Comments on: Thoughts on Panetta at CIA

By: NightTwister

NightTwister — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:27:06 +0000

I not saying we shouldn’t fix anything. I’m saying we aren’t in a position of power right now where we could. We (the voters) put ourselves here, and now we get what we asked for.

Sure, we should limit the damage wherever possible, but that’s the best we’re going to be able to do.

By: rbdwiggins

rbdwiggins — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 03:20:51 +0000

The DCI is not elected. The DCI is a political appointment. Elections have consequences. The president chooses to fill his cabinet and various agencies for different reasons, but they're mostly political. Look back through the history of the CIA, and you'll find that the Director has almost always been a political appointment, as opposed to policy. Panetta was chosen for one reason: To protect President Obama from the CIA, in the same manner Panetta protected Clinton from himself.

By: Mark Reiboldt

Mark Reiboldt — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:25:51 +0000

No. Isn’t this the mantra that we as Republicans have been pushing for over a year now, ever since Barack Obama started his campaign? Just because someone with less than one full term of Senate experience is elected POTUS doesn’t make him qualified for anything. He isn’t qualified to be POTUS or make decisions that affect American lives. But, he was elected. Nothing we can do about that. But, the DCI isn’t elected … it’s just poor judgement purporting itself down the chain. Apparently, *you’re* not thinking clearly. This is REDSTATE, right?

By: rbdwiggins

rbdwiggins — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:16:39 +0000

because you obviously don’t know when to quit.

Query: Is the President of the United States a consumer of intelligence? Does that not qualify him to make decisions regarding our nation’s intelligence.

Note: streiff has the benefit of historical perspective on his side, and you’ve chosen to argue a point you have no chance of winning.

By: Mark Reiboldt

Mark Reiboldt — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:06:29 +0000

above

By: baseketball

baseketball — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:04:13 +0000

By: Mark Reiboldt

Mark Reiboldt — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:00:45 +0000

I’m not claiming to be anything I’m not. I said I met Panetta. I worked in politics on the Hill. Wasn’t anything important – just like you’re first job wasn’t important – but I did attend sessions (not at the WH but during his tenure as WHCOS) where he was asked about something related to intelligence. This was near the time the Clinton Administration was forming their policies around rendition measures for terrorist detainees, specifically around the emergence of a little known group called Al Quaida. He didn’t even know what the word meant. The whole irony about him being there during those discussions (not sure if he was the actual COS when those policies were made, but he was involved for sure) is almost laughable. Like I said, I’m not claiming to be anything I’m not, but you clearly won’t get the full story from my LinkedIn profile, so I’d appreciate it if you weren’t a jerk about something when people call you out. Uh oh, that must be the third period bell ringing …

By: Doc Holliday

Doc Holliday — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:45:34 +0000

he is just another politico. I would rather have Bush or Gates, and even many others that call themselves Dems. No one here will rejoice about Panneta, I guess we are relieved it wasn’t reverend Wright.

By: Doc Holliday

Doc Holliday — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:43:33 +0000

By: JLenardDetroit

JLenardDetroit — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:26:34 +0000

I don’t want him anywhere near the CIA or anything of importance what-so-ever…. More APPEASEMENT crowd appointments to satisfy the Left of the Democrat Party… IMHO…. but I suspect/expect that ANY Democrat will be put in charge of CIA to be of the SURRENDER FIRST DOCTRINE mindset.

Obama was just getting to the end of the WHO REQUIRES PAYBACK list…. and what slots were open list……

By: Mark Reiboldt

Mark Reiboldt — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:26:07 +0000

so why can’t you stick to the issues? I never attacked you personally or said anything about you personally. I just said you made a poor argument, which it is. Most every Republican and Democrats agrees. And I’m a liar? How do you know anything about what I’ve done, who I’ve met or what experience I have? So, you see my LinkedIn profile? That’s great, Perry Mason. Doesn’t mean you know anything about me. So, your solution is to threaten and ban me? Your power is unwielding. I’ll tell you what … I’ll stick to the issues if you do. And, I’ll even be more pleasent in my responses, otherwise my home room teacher might get mad at me. But, drop the whole “I’ll ban you” bit. Are we here to talk about conservative matters or not? Are you formally associated with Redstate or not? Yet, you’re dealing me to go away and I’m talking about the issues. Good job. You’re pushing the Party line spendidly. We can always just take it offline though.

