RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Panetta’s Bullshit Whistle Blowing and Obama’s Culpability

By Larry Johnson on July 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM in Current Affairs

As someone who initially praised the appointment of Leon Panetta as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency let me now admit, I was wrong. He is turning out to be a disaster and his latest stunt–rushing to Congress to “report” on a non-operational program–shows his true colors. Panetta is playing politics with intelligence rather than taking care of intelligence. The Wall Street Journal’s Siobhan Gorman shed more light on the nature of this program:

A secret Central Intelligence Agency initiative terminated by Director Leon Panetta was an attempt to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives, according to former intelligence officials familiar with the matter.

According to current and former government officials, the agency spent money on planning and possibly some training. It was acting on a 2001 presidential legal pronouncement, known as a finding, which authorized the CIA to pursue such efforts. The initiative hadn’t become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it.

The real story is that Barack Obama either decided to overturn a Presidential finding originally made by President Bush or is on board with what Bush did. That’s the real news here.

The CIA is not a unilateral “idea” factory with the power to take action on their own. A program of this kind of sensitivity regardless of whether it was conceptual, partially operational or fully operational would have required a Presidential finding. Once such a finding is in place it remains in place until a President terminates the authority. Neither Leon Panetta or any other Director of CIA can unilaterally suspend or cancel such a finding. They do not have the authority.

I will guarantee you this–Leon Panetta checked with the White House before Leon trotted up to the Hill. The real question is whether or not Obama agrees with the Bush finding.

The Democrats also are setting themselves up for a big pie in the face. Most Americans believe it is a damn fine idea that the CIA have the authority to kidnap and kill al Qaeda. So the Dems want to voice outrage at the notion of killing al Qaeda and pitch a fit because they were not fully briefed on a program that had not been implemented? That dog won’t hunt. Americans don’t believe in harming innocent people, but most are fully on board with killing Bin Laden and his crowd.

Panetta has now screwed himself. He’ll have some support from the usual toadies in the CIA bureaucracy who curry favor with the powerful but he has lost the troops on this one. He has proven he is not to be trusted and is, as some feared, a political hack. Pandering to the Hill to help cover Nancy Pelosi’s lying ass is not a recipe for building morale at the CIA.

  • JJ

    Wasn’t the CIA behind the creation of al Queda? It is pretty obvious 911 was an inside job. That was why there was no criminal investigation of 9/11 like there was in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

    • Peggy Sue

      An inside job??? You must be kidding. More like Bush & Co, trying to hide their own total incompetence.

      I’m really looking forward to Larry J. answering [blast] this one.

      Tin foil hats anyone???? The nonsense never ends.

      • TeakWoodKite

        I think JJ is referring to the 80′s.

        But that is how history goes.

        • Commodore Sloat

          Yes he’s referring to the 80s but he’s wrong. The CIA had no contact with “al Qaeda,” which didn’t really exist then anyway. Stephen Coll’s book is a wonderful history of this period and it dispenses with these myths. The connection is there in that the CIA funded the Afghan mujahideen, and the “Afghan Arabs” of whom bin Laden was one, also assisted the mujahideen, but to claim the CIA trained the Arabs is incorrect — bin Laden’s Afghan Arabs were there but they were a small part of the force that defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan. And it’s possible that bin Laden and compatriots would not have been there in the first place without the Reagan Administration imploring the Saudis and other Arab governments to help out in Afghanistan, which they did by encouraging clerics to call it a jihad and by subsidizing the jihadists to go over there (for the Arab govts, it was win-win, they got rid of troublemakers while posturing for jihad). But to claim that the CIA “was behind the creation of al Qaeda” is horseshit.

          And by the way it is “Qaeda” or “Qaida,” not “Queda.” That’s a pet peeve of mine; we’re talking about an Islamist group composed of mostly Arabs, not a Puerto Rican separatist group.

          • Docelder

            it’s possible that bin Laden and compatriots would not have been there in the first place without the Reagan Administration imploring the Saudis and other Arab governments to help out in Afghanistan

            There are a lot of instances such as this in our history. But, what is the alternative? It seems to me we need to be upfront and draw our line in the sand about this point. Either we commit to do whatever it takes to do the best that we can to shape these world events… else we commit to mind our own store and instead prepare to deal with the unknown that will come from our decision. With the first option, we have some sense of self determination that we can influence what happens around us… with the second we have determination of how we will react. But, I think we need to decide this and quit beating ourselves up for it, and quit apologizing to the rest of the world for having self determinate interests to begin with. Of course we do have interests, and it is our right to have them. We just need to agree to that much, while we still are able to be self determinate as a nation. This sitting on the fence business and self deprecating behavior is killing us.

