By Larry Johnson
closeAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on January 5, 2009 at 5:14 PM in Current Affairs
At first blush Barack Obama has bested both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in his choice of leaders for the intelligence community. Retired Admiral Dennis Blair was named as the Director of National Intelligence and former White House Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, snagged the Director of the CIA. If you look back at the people that Bill Clinton and George Bush put in charge of the CIA, then the choice of Panetta seems particularly inspired. Why?
The ideal candidate is someone who is smart, who is not looking to feather his or her nest to reap economic benefits, and who understands that the President needs an honest broker. Look at the Clinton choices–Jim Woolsey, John Deutch, and George Tenet. Horrible choices and a terrible legacy. And George Bush did no better–George Tenet, Porter Goss, and Michael Hayden. Hayden is awful because he has perpetuated the militarization of the intelligence community. Goss played politics. And Tenet? Two words. SLAM DUNK! Enough said about that clown.
So how does Panetta stack up?
He served honorably in the Army. He was a Republican before he was a Democrat. He established a track record in Washington of being a non-partisan. Most importantly, he did not use his public service as a platform to enrich himself. Look at what Jim Woolsey and George Tenet did. Undistinguished tours at the CIA but they managed to get their millionaire ticket punched. The last person we need running the CIA is someone who sees it as the best job they have ever had and an opportunity to cash in.
Look at what Panetta has done since leaving the White House. He genuinely has focused on public service and educational activities. That does tell me something about the man’s character. If he brings that attitude to the CIA then the institution will be well served.
The CIA today is not the CIA I knew. During my time at the Agency the Director of CIA had many of the authorities now transferred to the Director of National Intelligence. The Director of the CIA was in charge of the daily publication of the Presidential Daily Brief. That job is now in the hands of the DNI.
One of the most damaging legacies of the Bush Administration with respect to he intelligence community is the militarization of the community. There used to be a healthy tension between the military and civilian intelligence portions of the community. Bush has infiltrated former military officers, who have no prior intelligence experience, into jobs that they are not qualified to do. This is especially true with respect to the analytical function of the community.
The one thing I do not know about Leon Panetta is whether or not he has the balls and the spine to tell President Obama unpleasant news. Almost every President since the end of World War II has had some pet foreign policy issues. And more often than not the CIA was not willing to present the President analysis that contradicted his policy. Lyndon Johnson, for example, did not want to hear that the U.S. military operations in Vietnam were not reducing the threat from North Vietnam. Ronald Reagan did not want to hear that the Contras were not being effective as a military threat. George W. Bush did not want to hear that the Islamists in Afghanistan/Pakistan posed the greatest terrorist threat to the United States. So it goes.
Will Leon Panetta be willing and able to tell Barack Obama uncomfortable truths? I think so, but we will have to wait and see.
UPDATE–I forgot to mention another critical factor. One of my CIA buddies reminded me of it tonight as we discussed the Panetta choice. My friend says the most important consideration is whether or not Panetta has the gumption to fire someone. No one at CIA has been fired or disciplined. Take the 9-11 failure, for example. Zero accountability. Another CIA officer, now retired, made the same point recently in an op-ed in the International Herald Tribune:
This is the article I never intended to write. For former CIA officers, the tipping point between debate-generating critique and “if they had only listened to me” pontification is easy to cross, and I had hoped to avoid the latter by simply refraining from attempts at the former. So let’s be clear, I am not claiming to have been prescient. It took more than three years outside the agency for me to truly understand its problems and to see a possible solution.
To start with the bottom line, the CIA’s human spy business is not answering the hardest questions. How can I know this, three years out of touch with the secret stuff? The answer is simple: because Osama bin Laden is still the head of Al Qaeda. And no one has been held accountable for failing to catch him.
By the evening of Sept. 11, 2001, every serving CIA officer - indeed, every American - knew that the agency had one prime mission: “Get him!” But, after more than seven years and billions of dollars, we have failed. I recognize much has been done to damage Al Qaeda but, make no mistake, no amount of “rendition” of bin Laden lieutenants can mask our failure to bring to justice the man who ordered 9/11.
