Obama to promote Michael Brown to head CIA Director

[Dinner]

Obama is saying he deliberately chose an outsider because the old group got caught up in telling politicians what they wanted to hear instead of simply saying what the evidence said. Obama also pointed out Penetta had lots of senior management experience. I can understand his thinking though I would feel better if the guy had some experience in the intelligence field still Obama's picks in the other senior appointments look strong and experienced. If Panetta is the most iffy pick of the whole administration then we're still doing pretty good.

[Lonestar]

Obama is saying he deliberately chose an outsider because the old group got caught up in telling politicians what they wanted to hear instead of simply saying what the evidence said. Obama also pointed out Penetta had lots of senior management experience.

Well in that case we don't need a Doctor as SG, only someone with "Managerial Expierience".

And there is NOTHING that indicates that Panetta was professional at his job as CoS/Manager, not when he was continuing the practice of blocking the sitting DCI from meeting the President for suspect reasons.

[Naked Gents Rut]

If Panetta is the most iffy pick of the whole administration then we're still doing pretty good.

Richardson was obviously a more iffy pick than Panetta. Emanuel might be, as well.

[Dinner]

I'm not sure I agree with this clip but it does raise some interesting questions and answers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

One wonders if it was reversed and it was Bill O'Reilly calling out Senate Republicans for being against an unqualified CIA nom what your reaction would be

[Naked Gents Rut]

Maddow needs to learn to read the teleprompter more smoothly.

[Dinner]

If Panetta is the most iffy pick of the whole administration then we're still doing pretty good.

Richardson was obviously a more iffy pick than Panetta. Emanuel might be, as well.

I don't believe Richardson was iffy. I mean there isn't a single senior politician in the country who hasn't taken campaign contributions from companies which do business with the state. That dog won't hunt just like all the leftists pointing out how much Haliburton's donations bought them special favors. It just doesn't hunt. It honestly seems like Richardson just didn't want to be in the big times and found an easy way out.

[Dinner]

One wonders if it was reversed and it was Bill O'Reilly calling out Senate Republicans for being against an unqualified CIA nom what your reaction would be

You didn't even read what I wrote, did you? Because if you did you might have noticed the "I'm not sure I agree with her" part.

[Dinner]

I would like to note that the CIA has been extremely screwed up over the last 8 years so maybe an outsider is needed rather then someone who was hip deep in the screw ups. I'd still prefer someone with experience but how do you do that? I mean all the current senior staff were involved in torture, faked (or at least cherry picked) stuff for the Iraq war, illegal wire taping, extraordinary redentions, and Gitmo. Clearly those people can't be trusted so the only other option for an experienced person would be to pull someone out of retirement from the Clinton or Carter administrations. I'm not sure an old man would be best for that job. There are just not a lot of clean well qualified candidates out there.

[Naked Gents Rut]

I don't believe Richardson was iffy.

Of course you don't. Most non-retards consider cabinet officials who have to resign before the inauguration to be questionable picks, however.

[Dinner]

Being called names by you is a mark of honor. God help the poor sap who actually agrees with you.

[Naked Gents Rut]

I didn't call you a name.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It honestly seems like Richardson just didn't want to be in the big times and found an easy way out.

Yeah, because when he was outwardly schilling for SecState, he didn't think that would be "in the big times"



Honestly...

you might have noticed the "I'm not sure I agree with her" part

Right before the "interesting points" part. I'm betting with an O'Reilly you wouldn't even acknowledge the point.

[Ramo]

Yes, because nothing I've seen indicates that he has studied it.

Richard Clarke, who presumably would know, disagrees.

Richard Clarke, who was the White House counterterrorism director under Clinton (and, briefly, under Bush before resigning and then emerging as a celebrated critic), wrote in an e-mail today:

Leon was in all of the important national security meetings for years, both as [Office of Management and Budget] director and as chief of staff. He made substantive contributions well outside of his job description. And as OMB director, he was one of a very few people who knew about all of the covert and special-access programs.

Clarke's first point is crucial—Panetta knows, from experience, what a president wants and needs from intelligence reports, so he could represent the agency's views more cogently than many insiders might.

But the final point is important, too. These "special-access programs"—satellites, sensors, and other intelligence-gathering devices whose very existence is known only to those with compartmentalized security clearances—form a welter of costly, overlapping, ill-coordinated, and largely unsupervised projects that are run by private contractors to a greater extent than most people might imagine.

One former CIA official who is familiar with these programs (and who asked not to be identified) speculates that Panetta's main task might be to clean up not only the agency's high-profile mess—the "black ops" that have tarnished America's reputation around the world—but this budgetary-bureaucratic mess as well. Certainly, he knows where the line items are buried to a degree that few insiders can match.

http://www.slate.com/id/2208020/

[Ramo]

And there is NOTHING that indicates that Panetta was professional at his job as CoS/Manager, not when he was continuing the practice of blocking the sitting DCI from meeting the President for suspect reasons.

I've been looking for an account of this. Link?