          • TeakWoodKite

            I don’t disagree, except to say that the US is getting really good at having the “policies” come back and bite us in the
            BUTTOCKS.
            Stephen Coll’s book is a good read.

      • Howard Brodsky

        Nonsense. He made a perfectly valid point: the nation experienced it’s worse episode of criminal mass murder in it’s history right under the nose of a trillion $ air defense system that had never previously failed but somehow failed repeatedly on 9/11 – one of those anomalous days in the history of the universe where even physical laws seemed to operate in reverse if you accept the official conspiracy theory – and we saw no criminal investigation, no Grand Jury, no prosecutor, no subpoenaes, no jurisprudence, just the sequestering and disappearance, including documented cases of willful destruction of evidence by our government and a lapdog press tripping over itself to print the legend fed to it by a still unaccountable WH. So he’s got a perfectly legitimate point and he’s correct: it is obvious that the story we’ve been fed is false. Talk about the “shock doctrine”, even Congress tripped over itself in it’s rush to trash the Bill of Rights.

        It is a total disgrace to perpetuate the myth and blindly accept the government’s stories which have never been corroborated and when we have simply experienced mounting evidence of inveterate lying.

        How about ungagging people with primary knowledge like Sibel Edmonds?

        • Onofre’s arm

          Howard Brodsky. This is a name that I will certainly add to my list of psychotic loons that should be avoided at ALL COSTS! Unless, of course, patient Brodsky is properly sedated and restrained.

    • hokma

      No. The CIA was not behind the formation of Al Qaeda.

      And No. 9/11 was not an inside job.

    • http://ontheseventhday.wordpress.com/ Al

      Huh?

  • Hunky Dory

    Bravo! Well said.

    Especially this:

    Neither Leon Panetta or any other Director of CIA can unilaterally suspend or cancel such a finding. They do not have the authority.

    It demonstrates exactly how inept and corrupt this administration is. And how gullible they think the rest of us are.

    Thank you Larry.

    • CardonBluff

      The only ineptitude I see is under the previous administration’s efforts — which allowed Bin Laden to get away at Tora Bora and then had A.Q. rebuild over 6 years in Pakistan while we gave billions to a dictator who did mostly squat. An NIE issued in 2007 said they had essentially rebuilt Al Qaeda. There is your REAL incompetence.

      Obama has already done more than Bush ever did. Pakistan is actually in the fight now. And Afghanistan is getting more troops and resources. As for the CIA mess

      Panetta was not even told about this program until recently and when he found out, he realized just how serious this was. It was not just another idea among many floating around the CIA like happy hour balloons, this had reached serious planning and strategic levels of execution, and been shut down and restarted at least once, maybe more.

      Check out the 1947 National Security law, people. It includes ANTICIPATED actions, not just operational ones, as required material for Congressional briefings. Of course we want to get Al Qaeda; Christ, Obama is raining missiles down on them as we speak. But we don’t want to do it half-cocked or ineptly, and end up murdering innocents and blowing up buses full of schoolkids or wedding parties. It ain’t like in the movies folks.

      Panetta deserves credit for stepping up on this. It would have come out anyway is some godawful conflagration later. The CIA should have simply taken its medicine and come clean when the nation turned the page on the hideous Bush Administration. Instead the CIA tried to intimidate congress and especially Pelosi. They have nobody but themselves to blame for the blow-up now.

  • WMCB

    Administrations that hand their intelligence services out to dry for political reasons, to cover their own asses or make themselves look good, are always a bad idea.

    There are real crimes of the Bush administration that ought to be prosecuted, and those are being covered up. Meanwhile, let’s trash the CIA over some inconsequential matter so we can look like we’re doing something brave.

    Real bonehead move. Expect some unsourced leaks in the coming weeks that make Pelosi look like the fool she is.

    • Peggy Sue

      Good comments, WMCB. “Fair and balanced,” as they say :0).

