Via Redstate, the always thoughtful and interesting Pejman Yousefzadeh's thoughts on Leon Panetta as head of the CIA.
I am certainly nervous over this:I certainly agree that Panetta was chosen to keep things quiet so as not to "distract" Obama from his primary mission to become the 'one' from whom all good things flow, but it's not only Panetta, I think that's the reason for all his appointments so far. He must control everything, so only his words and visions matter.
A former senior CIA manager said the message of the Panetta appointment was clear: “The message is, ‘I don’t want to hear anything out of the CIA. Make it go away. No scandals. Keep it quiet,’” the former officer told me. “They put over there a guy who is a political loyalist, who will keep everything nice and quiet ... "
After we're all sufficiently brain washed, it'll be time enough to bring in those from the lunatic fringe who got him elected and really start changing things.
10 comments:
I don't think it's about control, I think it's about image. Obama doesn't care if there are scandals, only that it's quiet. I think his appointments reflect that desire for things appearing to be quiet. That's what makes Rahm Emmanuel a good pick. It may be why he picked HRC for State — she'll put the silence on any trouble makers.
A matter of semantics. Image or control? He has to control everything so there can be the illusion of calm.
Hillary? Will she be confirmed? Who knows what kind of thieves' bargain they made. Throw bubba into the mix and what?
I was shocked that neither Franken nor Burris was seated.
Things aren't all smooth in paradise and the Kool-aid drinkers won't wait forever to take control.
Does it occur to either of you that Panetta is a good choice?
This quote says a lot:
A former senior CIA manager said the message of the Panetta appointment was clear ...
The CIA needs shaking up. My first choice for that job probably wouldn't be someone from the CIA, but would be someone who is smart enough, with good instincts, demonstrated sound judgment, and an executive level track record.
Now, I have no idea how Panetta ranks on that scale, but the fact he is not a CIA guy does not, in my book, count against him in the least.
In his previous jobs, Panetta wasn't asked to clean up the landscape, only to keep the dirt off Clinton. I don't know enough about the CIA to know if an outsider with no intelligence experience is what's needed, but I'm pretty sure that's not why Obama put him there.
Beyond a certain level of abstraction, which is where most executives work, I don't think previous experience is particularly important.
AOG, for instance, has no idea what goes on in the CIA.
However, I'll bet he would do a great job running it.
Provided, of course, he could stomach the experience.
I agree on all counts.
That's why I think Panetta might be able to do a good job, but that isn't what he's being hired to do. He's being hired to make Obama look good.
He's being hired to make Obama look good.
Well, of course he is.
When I commanded a squadron, I picked people for positions for precisely that same reason.
And, I'll bet just like Obama, there was some connection between looking good and doing good.
Skipper, you hired people to make you look good by doing a good job themselves. That's not what I think is happening with Obama, but for all our sakes, I hope you're right and I'm way off base.
Other than in the short term, I don't think you can have one without the other.
Bush picked some world class idiots -- e.g. Brownie -- who couldn't lead a drunk fest in a brewery.
I know almost nothing about Panetta, other than to note that if he has the instincts to be a good executive, he will do a good job at the CIA -- pathetic bleating by intelligence professionals notwithstanding.
I hope you're right.
Post a Comment