time of war, choosing a 70-year-old liberal to take charge of an agency that has the ability to determine the physical fate of the country may not have been the best decision. While Panetta has had access to intelligence in the past, he is lacking in any vocational experience in intelligence. He also opposes some methods of terrorist interrogations that have kept Americans safe during the years since 9/11.
The fact is, if ever we have needed a strong, experienced, no nonsense CIA director...it's now.
8 comments:
Criticizing Obama for picking cabinet people that have more experience than him makes no sense. Mostly everyone is going to have more experience than him given his short political career. It's clear that his mission is to build a bipartisan committee of people with the strongest credentials and ideas.
At first glance, I agree that the CIA pick makes no sense. However, we don't know the full story behind it. Maybe Obama is going to take the CIA in a whole new direction than George Bush did. The fact that he's a 70 year old liberal should not automatically disqualify him from the post.
In fact, one of your criticisms - that he opposes some methods of terrorist interrogations - is one of his strengths. I am all for having a CIA director that is 100% committed to never, ever torturing - one that wishes to restore America's credibility on an issue where we have been reduced to being nothing better than other countries that torture people.
If Obama had been making horrible cabinet pick after horrible cabinet pick, yes, I would be concerned here. But given his track record, and the fact that he has surrounded himself with plenty of experienced and capable people, I am confident that this will end up being a wise pick.
As you can expect, I probably have one or two areas of disagreement. Let’s examine your post paragraph-by-paragraph.
Paragraph one:
Yep, this fellow has been around. He has been in several trusted, high-level positions that produced results. He was over budgeting when we had no surplus.
Paragraph two:
This is both poignant and silly. Selling a facade is highly opinionated and incorrect based on the typical definition (from Webster: 2: a false, superficial, or artificial appearance or effect). The silly part is that you are berating Obama for being conservative when that is what you espouse!
Paragraph three:
Of course he is a self-aware man. I wish more people were. The problem is that most people over rate themselves and thus don’t understand their limitations, of which everyone has them; to recognize your limitations and purposefully find quality people to surround yourself with shows very intelligent and self-aware thinking. This is precisely what made Reagan such a great president.
Paragraph four:
Did you not understand the word “change” when it was used as the theme of Obama’s campaign? No more business as usual. Panetta is very experienced in the ways of Washington and understand how to work with the system. He is also known as a consensus builder and a proven skilled manager and executive. You don’t need to be a spook to manage an organization of spooks. It is much more critical to have the other skills mentioned above and pick the right people. Moreover, his boss is more spook-like.
As far as Panetta’s position on torture I have several things to say. First, a great deal of torture was propagated on innocent people. Moreover, I will make up anything when you are torturing me just to get you to stop. Finally, there is no evidence that torturing innocent people or anyone else protected us from terrorism. The fact that something did not happen is no proof that any actions prevented it from happening.
Panetta is a pretty good choice. He has been around and understands how Washington works, which is a key factor in being a CEO. Company CEOs had better understand how to work with Wall Street and let me do my job. Someone needs to be skilled at leading the organization and interfacing with others while the folks in the organization do the actual day-to-day work. Everyone has an important role.
We have a strong, experienced person to lead this organization. What we don’t need is a spook to lead this crew; a holistic approach will be just as, if not more effective.
By nature, blogs are opinionated. If I were writing for a respected publication, I would absolutely leave opinion out of it.
This is really just an outlet (that I do keep factually based) with a huge bias. I know that.
I don't like torture, but I also don't believe we should be coddling terrorists as they kill Americans.
Honestly, I've gained a bit of respect for Obama through his cabinet picks, but under NO circumstances do I want some candy @$$ heading up the CIA.
Liberals are typically a bit softer (unless you're talking about abortion and then it's "kill 'em all"). That was my point with that.
I like your viewpoints and respect the time you take to bring your arguments to the discussion. It makes us all a little wiser to discuss these issues.
But why do you think Panetta is a candyass? That's what I don't get. And what is a candyass?
A candy @$$ is a wimp. I believe he's a wimp because of his view on interrogation and my biased opinion that liberals are typically softer on criminal-based issues.
I think we need a tough CIA director with extensive experience in intelligence. Now is not the time to soften up. We need to remain strong and unrelenting in policies that affect the safety of the country. Panetta does not fit the bill.
And how many innocent people get the crap interogated out of them? I know of one guy who sounded like someone else that was arrested in Canada. He was completely innocent but was tortured and held for over a year. Then they let him go.
That doesn't make me feel any safer. The terrosits have won when we change our behavior. That is there goal - terror - not to kill people, which can be a side product.
Panetta's New Boss
Retired admiral Dennis Blair worked the intelligence business from a lot of angles — military commander, White House staffer, CIA official — and now he's in line for a job requiring all those perspectives.
As President-elect Barack Obama's presumptive choice for director of national intelligence (DNI), Blair will have to manage and coordinate a sprawling, 16-agency bureaucracy that serves many customers with many needs.
Blair brings a broad mix of insider credentials, but his official links to the intelligence world largely ceased when he retired from the military in mid-2002. So he has no significant ties to controversial Bush administration intelligence policies — such as offshore detentions, renditions and harsh interrogation of terror suspects — that Obama has criticized and promised to revamp.
Blair's "a very logical choice," says John Lehman, former Navy secretary under President Reagan and a member of the commission that recommended creating the DNI job in its 2004 report on the 9/11 terror attacks.
Blair held staff posts with the White House National Security Council and the Pentagon Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he spent a year as associate CIA director for military support.
He also got hands-on intelligence experience running the U.S. Pacific Command. There, he led operations in which military and CIA personnel worked against regional terror groups, such as Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines.
Blair's work with the full range of intelligence agencies will help him "eliminate the turf battles," says James Thompson, former Illinois governor and another 9/11 commissioner.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-08-blair_N.htm
__________________________
Looks like the bad guys may not be so happy?
Here's something on Panetta's qualifications. Of course, being a liberal and thus concerned about humans from a humanist perspective will never meet the right's criteria, however...
WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama countered criticism Tuesday that his presumptive choice to lead the CIA lacks experience for the job. He said Leon Panetta spent years evaluating the nation's most sensitive intelligence as White House chief of staff.
Obama laid out the former congressman's qualifications and noted his desire for a CIA director who would mark a clean break from the Bush administration's more controversial intelligence policies. As President Bill Clinton's chief of staff, Panetta relied daily on intelligence to handle international affairs and manage crises, Obama said. "He brings extraordinary management skills, great political savvy (and) … integrity."
Post a Comment