      We seem to be steering ourselves into an absolute nosedive. But when it comes to Pelosi, I hope she’s smoked out for the fool and gross partisan she’s proven to be.

      Lots of fools to the left and right of the country anymore. I hope people start waking up. This is no longer a party-loyal situation. It’s about survival as a people.

  • http://noquarter foxyladi14

    this will come back to haunt them.just watch.

  • tillthen

    He looks like one and apparently acts like one – a wimp, a suckass wimp. Do we have a Smiley at the CIA who can fuck-over Panetta good?

    • Onofre’s arm

      Just resist the urge to apply the Heimlich maneuver to the man that aspirated his own whistle. It will be fun to watch him writhe in an hypoxic panic.

  • American

    I think this is just the beginning. There will be a lot more coming about what the CIA did and did not do. I hope you will not have to eat your words.

    • Onofre’s arm

      On the offhand chance that I might have to eat my words, I always try to use tasty ones.

      • TeakWoodKite

        I’ll get the tab.

  • HARP

    I would hope that they tried to eliminate top al Queda people. Does anyone believe that the Allies didn`t attempt to kill upper echelon Nazi officials.

    • Peggy Sue

      None, Harp. And thank God for that!

    • American

      You can still fullfill the priorities of dealing with the enemies of the U.S., but you need to do it within the bounds of the law and keep the checks and balance in government. That is what this country was founded on and what has kept it a beaken for the world.

      • don tufts

        are you kidding me,seriosly you think we should ask for a legal opinion before taking out osama.i hope you and your loved ones are never in harms way and depending on you making a quick decision.

      • Diana L. C.

        You had me confused at first: that would be “beacon,” not “beaken.”

      • Mary

        Oh, horsesh*t, American.

        If “our boys” had had ANY opportunity to take out Osama bin Laden , they should have taken it. Period.

        We’re not playing Monopoly by the goofy rules inside the lid, you know.

        How’d I do, Larry? LOL

      • hokma

        First understand what “war” is and then comment.

        This is not a gambling bust.

        And I applaud anything the CIA was doing to kill and kidnap Al Qaeda operatives.

        Not telling Congress about an idea that had not yet been hatched is not required. And if it were withheld, the news over the past few days from that bottom feeder Pelosi on down is enough evidence that these kind of operations should not be shared with witless idiots in Congress who do not have the ability to know when to stifle.

    • Rob G in Chicago

      The U.S. likely blew the whistle on a few plots to kill Hitler, and shelved a few plots of their own, because Hitler’s military incompetence and refusal to listen to his best military officers was largely responsible for the allied victory. While the allies would have likely won the war in any event, had Hitler been assassinated and replaced by a competent Commander-in-Chief, we would have had a much harder time of it.

  • CG

    LJ

    Personally I can’t imagine Panetta briefing Congress on a special CIA plan to kill al Qaeda leaders directed by Dick Cheney. Panetta may be a big disappointment but I don’t think he could possibly be that stupid. From September 11, 2001 everyone expected the CIA and military would kill as many al Qaeda leaders as they could, no surprise or need for secrecy on that concept. This is purely a convenient leak I suspect. Sorry but it seems this is not the topic of the special Panetta briefing, but I know nothing. What does Ray McGovern think?

    • HARP

      Hardly a secret when Bush said… wanted, dead or alive.

      • CG

        Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.

        • Diana

          lol I remember when Bush slaughtered that one. I love it when people’s minds get all jumbled up and they can’t think. Mine gets that way daily. ;)

          When my grandson was 3 he was giving someone attitude and my son said, “Son haven’t you heard you get more flies with honey than you do with—-sugar!” I started laughing till I cried. He realized what he said and tried to correct it, explain what it means, but the damage was done. My grandson went around for days saying, “Flies like honey, not sugar.” That one has the makings of great SA, but he’s my little humanitarian.

      • oowawa

        “Bring me the head of Osama Bin Laden” O wait–that was Alfredo Garcia. Well, “He can run, but he can’t hide”–O wait-that was W talking about John Kerry. But at least, Osama Bin Laden was “Fair Game”–O wait–that target was Valerie Plame, one of our CIA agents . . . It all gets a little confusing . . .

