Monday, January 5, 2009

Say, Why Don’t We Appoint Someone to Head the CIA Who Has No Intel Experience?

Leon Panetta - former congressman, OMB director and White House chief of staff under Clinton - is Obama’s choice to head up the CIA. His strength is supposedly in budget management, and he and his wife founded the appropriately-named Leon and Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy. His Wikipedia entry indicates that Panetta “has long been an advocate for the health of the world’s oceans.” There must be a water-boarding angle in there somewhere, but I can’t figure out what it is.

My recollection from seeing him on television from time to time is that he was one of the more annoying of the many Clinton hacks. I assume that he’ll bring his budget expertise to bear in the intelligence field with some radical new cost-saving ideas, like dismantling our spy network and replacing it with a 1-800 “Terrorstoppers” number, and hiring Dog the Bounty Hunter to handle the paramilitary operations in return for television rights (“Sh*t, Beth, I told you not to take that right turn at Diyarbakir. You know where we are now? We’re in Iran, Beth, in f**kin’ Iran!”)

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

More Leon will bring Exciting Ideas™ to Spy Central.

Think of it....instead of using cash to pay off informants, hand out debit Visa cards, set with the appropriate amount of value. There will be HUGE savings in accounting, and the increase in fraud control is simply astonishing.

As an added touch, each debit card can have the CIA logo emblazoned on it, for advertising and public relations!

TW: undepled. I dunno, but being three beers drunk, that means a lot to me!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

BTW, there's a certain amount of disharmony within The Mighty O!'s hegemony.

Anonymous said...

The only thing which annoys me about the movie Independence Day is when the President keeps asking his assistant what the polls are saying, clearly his central concern (I've not watched West Wing but I'll bet the polls are central in that too).

So in the 90's it struck me that US Dems (and their global lefty imitators) think government is all about image first, rather than actual achievement (which can be spun anyhow, like they did with Pres GWB).

Panetta will apparently protect the new Pres from being undermined by the CIA.

Getting thru the next 4 years with image intact is apparently paramount.

Shall we call this Clintonism?

Anyway, Feinstein is an early dissenter who needs to be onside, clearly Obama is no smooth Bubbah. Obama's gonna need the old man's advice on this one too. Will it end up with a Bubbah hotline on the desk being top of the speed-dial, 'Bill I need your help again'?

Paco said...

"Will it end up with a Bubbah hotline on the desk being top of the speed-dial, 'Bill I need your help again'?"

Now, that's a shrewd observation, and I wouldn't be in the least surprised.

Anonymous said...

That "Dial a Bubba" feature may be a major reason why Hillary! got that gig at the State Department.

RebeccaH said...

I'd be the last person on earth to make excuses for Our Dear Leader The One, but I can see an upside to Panetta's appointment. For one, he's not part of the old boy network that has had a stranglehold on the CIA for decades. In fact, some of Obama's other appointments are the same. And if we could clear out that nest in the State Department, what a coup that would be!

Lack of experience is a factor, but on the other hand, that's what you have deputies for --- to keep you from making a fool of yourself (so long as you listen to them). But Panetta will owe no favors or considerations to anyone inside the CIA, which may mean better intelligence gathering.

You use the people you're given according to their best uses. Let's hope Mr. We Are The One understands that.

Anonymous said...

The downside, Rebecca, is that the CIA staffers can blanket with bulls**t Panetta in a heartbeat. He may not be able to tell the difference between a threat assessment and a left-handed monkey wrench. In turn, they can also "guide" Panetta with "helpful information and advice", gaining favor with the boss without giving up any of their territory.

Which means that the CIA empire builders can keep their little feifdoms.

Alas, where I work, this is sometimes the case with the Big Boss. As a result, it's the the bureaucrats who run the organization, and the Big Boss is little more than a figurehead.

Sort of like Obama Himself™, now that I think upon the matter.

kc said...

Jeff, for a long time I've been of the opinion that changing President & Congresswonks doesn't help us down here in the Real World because all the same people head up all the same offices in all the same bureaucracies all over the flippin' government. Changing their bosses don't change nuthin' out here.

I know that's simplistic, but it keeps me from expecting too much (!) change.

Anonymous said...

KC, that's less simple and more realistic than I care to think. As I work for a Federal agency, I can assure you of that.

And that's "assure", not "reassure", as this is anything but good news.

TW: ionport. Sounds like a suitable weapon to zap bureaucracies with.

SwampWoman said...

Wasn't he the only guy in Washington that didn't know about Bubba and Monica?

Anonymous said...

"Relax, we're not going to Moscow. It's Czechoslovakia!"

Welcome to Amateur Night.

Anonymous said...

I was puzzled by this too.

I guess the dems are just putting in a yes-man operative who won't go native in his department. He wil;l be disasterous as he will have no respect from his department and he will have no respect for its operatives.

Anonymous said...

'That dial-a-bubba feature may be the reason Hillary got the State Dept gig'

You're right, JeffS, no actual dialing or contact with Bill needed because Pres Obama's consultations with his Sec State should automatically include her drawing on all her experience and available lines of inquiry. Which is fine by me. I was ready for a Hillary Presidency anyway. Just as one reason I was initially happy with GWB was because I imagined he drew on his father's experience.