There are other failures too, less dramatic perhaps but of even greater consequence. The clandestine creep of nuclear know-how threatens to put the worst weapons into the worst hands. If North Korea or Iran, or Shangri-La for that matter, claims the right to develop a nuclear fist, our intelligence services should know every detail about that program. Yet we collectively fail over and over again when North Korea tests a missile or nuclear reactor construction in the eastern Syrian desert come as a surprise. If the CIA’s human spy arm was operating as a private business, it would be running at a loss. Think Detroit, not 007.
Why? First, the agency is simply too insular. It does not sufficiently tap into the expertise that exists across the breadth of America. The human spy components of the CIA live in a cocoon of secrecy that breeds distrust of outsiders. This is one reason very few officers have BlackBerrys. Despite their reputation as plugged-in experts on other countries, many CIA officers do not even have Internet access at their desks. Worse yet, they don’t think they need it.
Second, the CIA has a terrible problem with quality control. When I was still there, for example, CIA spies reported on several occasions that Al Qaeda had plans to attack American military bases overseas - in countries that a quick Web search would have shown had no such bases. Quantity outweighed quality as folks in the spy business focused not on accuracy or impact, but on increasing amounts of product.
And that brings us to perhaps the most numbing factor, the lack of performance accountability. In my years in the agency, I cannot recall a single case where anyone was fired for failing to perform. I cannot even remember anyone being demoted. There is no job-threatening penalty for mediocrity. Think of this on Jan. 20, when we’re likely to see bin Laden sending an inauguration greeting to the new president.
You can read the rest of Art Brown’s views here.
Panetta appears to be a decent, honest, smart man who is not bent on feathering his own nest. Given his prior experience as an intelligence consumer at the highest level in the U.S. government he at least understands what the intelligence community needs to produce in order to ensure the President has the best information. I am pleasantly surprised by the Panetta choice.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
BREAKING******************
Another Clinton cabinet member is appointed.
Obama has chosen former Clinton White House chief of staff, Leon Panetta, to run the CIA.
Panetta has no experience in the intelligence world. He was director of the Office of Management and Budget, and a long time Congressman from California.
This is change???
Yes, it’s change. In the right direction.
Off Topic but blog related, vote for noquarterusa.net for best political coverage.
http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
Thanks to myiqu2xu for the tip.
NoQuarter 307
DailyKos 168
FiveThirtyEight 657
AmericanThinker 300
Politico 214
SavagePolitics 61
ForeignPolicyWatch 13
Vote for NoQuarter! http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
rolling thunder: What irks me is that all through the primaries we kept hearing from the DNC and the media that we couldn’t have a second Clinton administration and now that’s exactly what we’ve got only without Hillary Clinton at the helm.
I don’t think that’s quite right, tek. From what I recall, the elite Democrats’ main concern was always electability, and there was worry that “Clinton fatigue” — especially a general fed-uppedness with Bill — might be determinative come November.
It was never a knock against the talent that had been assembled by the previous Clinton White House.
Anyway, whom should Obama be hiring except the cream of the crop of the Democratic Party… many of them, naturally, veterans of the last Democratic administration.
You again — yeck!
Always ready to defend your messiah — is your Bro before Hos t-shirt clean?
Way to address my point.
Your “point?” You’re really not that dumb, are you? The FRAUD ran on the Hopey Changey platform and it’s nothing but the same old, same old YAWN. It’s either the tired old Clinton crap or the Chi-Town Commode. Nothing new there. Does that address your “comment?”
I know. And the WORST part is that this freak calls himself “Undercover Black Man” and caused SO MUCH race baiting crap here. Can you IMAGINE? Someone pretending to be black so they can cause problems? Ughhh…
Where do you get evidence that there is “someone pretending to be black”?
Maybe he’s switched to a “Palin Is A Cunt” T-shirt.
UBM - I disagree. I don’t think Clinton had an electability problem. If anything, there was more doubt about Obama’s electability. The Repubs were supposedly already beaten.
Obama campaigned on Change, and all his supporters, including media, chanted *change*. They repeatedly hit Hillary on the premise that she wsa not change, that she was a return of a dynasty (which was stupid).
The Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton dynasty mantra was pushed, and in the end, people bought it, and elected Mr. Hopey Changey. NOW, as TEK said, we have all the Clinton people, except Hillary as CIC.
Many Clinton supporters are happy that Obama has selected so many Clinton people, at least we know there are decent people to help him. haha But, for a guy who chanted hope and change, he is not very changey. And that is what is making his far left supporters upset, and it makes Hillary supporters upset because we could have/should have had HER.