        • CG

          love it

  • Patience

    If you can stand it, watch Keith O. sometime and you’ll see what’s driving this. He represents a faction of the party whose Number One Issue seems to be prosecuting Bush, somehow, some way. I made the mistake of tuning in the other night and felt I was in a time warp — one could’ve easily gotten the impression that Bush was still president. Maybe he is, in a sense. Like that Russian said last week, Obama seems like Bush but with a smile.

    • Benjamin

      I think Obama has more in common with Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and the Castro brothers than he does with Bush.

    • WMCB

      I think there are major things that do need to be prosecuted – like some of the wiretap stuff, the outing of Plame, etc.

      But I dont think it’s productive for the country to go on a retroactive Bush witchhunt, either. I’d be pretty happy if Obama just REVERSED a lot of those policies.

      But he’s leaving the bad policies in place, then wasting time going after bullshit stuff to look good for the liberal press.

      • Nellie

        Great comment WMCB, with which I fuly agree.

        The only part I personally take exception to is:

        to look good for the liberal press

        I no longer believe we have anything resembling a press that prints or broadcasts NEWS. Instead we have bought and paid for presstitutes. Not too long ago these type of people were accurately called propagandists.

      • Rob G in Chicago

        Like that accepting personal responsibility thing that Obama is trotting around the world, but refuses to implement back home. Looking forward rather than backward is a nice concept, in theory, but if you were among those who were angry and fed-up with the abuse of power and unconstitutional behavior of the Bush Administration, looking forward without assessing personal responsibility for unconstitutional or criminal behavior will only assure that such behavior will be repeated. Yes, this will be distracting, to some extent (Obama may be able to multi-task, but the Congress has shown very little capability to do so, and it may impede or slow Obama’s plan of action and itinerary, but the true facts about some of this nonsense from the previous administration must get out there, and there must be significant personal consequences for this lawlessness, or there will be no incentive to adhere to the constitution in the future. I do remember Obama’s supporters criticizing Hillary Clinton, and warning that she, like her husband, will cut a deal to just move forward, and that Bush would not be held accountable under Hillary. Obama’s campaign said that Bill Clinton had let Bush the elder off the hook for Iran/Contra, in exchange for being granted adequate breathing room to implement his pet plans and projects. Bill Clinton lived up to his end of the deal, but his detractors (including those from his own party) never really intended to let him govern. Personally, I think that Hillary understood this and would not have made the same mistake. It’s ironic that Obama is now doing and advocating exactly what he “warned” that Hillary would do.

    • jwrjr

      Watching Keith O. is rather like chugging Syrup of Ipecac.

      • Mary

        AMEN.

        By the way, since General Electric was given bailout money through the TARP, and since General Electric owns NBC and MSNBC, thereby paying Keith Olbermann’s salary……

        Why can’t we taxpayers limit or control Olbermann’s salary and bonuses?

        Pay czar?????? Where are you????

    • http://firefox AnnieCollier

      Well, thank you (I guess) for watching MSNBC so I don’t have to…You are right this is the Moveon.org crowd. I didn’t like Bush, never voted for him but I don’t want to revisit his mistakes. Leave that to Obama. So far, he’s taken every economic error the last administration made and made it 100 times worse.

      And, yes…ooooooooo, kill Al Qaeda. Shocking. But is in their job description.

      In Monterey, we knew Leon was a mistake. Nice guy but completely wrong for CIA. Too wimpish. You should have seen him interviewing government or media people for his Panetta Institute. Mr. Milquetoast. But this is the act of a coward. I see Nazi Pelosi in black boots and a whip and Leon obeying.

      • TeakWoodKite

        ewww lol

  • Andy

    What a disaster….

    A secret Central Intelligence Agency initiative terminated by Director Leon Panetta was an attempt to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives, according to former intelligence officials familiar with the matter.

    So let me see if I get this:

    PBO and Pannetta think we should not pursue AlQaeda operatives????

    What’s next? Obama opening a channel to ENGAGE AlQaeda in diplomacy?

    What a bunch of morons….Amazing…

    • Diana L. C.

      As with the Taliban, he will appeal to the moderate AlQaeda. :-)

  • HARP
    • tillthen

      I never knew who TOTUS was until now. I was too embarrassed to ask. Thanks. LMFAO

      • HARP

        Yep….now he is only half wrong.

        If you think the MJ memorial was Gawdy just wait until this funeral. WH house flags at half staff and Joe Biden was caught saying…..Don`t worry…I`m in charge now.