By: Mark Reiboldt

Mark Reiboldt — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:16:41 +0000

Who said I worked for the CIA/DIA? I never made such a claim. I said I have worked with representatives from the IC. That was in a political role as a consumer. I’ve never worked in intelligence and I can assure you coming from a political role as a consumer does not qualify me or anyone for DCI or making any decisions on our nation’s intelligence. Good try on the detective work though. You’re awesome, streiff. Regular Perry Mason.

By: Streiff

Streiff — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:16:05 +0000

and liar. I’ve got no use for either. If you met Panetta it was when you were in high school and you’ve never worked around intel in any way, shape, or form.. You’re barely out of freakin high school.

You haven’t stepped on my toes but you have shown anyone who has read this that you are devoid of any sense of integrity and can’t be trusted.

If you post again on any story I write or comment on I’ll ban you.

Go away.

By: Mark Reiboldt

Mark Reiboldt — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:09:21 +0000

because if you were, you’d see that I indeed said the DCI doesn’t have to be a former operations officer or analyst or come from Central Intelligence. However, they should certainly have more experience related to intelligence (other than just being a consumer in a political role). For instance, as I previously said, they could come from the State Dept, Defense Dep’t or elsewhere in the IC. They don’t have to come from a spy background or be an expert on the Soviet Union, but we don’t just need a politician heading up our most critical intelligence initiatives, and certainly not in a time of war.

Also, why don’t you get over my lack of social skills? Do I really offend you so much to where I hurt your feelings, or do you just need to be coddled all of the time? I’m sorry I stepped on your toes. Geez, stop whining and be a big boy. The Democrats must love having you on their side. Note: if you didn’t make such a poor argument, then I’d be much friendlier, but it’s becoming evident as to why the GOP has lost its influence with viewpoints like these. Maybe the rest of the Party needs to think how we can forget about being offended and actually do something for the rest of the country.

By: E Pluribus Unum

E Pluribus Unum — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:21:05 +0000

Empty chairs are good. I like that, and it would be highly effective.

Empty Cabinet chairs are better (in an alternate universe in which conservatives are able to wrest control away from the current crop of Marxists). I would like to find whole bureaucracies, and lots of them, wake up one morning and find themselves “disappeared”.

By: evanm

evanm — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:04:10 +0000

“I’ve addressed the ‘paper pushing’ problem earlier. I don’t cut and paste from my own posts for the convenience of people who can’t be bothered to read them.”

I think I’ve been pretty respectful of your contributions so far, and have made it a point to read your full comments before each of mine. I even called out Mark for being too abrasive. I still have absolutely no idea what ‘earlier post’ you’re referring to here.

I don’t expect a copy-paste. But I will bother to read your points if you’ll bother to link to them.

By: E Pluribus Unum

E Pluribus Unum — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:49:46 +0000

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:46:24 +0000

By: E Pluribus Unum

E Pluribus Unum — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:43:26 +0000

Trust me, Dallas sports fans KNOW about depression. Take your pick:

–Dallas Cowboys (underperforming late season chokers).
–Dallas Mavericks(06: choke to Miami Heat; 07: 67-15 season, first round exit; 08: back to sucking in general)
–Dallas Stars (brief glory in 1998-2000 era, otherwise mediocre)
–Texas Rangers (we are now actually petitioning MLB to award an actual Major League franchise for our superb stadium) (OK, seriously: 35 years in existence, 3 playoffs, no second rounds)

So, like I said, booze. Not alcohol. Not liquor. Must be rot-gut, nasty booze.

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:33:56 +0000

It’s how you deal with that depression that counts.