It was MISOGYNY that killed Hillary’s run. The misogynist media frat-boys-and-gals pushed Odrama Precious to a fraudulent “finish line” of superdels. Of course Herr Axelrod was the chief merchant of misogyny in the Obamarama Camp. And the stooges lilke Pelosi and Reid and where-is-he-now-Dr. Howie Dean the Screamer were happy to join in the Hillary-bashing!
So Odrama Precious now has XEROXED the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. HILLARY would at least have been the ORIGINAL….
Undercover blackman
That is not totally true. Through out the primaries his message of CHANGE was mainly knocking down the Clinton time. He even in one of his(Favurea) speeches lumped Clinton and the Bush Admin together. Now it is obvious he is a chronic liar, his followers are not even bause they just move on making more excuses for him. Just in case you are going to say it, I will save you the trouble I WILL NEVER FORGET THE PRIMARIES
owawawaowa
Clinton-bashing was the mantra of the Obamadrama campaign. The Precious Obambi praised REAGAN in his infamous speech in N.C. as the epitome of innovation and dumped Bill Clinton to the waste bin of History! I read it and it made my blood boil! He clearly SNUBBED and INSULTED Bill CLINTON’s historical legacy in that speech and he did it while praising Reagan’s IDEOLOGY!! Gimme a break! Odrama’s race-baiting of the Clintons, his misogyny and his trashing of the Clinton legacy in favor of Reagain neocon ideology will never be forgiven nor forgotten.
Someone ought to get that speech framed and mail it to Obama–the frame that is! Nice halo for this Empty Suit whose ambitions are greater than his kindergarten intellect could ever hope to reach….
Betcha he entered Columbia and Harvard on Affirmative Action with his low marks received at Columbia in N.York!!
Philip Berg’s lawsuit asks him to REVEAL his COLUMBIA University and HARVARD records, Birth Certificate and medical records. WHY is Obamarama not complying with such simple request.
Conference to be held in Supreme Court with Mr. Berg Jan. 9th and l6th! Ah Lourdes….Hill’s 4th in line….
UBM,
What’s the point? If all we are getting is Clinton retreads, then we should have had Hillary.
My guess is that Hillary would have braved new frontiers in an effort to set herself apart from her husband’s administration. I think that’s why a lot of his people lined up against her and went over to 0bama’s side.
What I’m saying is that 0bama promised change. So far, nothing has changed except we have a ‘person of color’ as POTUS.
Face it, he lied and flied to the Oval Office. He cares about no one but himself. Least of all, AAs.
Take your head out of the sand.
mimi
I think it’s great and long overdue that we have a “person of color” (ugh-expression) in the White House. But Obama is the WRONG person of color and he’s already alienated his own base who were fool enough to believe his promises. It’s thanks to the AAs and women he got in. But these two will be the first to get bashed…in his way to Glory.
I just read DISSENTING JUSTICE by AA Law Professor Darren Hutchison and he agrees that AAs have already been tremendously disappointed with Obama’s (in)actions! His misogyny and race-baiting throughout the Primary was unforgivable….
No, it was a repetition of the Clinton years that was exactly propounded as the great evil by the MSM and the One himself. And Obama did everything he could to distance himself from the Clinton Administration as a WHOLE, having never mentioned any participant in addition to Bill and Hill themselves as worthy of praise or incidents of esteem.
Personally, I am uncomfortable with appointments that are not based upon experience, like Panetta’s, since they are even more reliant upon the people who are already there and their knowledge of SOPs than if they have worked their way up from the bottom. In short, they have a much higher learning curve to overcome. Having worked in govt for a long time, you see many times how movers and shakers come in and can’t get anything done because they are at such a disadvantage, not knowing the process involved or how to communicate effectively with the others. Conversely, a my-way-or-the-highway approach never works, as the underlings are resentful of the person appointed in the first place.
One of the reasons Tenet was so ineffective was he didn’t have the balls to stand up the to pres even after CIA men were leaking info and petitioning members of Congress about the nonexistent WMDs.
I like Panetta, but think that someone else would be better qualified. We’ll see.
Larry,
At the time, who should have Clinton chosen for these positions?
I don’t think Panetta will have a problem telling Obama unpleasant news, just from what I remember about his tenure as budget director. I’ve always liked him a lot.