    • sandi78

      It must have been the CIA! LOL!

  • Benjamin

    This is nuts. Didn’t Obama campaign on going after and getting Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda? Didn’t he state that the mission in Afghanistan was to hunt down al-Qaeda? I’m getting really sick of these political games – especially in the area of national security.

    • http://annienyc.blogspot.com annienyc

      I remember that. As a candidate he actually said he would “hunt him down and kill him”. Who the fuck says that?

    • oowawa

      Hunt ‘em down. Round ‘em up. Read ‘em their rights. Appoint some good defense attorneys.

      • http://firefox AnnieCollier

        Don’t forget to give them some nice prayer rugs and a tasty chicken dinner; medical, dental, etc.

  • http://annienyc.blogspot.com annienyc

    Agree, i’m actually pretty stunned at Panetta. I thought he was a good choice at first as well, and now he’s using his position to hide Obama’s falling ratings of all things? I knew that Obama would release bit by bit a little bit of Bush’s ugly admin, but this is sickening that he would do it just to cover up for his ineptitude. Fuck Panetta, he’s nothing more than Obama’s bitch now. He has actually really dissapointed me.

  • J

    Panetta never has been nor will he ever be a DCI, Panetta is a politician.

    Remember that poli = many and tics = parasite, ergo poli-tician = a self-serving parasite. And poli-ticians equals an infestation.

  • tillthen

    Is President Soros really the one orchestrating the free fall that beckons?

  • tek

    The Democrats need to move on and stop spending money on issues that are as much their fault as anyone. They could have investigated this stuff while Bush was in office, but they wanted to let him go so they could have an edge in the election. Too late, now, guys. Should have looked into this last year.

  • graywolf

    The CIA and the State Department are dominated by liberals who couldn’t wait for an Obama presidency.
    …..Get rid of the awful Bushies.
    They (the careerists) leaked and played footsie with the media and got their wish.
    Colin Powell is likewise surprised that Obama is a raging socialist.
    How stupid ARE these people?

    • WMCB

      Well, I wouldn’t include the HEAD of the State Dept in that opinion. She didn’t want an Obama presidency. She broke into tears in NH, just contemplating what an Obama presidency would mean for this country.

      • Andy

        Agree!!

        • Peggy Sue

          Double agree!!

          • Susan B. Athena

            Tres agree!

  • JRD

    Way to go Larry! Thanks for that. I`m getting pumped up.

  • Babs

    Smoke screen, distraction, call it what you want, I can almost predict to the day when another one of these “get the base riled up” stories will hit the airwaves, and they are all totally managed by the White House. Obama’s approval figures going down, you say? Opposition to cap and trade and government managed health care growing as each day passes? Oops, let’s get out another distraction to get the folks all riled up so they forget about the faltering economy, the rise in unemployment, the lousy job we’re doing in foreign affairs. Predictable, so predictable.

  • califlefty

    Pelosi needed cover to get the spotlight off her and back onto Bush/Cheney, and it worked. Panetta, a long time Pelosi ally was a willing pawn, at the expense of an agency he supposedly heads. This is really politics and the lowest level and an embarrassment to the current administration. I really hope the Dems call for hearings, just to watch them squirm.

    • Mary

      I don’t think it did work.

      I think most Americans are laughing at Pelosi now, given that the politics of this situation are obvious, and Pelosi seems to be saying she doesn’t WANT the CIA to hunt down and kill Al Queda operatives.

      Same ole, same ole.

  • TeakWoodKite

    President Barack Obama and Mr. Holder have said they don’t favor prosecuting lawyers who wrote legal justifications

    So BO won’t investigate John Yoo or Gonzalez?

    Gonzalez WH counsel, head of OLC then AG. We have 8 years of a musical chairs shell game, whos’ main goal of hiding the truth.
    —
    1)according to former intelligence officials familiar with the matter
    2)According to current and former government officials,
    3)according to three former intelligence officials
    4)One former senior intelligence official said
    5)The official noted that Congress had long been briefed on the finding
    6)according to the three former officials
    7)one of the former intelligence officials said
    8)The former official said
    9) according to one person who saw it.

    Congress has pushed for greater oversight. The Obama administration, much like its predecessor, is resisting any moves in that direction.

