Tuesday, January 06, 2009
|
|
In Defense of the Panetta Pick
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:49 PM
|
Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes: A History of the CIA is an amazing though controversial book. I am listening to it again, and recommend the interview I conducted with Weiner from September 2007 as an intro to the book, and as background to the discussion of the selection of Leon Panetta to lead the CIA. Many fans of the CIA blasted Weiner's book as a one-sided assault on a crucial arm of our national security infrastructure that passed far too quickly over the Agency's many successes. Others argued that because of the nature of the CIA, the public, and even serious historians like Weiner, will only know about the organization's failures.
I think the book is an invaluable contribution to the public's understanding of how the CIA works, and whether or not Weiner got everything right, the lesson is that the CIA has often gotten things wrong and to the great detriment of the country. The intelligence professionals who work there are by-and-large extraordinary public servants, and their patriotism and courage is never adequately conveyed, but their jobs require a near perfection that it is impossible to expect much less demand.
The job of the DCIA is enormously important, and has often been filled by individuals with no background in intelligence or even national security. Sometimes it has been filled by people with such backgrounds but with very little in the way of senior executive experience. Weiner's book makes clear that a good DCIA will have one essential attribute --access to the president. No matter how experienced in intelligence or management, a DCIA who stays at Langley without ever or even often getting to the president to present the Agency's findings, warnings and recommendations will be a failed DCIA.
In Panetta's favor is the likelihood of access and his experience managing the White House under Clinton. Panetta is widely regarded as very smart as well, and widely liked across both parties. Though a liberal, the experience of having skippered a White House staff will have schooled Panetta in the art of getting to the president when it must happen and in the ways of winning internal Executive Branch dust-ups. The Congressional background didn't help Porter Goss much, but perhaps it will help Panetta keep the budget cutters away.
Panetta's a patriot, an experienced Washington hand, and close to the president-elect. As with many of the other early appointments on the incoming national security team, conservatives should be asking themselves if they ought not to be thanking their stars that the new team appears very realistic about the world they are being called on to lead and the enemies they will be facing.
The Weiner interview and many others with key authors of books central to understanding the national security of the United States are contained in my recent The War Against the West. When I interviewed Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald yesterday and learned he had never read The Looming Tower, I thought to myself that this explains part of his naivete about Hamas --he hasn't done the basic reading. People who want to understand the war in which we are engaged have to work at it by reading books like Weiner's, Lawrence Wright's and the many other titles that are extraordinary efforts at reporting and analysis.
And if you won't read the books, at least read the conversations with their authors.
|
|
|
While he is not a real good choice from an Intelligence standpoint, Panetta may be useful to the CIA in dealing with Congress as they won't be as hostile towards him. But if he and Obama go on a witch hunt all bets are off. The CIA has been doing a good job of keeping us safe when they are allowed to do their job. If Obama and Panetta have any brains they will not try to micromanage the CIA. Before you kick a Lion is the rear, you better have a plan for dealing with his teeth. Look at how some inside the Agency stuck it to Bush. |
|
Are you joking?
Panetta takes the "intelligence" out of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Personally, I have to thank God for Hurricane Katrina because why would AQ or another terrorist group would want to destroy NOLA when it is already decimated?
My prayers are with the rest of the country! |
|
|
|
Panetta is how old? Panetta comes from whose administration?
Gee, guess the more things CHANGE the more they stay the SAME.
Say, is it possible that Obama fed us a crock of dodo with the emphasis on "change."?
|
|
I'm sure Panetta is a decent man. However that, along with being COS to a former lib president doesn't qualify him to head the CIA. With all of the terrorist threats we are facing we need someone with vast intel gathering experience to fill this position.
I think this appointment, coupled with the Eric Holder choice as AG, is setting up a very weak position on national security for our country.
|
|
|
Leon Panetta's gonna be charged with "Frank Churching" the intelligence community only to be set up and put under the bus to cover for "O" if there's a big bang. |
|
|
These, Libs keep building the bonfire bigger and bigger, I can't wait until the flame goes out. Now that the Clinton staff is back in office again, lets see how things work with an all Lib Senate and Congress. Obama reminds me of a scared chicken ready to get slaughtered, he has no clue as to what he is doing. I don't know who is advising him, but I smell Billy Boy. Panetta , and all the other Clinton cronies will not protect him, they will let him sink. The only change that I foresee in the future is a diminished CIA, Military,and all Law enforcement. And, just a reminder, we are going to be paying more and more taxes, and this country will be in so much debt, that we will never bail ourselves out of it. They have sold us out and given our country away. Experience we can believe in. NOT !!! |
|
Panetta is not qualified.
Whether of not the CIA is viable has nothing to do with HIS qualifications.