If they do prove to be inspired choices, who do you think told Obama to nominate them??
Hill and Bill told him. Chuckle
You said a mouthful, Rolling.
You can say that again.
Thanks, Larry, for your take on Panetta. I got the impression from the article in the NY Times - http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/panetta-to-be-named-cia-director/ that he really wasn’t the best choice for the job.
Panetta will be able to tell him uncomfortable truths because Panetta is mature (more mature than Obama, in years, experience, and psyche) and Panetta does not need Obama’s approval.
I’m not sure if Panetta will have a hard time with Obama because Obama is so clueless on everything that he has no choice but to trust those he appoints. However, I would have liked to see Valerie Plame in the job, if she wants it. She’s smart, savvy, she knows the ins and outs of the CIA…and she’s a strong woman who is respected among her peers.
Valerie Plame…now that would be karma
I don’t think the boys that be would “allow” it as her anatomy is wrong.
toni
CNN had Arne Duncan(?) Head of Chicago’s Public School boards on a video with Obadrama smiling at his side as he announced his appointment as his secretary of Education.
JOCK CABINET is what CNN called it as Arne played basketball with Odrama in Chicago and so did 4 more of his cabinet appointments!
No. Valie Plume had no chance. Anatomical deficiencies for the Odrama Princess to tolerate!…
I would prefer ALICE PALMER as secretary of Education…he owes the woman. Stealing her election in Chicago ‘96 wasn’t ‘presidential’ then. He’s stepped over bodies to get to the top. But if they ever get up and start hautning him…watch out…
By your logic, Larry, how is Leon Panetta qualified to do this job? What would make me feel that someone who does not have a background in intelligence operations can effectively perform this job? The choice stinks in my opinion.
Because he does understand what the President needs in terms of information in order to be able to carry out his duties. What you fail to understand is that the CIA started sending out as Chiefs of Station analysts, like John Brennan, who had no ops experience either. Only they were actually in charge of supervising field ops.
Someone like Panetta will have a big picture view. I think he is quite competent to handle the job. He is more qualified than any of the last 6 people selected to head the CIA in my view.
At least he is honest. That’s a plus. We can deal with that.
Larry, I think you are right about Leon Panetta. I was friends with one of his sons in high school (when he was in Congress), and I spent a lot of time at their place in Carmel Valley when Leon and Sylvia were around. They’re honest, fair-minded, hard-working people with integrity. You can’t fake that. I don’t think Leon’s ego is invested in this at all. For himself, he’d prefer to stay in Monterey. But he’s a patriot, and the incoming President asked. I don’t think he’d hesitate to roll some heads if he thought it needed doing for the country’s sake, either. He’s not a bleeding heart type, which must be why the NYT is holding its nose. I trust Leon Panetta to look out for all of us, not just 0, and I am surprised by his appointment.
This seems like it might really work. I think Panetta is beholding to no one and will risk being dumped rather than become a “yes man.”
I agree. Panetta isn’t owned by anybody. He’s his own man.
Diane Feinstein having a bit of a fit over Panetta choice - her committee must approve him.
http://washingtonindependent.com/23827/dianne-feinstein-not-too-pleased-with-panetta-pick
“A bit of a fit”?
It sounds like Obama didn’t give her common courtesy and ask for her opinion, and she’s heading the Intelligence Committee. Jimmy Carter did this, he completely blew off his own allies in Congress.
Feinstein doesn’t shoot her mouth off, she only releases statements she knows will be made public.
That sounds like another rookie mistake from a bush-league president select.
Well, if those nincumpoops didn’t realize that odrama uses people to get what he wants and then disposes of them, they are stupid.
Do you realize that most of our leaders are so stupid that they aren’t fit to serve?
What say we file a motion with the SCOTUS stating that we have grave concerns about mental capacity of our leaders and demand psych evals on each an every elected official?!
aren’t those supposedly done? Have we seen any psych evals done by experts, like the one done on Bush? I can’t remember the guy’s name but he was on Air America Radio a lot!
This is perplexing indeed. I would think he would a much better fit for Secty of Commerce just vacated by Judas.