    I will guarantee you this–Leon Panetta checked with the White House before Leon trotted up to the Hill. The real question is whether or not Obama agrees with the Bush finding
    Thanks for answering my question from your last post.
    You think Dawn Johnsen(OLC) after learning of what went down, had shit fit?

  • whoisjohngalt

    This is a diversion to make us try to forget 9.5% unemployment and rising. The stimulus package was suppose to limit it to 8%.

    There is growing doubt that the Dems know how to run anything. The only thing they are good at is blaming Bush.

    What they really have is a full blown depression:

    http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/john_mauldins_outside_the_box/archive/2009/06/22/a-tale-of-two-depressions.aspx

    along with phony accounting rule changes that make banks look like they are making $ when they are not:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=alC3LxSjomZ8

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_reilly&sid=aRPE735QhI8U

    I know what our economy is in for if anyone is interested. Any guesses?

    • Archimedes

      Yes, unfortunately so do I. With Wesley Mouch/ Obama in the White House, methinks a liitle vacation time out at the Gulch might soon worthy of consideration.

      Rand was prescient!

  • I’m a Linda too

    Thank you Larry.

    and it seems our lady Hillary is tired of Obama’s screw ups too.

    “Clinton: Vetting process for administration jobs ‘a nightmare’
    Posted: 07:25 PM ET

    From CNN Foreign Affairs Correspondent Jill Dougherty
    Secretary of State Clinton spoke out Monday about the Obama administration’s rigorous vetting process.

    WASHINGTON (CNN) — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed a rare flash of frustration Monday — calling the vetting process for Obama administration nominees “ridiculous” and “a nightmare.”

    At a question-and-answer session with staff from the U.S. Agency for International Development, a woman asked her when the agency would be getting a new administrator and “why it’s taking so long.”

    “Let me say it’s not for lack of trying,” Clinton replied. “The process — the clearance and vetting process — is a nightmare,” she told the staff. “It takes far longer than any of us would want to see. It is frustrating beyond words.”

    The secretary said she “pushed very hard last week, when I knew I was coming here, to get permission from the White House to be able to tell you that help is on the way and somebody will be nominated shortly.” But, she said, “the message came back, ‘We’re not ready.’”

    “Anyone who has gone through it or looked at this process will tell you that every administration it gets worse,” she added.

    “Some very good people just didn’t want to be vetted,” she explained. “You have to hire lawyers, you have to hire accountants. I mean, it is ridiculous!”

  • IndieDogg

    Maybe I’m just simple. I’m at least confused so please, straighten me out on this.

    Someone up there in the comments says we should deal with our enemies but within the “rule of law.” Okay, let me see if I understand this “rule” under which we’re supposed to fight the enemy in wartime.

    It’s okay to plan a mission, fly a plane over the enemy’s bunker and drop a bomb on his/her head, turning them into a black wet spot where a human once was. But, it’s NOT okay to walk in the front door (or, more accurately, sneak in the back door) and shoot the same person between the eyes.

    In fact, while we can do the former, we can’t even talk about or mock up a plan for the second option. How exactly are we more honorable in the first case? And how is the enemy any more or less dead in either?

    Sorry, but I don’t get it.

  • TeakWoodKite

    Help I’m locked away in the spam dungeon with no habeas corpus. :(

    Mr Johnson thanks for answering my question from the last post.

    I will guarantee you this–Leon Panetta checked with the White House before Leon trotted up to the Hill. The real question is whether or not Obama agrees with the Bush finding.

    Ya think Dawn Johnsen had shit fit upon learning of the EO?

    My question is this, with Dawn Johnsen’s background how long would it take her to brief the president on all the skeletons in the closet?

    Is it a nieve question to ask if the office of POTUS is briefed on ALL the black ops of a questionable nature? So BO would either be made aware or the info was excluded. If it was excluded from his brief, WHY? If it was not then he has been aware of it for for months and not told Panetta? Or Paneeta new about it and the cat got out of the bag and he HAD to run to the hill?

    • TeakWoodKite

      OR none of them knew and only found out 4 months in?

      Not likely, but if true “it” is a blackhole of liberty.

      Dollar bet, BO was aware of it and as long as it did not see the light of day would let “it” continue.

      (Teak leaves with the sound of swearing at himself , like a Mad Hatter, for his crappy spelling)

  • oowawa

    Excellent questions, IndieDogg. Sometimes it seems like “bombing a target” is like playing a video-game that uses Google Earth. Nowadays, with Predator drones and cruise missiles, it all gets even more impersonal.