When a died in the Wool LIBERAL is nominated conservatives rush to somehow validate his qualifications by using the excuse...."reaching across the aisle".
McCain did this and his result was...he became a liberal whose appeal was neutralized.
Again, Panetta is simply not qualified.
|
|
Redlac- right on target.
So, the main strength of Panetta is...he knows Obama's cell phone number? Okay. I always thought it was the function of the President to seek contact with his advisors, not the other way around.
Well, one good thing, Panetta prety much assures the dismantling of the CIA, which is truly a sorry and useless organization. All those good but suppressed analysts can then go to a real intell agency, like DIA. |
|
|
Leon Panetta seems to be both intelligent and practical. He possesses some common sense and patriotism and is not an idealogue. He will not personally do the sleuthing, so what is the problem? |
|
wow finnally a selection that has garnered the approval of the mighty hugh. and not only has it met with your approval your post is an execllent examination without any of the usual us. vrs. them invective that is rotting our party out from the inside.
Bravo on some fine objective journalism. |
|
During Desert Storm, Schwartzkoff commented that the information he got from the international news networks was often more updated and relevant than what he got from the CIA. Both news networks and other nations now have satellites. Further, the people they have on the ground often have better access and are more trusted than those the CIA tries to recruit. At the same time, the CIA often tries to pull multiple sources of information together, analyze them, and then refer them up the chain to be further reviewed. By the time this information is finally provided to who-ever is permitted to see it, it has too often been sanitized and become little more than a compromise. Hard intelligence, the kind you need in war, or to make executives decisions, is often lacking.
This complaint was also routinely mirrorred by Reagan's Secretary of State, George Schultz. He reached a point where he rarely read, let alone made decisions, based on the CIA's reports. He not only found them outdated, but so politicized that the recommendations they ended up making were generally designed to avoid making recommendations - because that would imply responsibility. Rather than say that something is - they were saying that something "might be", "if", and "however.
And part of this is also related to the fact that too often, Presidents of both parties, have exerted pressure on the CIA to produce reports that reinforce the policies they want to pursue - as opposed to provide sound intelligence. In sum, when you politicize intelligence, it is no longer intelligence - it is propaganda.
All of this contributes to the fact that the CIA has lost much of its relevance. Which is why it has had a string of problems for the last 25 years in terms of leadership, mission, and successfully identifying critical issues.
|
|
Who was Panetta's Intern?
Oh yeah that would be Monica Lewinsky.
What did Leon know and when did he know it? |
|
|
|
Leon Panetta represented this area for many years. He was a Liberal. He of course based his campaigns on the basis of his suport for the CIA-Right????.
He served as Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton. He was a Liberal. And he always championed the excellent intelligence about aspirin factories-Right?????
But he is highly respected by both sides. WHY???????
I can't tell why Democrats respect him but think I can tell you why Republicans like Hugh respect him. It's called S-T-U-P-I-D-I-T-Y
|
|
Former Director and now Def. Sec. Gates has said that during his time at the CIA, they missed the impending collapse of the then Soviet Union.
The collection and analysis of intelligence is often a great mosaic. Having the pieces are only part of the task. The gathers must have individuals that by experience or inspiration are able to predict behavior. Such individuals exist. The next great DCIA will one that can promote into and within the agency such individuals.
After Afghanistan and Iraq, our military covert services will be the greatest the world has ever produced. The trick will be to create the analyst class that can accompany them to new successes over the next four years.
If Mr. Panetta can shed his humanitarian persona and adopt a shield and sword approach to duty, then he may be an appropriate man for this evolving and critical post.
In this job, "rust never sleeps."
|
|
|
When we remember how the Clintons used and misused the CIA files to coerse their opponents into silence. Coupled with the fact that Obama's presidency seems to be shaping up with 'peddling influence' like the Clinton's did (with the exception that Obama has internal reports to clear himself from any wrong doing). Not forgetting, that Clintons had the Chinese dealings that rose to the level of 'computers missing in a military base in CA' and then getting lots of fund raisers who were chinese, and China getting the 'trading' favors needed to make them our largest lender today. Then one questions whether Panetta will be the pong used by Obama to 'convince' his opponents that they need to support him while 'peddling influence' with 'freedom fighters' whose CIA files are less than favorable. Am just saying......Panetta is a good choice for a president who may or may not be looking to change how we address 'freedom fighters' in Gitmo and other locations. Panetta is also a perfect fit for a SoS whose foreign dealings may require special coordination to create a good impression for the american people regarding the 'judgement exercised' by an inexperienced president and ethically challenged former president who is consulting with his wife on matters of national security with a focus on when to look away and when to ignore our 'opponents' in the war of terror.......just think about it......Panetta? really? |
|
|
|