However, Leon and his wife, Sylvia, have done wonderful community outreach through The Panetta Institute, among other things, bringing national political figures to the Monterey Conference Center for forums and presentations. I appreciate too that they replay these on public access television because it is usually next to impossible to get tickets unless you bought season tickets to all. He had Bill (about five years ago) and later Hillary. Bill was sold out on the day it was announced, Hillary was a sold out crowd too. I wound up in the overflow room with a big monitor…at least it was live. Also his guests always partake in questions and answers from the audience so that takes it away from a canned speech.
Still, he is a bit of a Mr. Milquetoast. Maybe that’s a front. I had contact with them only through the business community. At the height of one of the Bush horrors, I mentioned to Sylvia that we needed them back in DC. She replied that she liked where she lives and wouldn’t want to change it.
We do have a lot of military intelligence types around the Monterey Peninsula; Defense Language Institute, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey Institute of International Studies…maybe Mr. P. has been learning Arabic over at DLI…LOL.
AnnieC: I can’t fault Sylvia Pannetta for wanting to stay in Monterey. It seems like a sort of pat answer that politicians in an out-of-power party use.
Larry, I will defer to you on the choice of Panetta, although I am surprised at his selection for this postion.
I like his manner and he seems to be devoted to public service.
I admired his support of Hillary, and think he would have liked working for her.
I wish he were!
The irony of the many former Clintonite being appointed to the Obama administration is making me sick to my stomach.
01/21/08 ABC News
Clinton then accused Obama of calling conservative darling Reagan a better president than Clinton.
s/b Clintonites!
Can you imagine the slurs and outrage that would have been directed at Hillary if she had become POTUS and made these appointments?
Obama lies. He needs to be careful what he says. He’s a pathological liar. He doesn’t know the truth from a lie. He just talks shit.
Anyone know if BUSH is packing yet? Boy I can’t wait until he pulls that UHaul up to the whitehouse and packs his shet and leaves. Laura will be more happy than I am and that’s alot!
I’d rather Bush stay than have fraudbama!
Bush is a drunk, making decisions in a drunken stupor and meeting world leaders while half in the bag. He needs to pack it up and go to rehab.
obamastolemyboyfriend: Don’t talk crazy.
“I’d rather Bush stay than have fraudbama!”
Then you definitely deserve Obama.
You’ll pass on an lesser known for a greater known.
Bush is a fraud, clearly, without doubt…and yet…you’d keep him?
“I’d rather Bush stay than have fraudbama!”
That is the reductio ad absurdum of Obama-hatred.
no phony black man…that’s the truth. Bush will be thanking Fraudbama FOREVER for making him look good.
Again,….why do you keep saying this?
Do you have evidence of this? What gives?
truthtelling007-
UBM is giving you crickets.
OIAFraud.
Agreed 100%! Odrama Queen will make Bush look like Lincoln. Actually,I think Obadrama will be Bush-Lite….
Thanks Larry, I value your perspective…
Funny you should mention Porter Goss, I woke up from a dream, perhaps a nightmare, several nights ago; I guess I was pondering the real truth about his demise in a not-fully-conscious-state-of-mind.
I dont know why, but thinking back on that time, it was always my impression Goss was laughed at, just another Bush stooge.
(And yes, I remember the damage, the torture Cheney advocated for, horrific then, and now. But again, IMO, even though Goss was a Cheney ally, he was STILL lightly regarded. FWIW, when intelligence, or really, anyone, is smarter than their boss, they tend to disregard him, holding him in comtempt — I would say the same is true for Hayden, also).
Bush is known for his (counter productive) loyalties, yet he seemed to let Goss go without a peep, which I thought was odd — maybe they wanted a military guy in there, hence, Hayden.
Or something else, who knows?
So, I’m hoping this appointment works out, Panetta doesn’t strike me as a flaming moron, and that’s a good start.
For some reason, all I can think of is Carl Spackler, of Caddyshack, taking someone to the shed in his own unique way.
If I remember correctly, The Center for American Progress came out early in the primaries for Obama, as nauseam. But it really was their bashing of Hillary that prompted me to stop reading them.
The unqualified Panetta is rewarded by Obama for this.
Please forgive me Larry, and others, for saying this stinks.
I remember this, too.
Panetta was on TV one morning, with the usual “Clinton must quit” talking point, and it struck me he was lying.
But really, I’m grateful Obama didn’t keep Hayden, or go with another military guy, it really could have been a lot worse.
And he rises or falls on his own merit, in the end.
