I am disgusted that this media is so glib on this subject. They treat this guy’s total lack of experience as a side-bar, rather than dealing with it as the serious national security threat it really is.

Obama’s Panetta pick bodes ill for CIA

http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2009/01/06/Obamas_Panetta_pick_bodes_ill_for_CIA/UPI-97421231256244/

Most damagingly, the national security officials in the Clinton administration whom Panetta will most probably lean upon and listen to were catastrophically complacent, passive and ignorant in failing to recognize the growing threat of al-Qaida, even after it had bombed two U.S. embassies in East Africa and killed hundreds of people.

The CIA and the FBI were both hogtied by endless bureaucratic and legalistic constraints that allowed al-Qaida cells to establish themselves within the domestic United States and plot the Sept. 11, 2001, atrocities with impunity during the years Panetta was chief of staff.

During those years, one of Panetta’s closest associates was then-national security adviser Sandy Berger, who, after leaving office, publicly admitted to having stolen hundreds of pages of top-secret national security documents from the U.S. National Archives and then destroying them.

However, it was precisely the Clinton administration’s national security team’s obsession with running a legalistically and morally clean ship that spared Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants in al-Qaida.

Reluctance to act decisively and ruthlessly against the bin Laden plotters enabled them to perpetrate the attacks of Sept.11, 2001. On at least one occasion, the CIA and the U.S. armed forces had the chance to pre-emptively kill bin Laden, whose determination to carry out mega-attacks against United States was well known. But by the time lawyers’ and political administrators’ approval had ponderously filtered back down the chain of command, bin Laden was out of range of a missile attack and the chance was lost.

If Panetta is confirmed and then concentrates on keeping intelligence operations simon-pure, the results could prove to be even more catastrophic on a far grander scale.

Panetta is touted as a ‘budget expert’

He is being placed in the CIA to gut it… that’s it. End of story.

“They” don’t think we will be attacked because “everyone” loves them and The One.

When the attack comes… and it will… excuses will be made.

Tens of thousands of people will have to die for the left to (maybe) understand that George Bush was right.

Panetta left Congress in 1993, at the beginning of his ninth term, to become Director of the Office of Management and Budget for the incoming Clinton administration.

This is clearly an Obama directed choice. He prefers people with a history of Congressional and non-leadership positions around him. Beyond the psychology of those choices is one underlying fact; Panetta is first and foremost an individual who will place upon enemies of the US the access to a court of law, and of course the innocent until proven guilty ideal.

In his own words:

Fear is blinding, hateful, and vengeful. It makes the end justify the means. And why not? If torture can stop the next terrorist attack, the next suicide bomber, then what’s wrong with a little waterboarding or electric shock?

The simple answer is the rule of law….

And there it is. That directive will be placed upon the CIA operatives in far away lands doing things that only CIA operatives know and understand and we will be less safe; because of the rule of law.

What’s next, use of Sharia?

The problem is with your last paragraph:

Barack Obama is playing a dangerous game; a game that will probably see many of us killed. And we should not be shy about saying so.

No offense, but if you look at my profile and comments I’ve made on this site, you’ll know that I’m no defender of Obama, but I think in this case, you are mistaken on this single point.

I believe that on EVERY president’s watch, some Americans are going to die, period. It’s just a matter of how, why, where, and when they died and what sort of impact it will have on America’s strategic interests. Though to be sure, you probably meant that MORE Americans will die on Obama’s watch, I would probably agree with you. Is that what you actually meant?

Maybe it is far more accurate to say that even if few Americans die on Obama’s watch, America’s strategic position could be greatly diminished to the point where it is made impossible to return to the former position of power.

and I am usually a proponent of “outsiders”. In private business or in certain places in government often someone with little experience in the exact field can be a blessing.

But intelligence is NOT one of those places. The complexity of it all, not to mention the security issues we face in this dangerous world…well the point has been very WELL made, with the POTUS learning on the job, perhaps high up advisors should bring a little experience to the table.

This is VERY disturbing (but not surprising).

Considering just how bad the CIA has been for a long time now, and just how bad Tenet was despite how long he had been involved in intelligence (and in fact, how long he had been DCI). Being familiar with how the CIA works didn’t really do much to enhance Tenet’s performance. I don’t see it as a deal breaker here.

would be placed in the CIA. I then wonder at the possible workings of the politics and hackery thereby. This one smells and not just because of Panetta’s non-experience. And enough please on the “solid guy” approach, able, capable, and the rest of it. I heard it all with the first round of the Bammers picks, comforting, sensible, etc.
With this “sensible, experienced” bunch we are now looking at trillion $ deficits. Enough already.

Good old Leon could be Chief of Staff to the repulsive Clinton and now this pol/hack will be heading the CIA ? And the libs were worried about domestic NSA spying., This appointment bears close, very close, watching and certainly no optimism.

as CIA chief. Not that we should automatically agree with Michael Ledeen simply because he’s very intelligent about defense and foreign policy, but his opinion is worth taking into account.

From The Corner a few days back:

In the very early days of the Bush administration, Karl Rove asked a Washington policy wonk what personnel changes he’d recommend to newly arrived George W. The wonk said “there is one matter of life and death: he must replace Tenet at CIA and put in one of his own people, someone he absolutely trusts.” Rove said “well, good luck with that one.” Obama knows better, and he’s putting Leon Panetta in Langley.

I always liked Panetta. He served in the Army and is openly proud of it. He seems to be a good lawyer (oxymoronic though it may seem). He’s a good manager. And he’s going to watch Obama’s back at a place that’s full of stilettos and a track record for attempted presidential assassination second to none. But Italians know all about political assassination; you may remember Julius Caesar. Or Aldo Moro. The self-proclaimed cognoscenti will deride his lack of “spycraft,” and he’s never worked in the intel bureaucracy or, for that matter, in foreign policy or national security. But he’s been chief of staff, which involved all that stuff.

I think it’s a smart move.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjZhOTc2MDM1OWJjNmQ0NmJkYTMwMjhlYWM0NjI2MDY=