    I share your perplexity.

    • oowawa

      In response to IndieDogg’s comment above. Forgot to “nest”–Sorry.

  • wbboei

    Panetta has now screwed himself. He’ll have some support from the usual toadies in the CIA bureaucracy who curry favor with the powerful but he has lost the troops on this one. He has proven he is not to be trusted and is, as some feared, a political hack. Pandering to the Hill to help cover Nancy Pelosi’s lying ass is not a recipe for building morale at the CIA.
    ————————–
    Yes, Larry. He blew it. Another Frank Church.

  • CentralMass

    You are right on with this Larry.

  • wbboei

    I’M GLAD I’M NOT YOUNG ANYMORE
    From “Gigi” (1958)
    (Lyrics : Alan Jay Lerner / Music : Frederick Loewe)

    Frat boy! Frat boy!
    Tanking now and so you got to spin!
    Frat boy! Frat boy!
    Oh, youth can really do a fellow in!
    (So can incompetence)
    ————————————
    The numbers for the “young president” continue to plummet. The critical metric is not general approval rating, but rather the spread between strongly approve vs strongly disapprove, since that subset of people tend to be the influencers in the electorate. Here is the last from Rass on that subject:

    Friday:

    strongly for: 30%
    strongly against: 27%
    difference: -7

    Monday:

    strongly for: 28%
    strongly against: 36%
    difference: -8

  • wbboei

    correction:

    strongly for: 30%
    strongly against: 37%
    difference: -7

    Monday:

    strongly for: 28%
    strongly against: 36%
    difference: -8

  • Mr.Murder

    Yesterday, an intelligence official hinted to the Washington Times that the program “involved assassinations overseas but declined to provide further details.”
    (think progress)
    Talk about a double cross on the Bhutto death? Any world leaders plummet to their death lately?

    Where does this lead?

    That isn’t even counting domestic spying programs initiated when Comey serving alongside Ashcroft.
    Even if the programs had a basis for being they lacked any kind of oversight measures, which tells us they were never in place for the sake of security.

    • TeakWoodKite

      Perhaps they were not “overseas”.

      • Elliott

        Assassinating anyone Al Qaeda is not what this is about. We wanted them to assassinate you know who and George called the military off when they had him cornered. The Congress knew this and if they did not they are even dumber that I thought they were. Panetta would not have run up to the Hill to jabber and claim he wasn’t even told until recently unless it is truly shocking. We all know that if Cheney did it it must be heinous.

        They (Bushies) are trying to roll this out like they have done with torture (and everything else they screwed up), a tiny piece at a time to inure the public. The Obama adm is complicit because they do not want to prosecute anything. I am sorry to say I have come to the conclusion that this adm is too lazy to uphold the rule of law and do not want anything going on which would distract from the President being the number one obsession of the media.

  • wbboei

    I dont know, that seems like a stretch to me. But who knows. David Frost interviewed Bhutto shortly before her death. At one point in the interview she referred to the possiblity that she would be assassinated because she was planning to reenter the political arena. She mentioned a number of groups who might do it, and she mentioned one specific group which she said had killed Osama bin Laden. That was a showstopper, and I played it back a couple times. She said it alright. I found out about it from a friend who heard about it on the Mike Malloy radio program.

  • JJ
    • Andy

      Is that you Rev. Wright?

  • Archimedes

    “As someone who initially praised the appointment of Leon Panetta as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency let me now admit, I was wrong.”

    Well hello! As his Cali based institute is a Soros ceation, what in the world did you expect?

    As “deep throat” famously quiped, follow the money! If you do you’ll find a whole cadre of communist and their sympathizers. A good place to start Is ACORN, the SEIU and the Students for a Democratic Society.

    Obama’s “move past the baby-boomers” schtick was right in line with Goebbles assertion regarding if you’re goona lie, LIE BIG! His whole agenda is implentaion of 60′s radicals. It is truly astonishing the number of SDS/Weathermen in his ranks:
    Andy Stern
    Paul Booth
    Marilyn Katz
    Mark Rudd
    Carl Davidson
    Todd Gitlin
    Tom Hayden
    Steve Tappis
    Bill Ayers
    Bernadine Dorhn
    Jim Jacobs
    Dale Rathke
    Wade Rathke
    Howie Machtlinger

    These are just the ones I’ve placed so far, as I work through my list of former SDS/Weathermen members I am quite sure more will turn up. I could really use some help with this project, but i don’t know where to turn!