An article on the pick from the NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/us/politics/05web-panetta.html
Congressman Panetta is, before anything else, a career professional politician. The President-elect has chosen a professional politician to head an Agency where politics should have no place, where politicization by the current administration has destroyed its effectiveness.
Particularly now that the special authorities reside with the DNI, there are certain aspects of the CIA that make the choice of its leadership somewhat analogous to that of the military services. Would you appoint a politician to lead the Marines? I think not.
If morale and effectiveness at CIA is to be restored, a director must be chosen who is a non-political professional intelligence officer that leads by example. Until that director is appointed, the CIA will remain neutralized as an effective intelligence service.
Larry, one of the problems I see, (as a novice), is that Panetta was chosen because “he had no connection” with the past.
Does this mean he has no idea about what occurred in the last 8 years? And has no intentions of ,as you point out, “holding people accountable” for their poor performance?
What does the lack of his intelligence experience mean for the CIA?
I get a sinking feeling that this is a bad choice and not because Mr Penetta is not a decent man. It is because I doubt he will be read into what is most dark about the what has transpired over at the CIA…
What is most dark is the result of a bunch of lightweight, narcissistic kooks.
I realize, and understand this is serious business, but the one thing that strikes me about Bush, and some others, is a level of narcissism inversely proportionate to a level of talent.
Fighting what some would term talentless politicized “cake- eaters” is analogous to fighting Choate, or Philips Exeter, isn’t it?
Why bother?
They’re a joke.
is a level of narcissism inversely proportionate to a level of talent..
Mort this sounds like BO to me. That is one of the underlying issues for me.
It is not so much that Leon Pennetta does or does not have the “spine” to tell BO the bad news. As chief of staff for President Clinton, I am sure he dealt with his fair share. It is that one career CIA people will not have much insentive to expose the dark side and second, BO won’t listen or understand the iport of what he is being told.
Then there is the other nagging thought of why Brennan was his first choice and now he goes to the other extreme?
Since I will never trust BO with anything, I will admit to a certian disposition. I am looking at this bias as more my street smarts (survival mode) talking to me. It is “too quite in these woods”.
Last SusunUnpc asked an important question awhile back…who is the muscle?
I agree, and I’m sure we will learn more about Panetta, and WHY he was chosen, over the next weeks.
I certainly hope he’s not wedded to any specific ideology, respecting country before party, minus the pettiness and egotism that seems to have crippled Washington as of late.
He strikes me as a highly intelligent man, like Bill Clinton, I think he understands WHY the American form a government works (all things considered). And if does, he may help restore some sense of respect for the law.
MAYBE.
Though of course I look closely at those who support Obama (for corruption, and such), especially those who supported him while there was still a choice, a contradiction right there, I suppose.
Mr. Johnson, of course Mr. Panetta is a decent man and that is why he belongs nowhere near the CIA for starters.
Mr. Panetta is at heart a Republican where he started life in California. He served in intelligence at Ft. Ord which means it was only a college corp title.
None of that though means a person who cut corners and knew problems existed in the Clinton White House who ignored his conscience, but retained his character has prepared him for CIA.
There are a myriad of jobs Mr. Panetta would excel at and assist this Democratic government, but CIA is about the last place he should be just like Tom Daschle belongs nowhere near health care as he knows nothing about it.
As for Admiral Blair, he has shown a disregard for Clinton civilian authority in not following orders in Indonesia and instead aiding in the butcher of people seeking freedom there. He was in theater with Naval CIA Intelligence and missed the inferno building there in 9 11 and which hit Bali. This was his station area and good officers overlap and watch all venues.
What Mr. Obama has done is appointed two people unprepared in one is too decent for the job and one plays too fast and loose.
There are not a great number of Democratic candidates for the intelligence and security jobs, but the ones Mr. Obama has chosen are not capable. CIA needs a Joe Biden type everyone hates.
God bless
I wouldn’t wish a Joe Biden type on my worst enemy. He’s so stupid and self-serving he’s dangerous.
He was too lazy and dense to practice law and is still waiting for those Fireside Chats from the 20’s to come back on TV.
Pick an issue and Credit Card Joe will show you his bad judgment.
quick comment regarding not capturing Osama Bin Laden…
Had the Bush Admin captured OBL…this war could not have gone on under the guise of “war on terror” and the “hunt for bin laden”.
