Now I am concerned

[Gaspar]

Panetta as director of the CIA is not an enlightened decision.

He has no intelligence experience and they (the CIA) does not like outsiders.

At this time, the director of the CIA is one of the most important posts that Obama can name.

Panetta has always been a politician which is diabolically opposite the role of intelligence personnel.  

The role of the Director of the CIA is to make decisions devoid of politics necessary to gather and decipher information necessary to ensure national security and promote foreign policy initiatives.

He's not a bad guy.  He has a great track record, but he is so far from the cool intellectual strength, and iron resolve necessary to be an intelligence official, that his very presence may cause an erosion of the department.

[sgrizzle]

It's been a season of odd choices...

Joe "Clean and Articulate" Biden
Sarah "I can see Russia" Palin
Rahm "The Knife" Emanuel

[Breadburner]

Don't forget Bill "I Resign" Richardson.....

[guido911]

A couple of dems are concerned as well:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/01/05/1732576.aspx

[waterboy]

He's not a spy. He's a government manager. In that regard having knowledge of minutia in the department is counterproductive. There is an ongoing battle within the agency among self serving factions that has resulted in poor, politically swayed information and analyses. That resulted in a botched war.

Most of the talking heads I've watched report that placing insiders as the head of the agency will be a loss for one side or the other within the agency. Using an outsider whose skills are managerial, rather than formed by a career builder's ambition, puts the agency on notice that neither side crushes the other and that it must perform to expectations that are organizationally determined. Football teams call it teamwork. It doesn't hurt that he has been critical (who hasn't?), it puts the agency at attention.

You worry too much Gaspar.[]

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

It's been a season of odd choices...

Joe "Clean and Articulate" Biden
Sarah "I can see Russia" Palin
Rahm "The Knife" Emanuel

You watch too much SNL. Palin never said "I can see Russia..." She said:

"They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

Is that a true statement?

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

It's been a season of odd choices...

Joe "Clean and Articulate" Biden
Sarah "I can see Russia" Palin
Rahm "The Knife" Emanuel

You watch too much SNL. Palin never said "I can see Russia..." She said:

"They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

Is that a true statement?

Oh, please.  What she exactly said doesn't matter--what made the statement funny was not that she could see Russia from her window (ala Tina Fey) or from the Alaskan shore.  The statement was funny because, in her stupidity, she somehow drew the conclusion that seeing a country gives you experience in dealing with that country.  Kind of like saying I see the stars, therefore I have the experience to be an astronaut.

[cannon_fodder]

Anyone get a count of how much "change" there is? Seems about 50% used Clinton appointees and 50% insiders from other places.

Anyone that pays attention knows that I have not been ragging on Obama.  But CHANGE and Biden was the first alarm bell.  If you missed the smaller ones Clinton was a big one.  I might just not be paying attention or the old guard stands out to me... but it seems there is very little actual change.

I'm not even saying that Clinton, Biden, or anyone else was a bad appointment (I reserve the right) - just that it isn't exactly "change" on the grand scale he advertised.  Though, such a drastic measure (actually bringing in a lot of new blood) would have it's own set of problems.

[pmcalk]

^^I guess that depends on how you define change.  I don't think that I ever assumed that, by "change", Obama meant he was not going to appoint people with experience.  Yes, having all new people in control would be change.  But having experienced people, but doing things differently, is also change.  I think we need to wait until his administration is in charge to really see how much change is coming.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

It's been a season of odd choices...

Joe "Clean and Articulate" Biden
Sarah "I can see Russia" Palin
Rahm "The Knife" Emanuel

You watch too much SNL. Palin never said "I can see Russia..." She said:

"They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

Is that a true statement?

Actually I never saw anything about that on SNL. Rahm Emanuel likely never called himself "The Knife" either. They are just nicknames I made up.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

^^I guess that depends on how you define change.

I thought he meant "chaos".  

I was looking forward to finding a baby, and putting on the nearest "pike".

[we vs us]

That's the beauty of a "change" platform.  It is what you want it to be.   And after the last 8 years, pretty much everyone seems to think something has to be done differently (except for, apparently, Guido).  

That said, I think it's becoming clearer and clearer that Obama-style change is a move away from ideology and towards competence and pragmatism. He's been studiously ignoring a lot of the partisan left -- who want everything from war crimes tribunals for Bush and Co to fully nationalized single-payer healthcare system -- and has been appointing experienced people who can get the job done. Panetta is part of that, too.  Whether he's an actual intelligence guy is beside the point.  He'll move the intelligence community away from polarization and from all of its political baggage, and get it functioning again.  As Waterboy said, he's a manager, and a highly competent one at that.

As an aside, one of the lefty bloggers I read somewhat bitterly called Obama a "technocrat"  . . . which is akin to a rightie calling someone a "bureaucrat."  In other words, someone still beholden to the system.  One of the big hopes on the left was that Obama would be a Righteous Liberal Warrior, and come in with a sword of fire and cleanse the country of all that ails it.  Even as Obama made explicitly centrist promises during his campaign, and has time and again reached out to the right when he didn't have to.  At the same time, I think a lot of the conservatives who liked Obama took "change" to mean "throw the bums out," which squares with the Libertarian critique of our system (entrenched and moneyed interests who've corrupted our entire government).  And the confounding thing is, he's not doing either.  He's just trying to make the government, such as it is, function correctly again.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

It's been a season of odd choices...

Joe "Clean and Articulate" Biden
Sarah "I can see Russia" Palin
Rahm "The Knife" Emanuel

You watch too much SNL. Palin never said "I can see Russia..." She said:

"They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

Is that a true statement?

Actually I never saw anything about that on SNL.

Well here ya go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdDqSvJ6aHc

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

I think we need to wait until his administration is in charge to really see how much change is coming.

We don't have to wait, I already have the answer...


Buck-oh-five (bonus if you get the movie reference)

[cannon_fodder]

Freedom costs a buck-0-five!