    • http://deleted BuzzisbackLatte

      Yeah, the baby boomers that brought us death and destruction in the late ’60s and early ’70′s and not to be confused with the general war protesters on college campuses.

      That era brought out the nasties:

      The Weathermen

      SDS

      Symbionese Liberation Army

      Charles Manson and Family

      The rise of the punks and skinheads

      Farrakhan

      David Koresh

      Richard Butler and the Aryan Nations

      ACORN

      Nice bunch of people whose commonality is sociopathic in nature. They’re Obama’s heroes apparently.

  • Retired

    LJ wrote:”.. he has lost the troops on this one.” Indeed. Early word from friends inside the building is that he is likely to be held at the same level of contempt by the Agency troops as John Deutch. As one who was in the infamous meeting in the bubble when four hundred of the Agency’s top SIS-level officers laughed derisively at then DCI Deutch to the point that then ExDir Nora Slatkin had to yell “shut up” to said SISs, this is a remarkable indicator of “loosing the troops.” Panetta seems desitined to join Deutch and Stansfield Turner in the historic competition for most distrusted and disrespected Director in history.
    Of course, that may have been what Obama, Axe and Rhambo had in mind in the first place when they plucked the feckless, amiable putz out of obscure punditry in Monterey.

    • listing starboard

      WHen it comes down to it will the CIA obey Obama or do whats best for this country? P.S., what about the big bombshell “issue” many predicted in regard to Palins resignation?

      • Retired

        The CIA will always, “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic…” because that is what we take a solemn oath to do. If the President, who takes the same oath, does the same, the CIA will follow him, regardless of the incredibly lousy, insulting director that he appoints over us.
        If the President chooses to act outside of the Constitution, I believe that it is safe to say that all bets are off. God help the US if that ever happens.

  • Dee Fatouros

    Great article!!!!

  • I’m a Linda too

    What this also shows is Democrats treating the voting public as ignorant, expecting to be able to claim one thing for the cameras and do something else.

    This is all political, as you said, trying to cloud the issue of Nancy Pelosi lying that she didn’t know about torture.

  • http://ontheseventhday.wordpress.com/ Al

    Once upon a time the Home Team(USA)was protected from partisan politics, especially in all matters that strategically protected America and ensured her safety from our enemies. “Loose lips sink ships”.

    The Obama theme song: “If all else fails, blame Bush & Cheney”

  • Anonymous

    I know of what you speak and you havent seen anything yet truth be told. Mr. Panetta cant be trusted hes a snake just like the rest of them.

  • Retired

    Perhaps. But the North Korean made Al Quaeda nuke that you may eat when a thoroughly demoralized CIA deceides to walk off the job will hopefully bring a microsecond of wisdom before you join Jihadi fellow travelers in the disappointing revelation that your eternal reward is going to be a lecture from Satan on how you misinterpreted God’s message rather than the 72 virgins that you are licking your lips for.

  • CardonBluff

    And on whose watch did North Korea go Nuclear? Not Obama’s.. Obama has hit them with heavy sanctions and condemnations and gotten promised action from both China and Russia and a truly solid UN resolution to boot. North Korea was once on the verge of giving up their nukes, and were sending all their kidnapped Japanese home and starting to open up. Bush and the hard-asses stomped on that, and all we got out of it was a nuclear North Korea.

    Which brings us to the Al Qaeda portion of your comment. Who let them rebuild and rearm while careening off into Iraq and starving the number one terror theatre of troops and resources? Not Obama. Obama warned at the time that it was taking our eye off the real fight against Al Qaeda. Hillary and Bush were all Gung ho. And now even Pakistan is wobbling.

    All I can say is, Barack can’t possibly do any worse. And at first glance, is already doing way better. The Pakistani war on the Taliban is a huge strategic gain for us. And our airstrikes are now aimed at bolstering Pakistan’s efforts to regain their sovereignty. China condemned North Korea, and promised to enforce arms sanctions. China doesn’t BS on this sort of thing either.

    If we eat any nukes, it will be thanks to George W. Bush and Co. not doing jack against A.Q. for 6 years.