Who knows…maybe we’ll suddenly see him pop up in the next 15 days….captured, killed, or some other bad theatre from these criminals currently in the White House.
Once you’ve tagged your target, people will be less inclined to go look for the ‘bad guys’.
Leaving OBL out in the wilderness would not be a precedent either. To be honest, because I wasn’t intending to write on this, I’m drawing a blank on fugitives who weren’t hunted because it would have ended funding, resources, etc…but I know I’ve passed that paradigm before. I will do some quick scrubs and find them.
When you complete the task…the enthusiasm wanes.
Outside of fugitive hunting, there are too many examples of people not finishing a job simply because it would then invalidate their new bureaucracy.
I can’t prove they are willfully refusing to do so, and will hold out on an actual accusation…but it wouldn’t make sense to capture him if your goal is a more prominent change in world politics which was clearly one of the goals Cheney and PNAC had before seizing the White House in 2000.
great that Obama is seemingly thumbing his nose at Rockfeller and Feinstein, as they basically rubber stamped everything the Bush adminstration wanted to do….
Rockfeller and Feinstein should be off the intelligence committee and some new blood should be brought in.
I agree. Dianne Feinstein is a joke. I had to work so hard one night to convince a Democrat friend that she was a Democrat. He watched a committee hearing with her on it and said, “Damn, I’m sick of these Republican assholes.”….and he was referring to Feinstein. “uh…she’s a Democrat”
“WHAAAA”
I don’t have all her votes on hand, but frequently she’s among 16 Democratic Senators like Mark Pryor of Arkansas who voted for things like retroactive FISA violations.
Who cares if the Democrats ever get 60 vote power…they have defectors all the time.
yep
when I was over at the DNC open thread
Dianne was one of the DINO’s we often dissed.
Pryor was too
as well as Landrieu and a few others
bad votes, bad bad!
and of course there was the crazy Lieberdon’t
(can’t decide wtf he is) and no one could ever depend on him which by itself should disqualify any candidate!!
argh
with friends like these, who needs enemies?
Come on Larry. He seem to be a competent man; but in every area except the CIA or intelligence. If he is such a great pick, why is top Senate Dems seem to not like this pick.
Larry…
Thanks for your Article…I have been waiting today for your Input..my concern is not Panetta’s lack of experience in Intel..as long as he is intelligent, gets a quick Grasp of the Issues and is a Good Decision Maker..more interesting will be His close Support Group and DDI…and DDO..
I Hope He Can Help and Heal the Agency on all Levels..especially Support..Moral and Operations…Time will tell..
We don’t need any more Cults..and its time for some Exorcism..IMO..
Regards LC…
Icebergs are colliding again in Hell.
We agree.
Anyone that Feinstein carps about has to be standup.
It sounds like we’ll be getting a kinder, warmer, more Democrat friendly CIA. I laughed when I heard the nomination. We live in terrifying times. My guess is Robert Gates will just end up working twice as hard to compensate. Everything Retired said makes sense to me. I won’t be sleeping any easier at night.
Panetta is too much a “do gooder” from another world than BAmbi.
He won’t get it. jmo.
And Bambi won’t care.
hopefully SOMEONE up there will be guarding the hen house
while all these shiny happy not-so-new people try to reshuffle the deck and end up with a better hand
(sigh)
not holding my breath Larry
To all my listeners,
Tonight’s show will start at 11pm ET! This our Constitution Eligibility Guest-Week. First up Tonight is Dr. Orly Taiz.
INTERVIEW: DR. ORLY TAIZ DDS ESQ ON BARACK OBAMA CONSTITUTION ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THERE MUCH MORE TO BE DISUSS!!!
Join me{Matt}, and Phillip at 11pm ET. Call-in Number:347-202-0443.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/My-Two-Cents
kewl I’ll be there
God bless Orly. She’s a SAINT and she is literally doing God’s work, around the clock, to stop Fraudbama from illegally usurping the White House. She’s an amazing woman.
OIAFraud
Orly is really sharp and I watched her on Phillip Berg’s video “National Press Club–”Dec. 8th” where they discussed the various lawsuits brought by Phil Berg against Odrama.
Berg’s conference with the Supreme Court is 9th Jan.–day after Odrama gets confirmed by Congress! So, Phil will have his STANDING and the Court will have to respond.
Why is Odrama spending thousands of dollars and 3 teams of expensive legal eagles to withhold his birth certificate and shcool records from Columbia and Harvard??
If he returned from Indonesia as child and did not go through Immigration to get certificate of confirmation of naturalization (his school lists him as “Indonesian” and religion “Islam”) then Sen. Obama was FRAUD! And in fact was an illegal ALIEN…incredible and let’s see if Odrama manages to evade the Constitution, too!
I’m still waiting to see the first major paper that would say something negative about the Messiah and his choices.
Anybody knows where BHO stands on the black guy who is going to replace him in the senate? I know a week ago he came against him following Reid lead. This week he has no comment. I’m sure next week he will be all for it. What a fraud? Bastard.
Some how I have the feeling that Panetta will play well with the other agencies to make the most effective use of meeting the countries intelligence needs. As I usnderstand it Gates controls 70% of the intelligence budget.
Another factor will be how well will the high level in place CIA management play with Panetta and if they don’t does he get to replace them.
In his book Dick Clarke does acknowledge the high level Clinton team working on Al-Chaida and Panetta had to be part of that effort. Clarkes biggest beef with Condi is she never raised the terrorist threat to the major principals of the government.
When the CIA breifed George in Crawford, he was not able to grasp the significance of the issue. From the recent Vanity Fair artile, George’s comment to the CIA was: well you have covered your ass with this.
While he was reading the Pet Goat in Florida, he realized how bad he screwed up. They had him in a plane flying all over the country. I suspect he lost it. Later versions said Cheney was givng the commands regarding the shoot down of planes.
All the “cream of the crop” Clinton crowd are now working for Obama, not a Clinton. What happens when they begin to think Obama isn’t doing what’s right? Do they stay and “whore” themselves? Do they quit? Or do they get fired if Obama decides he knows everything and doesn’t want any guidance?
Time will tell…
Testing…no notice about awaiting moderation??
My bet is that these will NOT be the people running these spy agencies — I suspect that the shadows who funded O-nutless campaign will have others really running the show.
It would be nice to have people who know something about the job their are supposed to do.
Hell — just put a bunch of names in bowl and draw out the names and put them in charge of ANYTHING. Why have experience — oh right — these are men and they have the penis — so they have loads of experience — peeing standing up.
I was curious to see what a search at cia.gov on Leon Panetta might provide, and an article about James Woolsey was the result. Highlighted in the article were issues pertaining to the budget, and this amusing quote: One of Panetta’s senior staff officers commented on Woolsey’s approach in dealing with Panetta: “I’ve never seen a more graceless stonewall….”
Then I remembered this inspired, not-to-be-missed logo https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/dci-counterterrorist-center-terrorist-buster-logo.html
That is too hilarious! I had forgotten about it.
Doesn’t sound like Panetta has any experience for the job…??
[...] Inspired Choices for DNI and CIA? (by Larry Johnson at No Quarter) If you look back at the people that Bill Clinton and George Bush put in charge of the CIA, then the choice of Panetta seems particularly inspired. Why? The ideal candidate is someone who is smart, who is not looking to feather his or her nest to reap economic benefits, and who understands that the President needs an honest broker… Panetta appears to be a decent, honest, smart man who is not bent on feathering his own nest. Given his prior experience as an intelligence consumer at the highest level in the U.S. government he at least understands what the intelligence community needs to produce in order to ensure the President has the best information. I am pleasantly surprised by the Panetta choice. Glenn Greenwald says, “Spencer Ackerman reports that Sen. Dianne Feinstein is upset with the selection of Panetta, petulantly complaining that she wasn’t consulted in advance and that it would be best to have an “intelligence professional” in that position. CQ’s Tim Starks reports that Sen. Jay Rockefeller is making very similar noises about this selection. Few things could reflect better on Panetta’s selection than the fact that Feinstein and Rockefeller — two of the most Bush-enabling Senators — are unhappy with it.” [...]
[...] be alarmed or accept the new post-partisanship when Larry ‘Whitey Tape” Johnson is “pleasantly surprised” about the nomination and these stooges endorse it, watch your [...]
[...] be alarmed or accept the new post-partisanship when Larry ‘Whitey Tape” Johnson is “pleasantly surprised” about the nomination and these stooges endorse it, watch your [...]