Anonymous said...

Bruce, it's one thing to have advisers. Every leader needs them.

But given Obama's lack of experience, I'm concerned that his "advisers" will be calling the shots, sooner or later.

I've watched managers who were utterly clueless about their job rely completely on subordinates or advisers, accepting their recommendations without due consideration of their merits.

Eventually, the subordinate or adviser becomes "critical" to the boss, with said boss simply deferring to them on major decisions. This is not a delegation of authority and responsibility, it's abandonment of duties by the boss. There's a fine line there, and an inexperienced leader can slip up pretty easily. The human ability to rationalize bad decisions is enormous.

At this point, the "boss" becomes a figurehead, good only for ceremonies and such.

That's the real danger of the upcoming Obama presidency: does he in fact the strength of character and leadership to keep his collection of yahoos, schemers, and narcissists (i.e., his Cabinet)? Especially with all the favors owed between each other, not to mention all of the special interest groups Obama is expected to produce for after their support during the election.

Me, I see Obama as an empty suit, not the media driven image contrary to his actual accomplishments. Further, he's a Chicago politician, and that's a frightening thought. I lived and worked in Chicago for 5 years, and that place is corrupt through and through. I don't think he has the ability to keep his cabinet in line.

I hope that I'm wrong, because, if I'm right, we're going to see a lot of conflict and discord within the Obama administration. And that won't be a good thing at all for the country.

kc said...

I think you're right, Jeff. New clothes, looking for an Emperor (thanks, Paco!)...a puppet... arrogant, self-serving, possibly not even knowing he's a puppet. When it comes down to it, he will have less "power" than any of his cabinet...because THEY are mostly Klinton's Klan.

I hope you're wrong, too, but I don't have the warm fuzzies about any of this.

Anonymous said...

And Obama confirms my worst fears, right on cue.

Lord, it's going to be a long wait until January 2013.

TW: depree. Close enough to depressed.

Paco said...

Jeff: I think he's going to ban pork right after he bans war and poverty (and with the same likelihood of success).

Anonymous said...

Obama might be smart enough not to repeat W's error of confusing a bureaucracy inept at everything except self aggrandizement with an intelligence agency.

Forget the CIA as an intelligence asset; it has misread every important trend in the world for the last 40 years. The best Obama can hope for is that the CIA doesn't work to trash his presidency the way it trashed Bush's.

Panetta's job is simply to limit the damage done by a gang of self-serving incompetents, and he is capable of doing it.

Anonymous said...

Paco, don't forget about the ocean levels going down, and the planet beginning to heal.

Anonymous said...

Panetta's job is simply to limit the damage done by a gang of self-serving incompetents, and he is capable of doing it.

Ummmmmmm......yeah, sure, Anonymous. Panetta , A total newbie to an organization that uses deceit and deception, plus other tricks, to get what they want, internal and external, and he's gonna rein in the cowboys, pronto.

Of course, Anonymous, how could I think otherwise? Forgive me for doubting such an audascious plan. This is the sort of Change™ that I Hoped™ for!

TW: regol. "Regal", as in "The Emperor's New Clothes".

Anonymous said...

To Jeff S,
Panetta will be dealing with the CIA as a bureaucracy, not a bunch of John le Carré spooks. The only "tradecraft" he needs is to say, "Would you like to keep your cushy job, perks, government-guaranteed pension and health benefits? Then you and your underlings quit trying to d!ck my boss."

Anonymous said...

Panetta will be dealing with the CIA as a bureaucracy, not a bunch of John le Carré spooks.

That would be his first mistake. Unless Panetta has spies throughout the CIA, or replaces key staffers with reliable people, he's not going to even KNOW the bureaucracy. These guys have been off the radar screen for a long long time, accountable to a very few people. So it's not like there's an open source that he can cross check.

Bureacracies work both ways. They can help, and they can hinder. And it depends not on who the boss is, but on how much the workers and middle to low management trust that boss....or on how well their current supervisors take care of them.

So unless Panetta walks into the job with that information already in hand, he's already behind the eight ball. Bush tried this, most unsuccessfully, with Porter Goss. Two key points about Goss:

"Goss described himself as "probably not qualified" for a job within the CIA, because the language skills the Agency now seeks are not languages he speaks and because the people applying today for positions within the CIA's four directorates have such keen technical and analytic skills, which he did not have when he applied to the Agency in the early 60s."

"He [Goss] brought with him five personal staff that were to implement change that became unpopular with CIA professionals."

Panetta, as a bureacrat, will likely be snowed from Day One. Unless he replaces every single senior and middle manager with people who will cooperate. Which will be hard to do without totally destroying the CIA (an admirable idea, but acceptable only if something else can pick up the work immediately).

The only "tradecraft" he needs is to say, "Would you like to keep your cushy job, perks, government-guaranteed pension and health benefits? Then you and your underlings quit trying to d!ck my boss."

That's a sure way to instill confidence in your leaderhship abilities, and motivate these people to cooperate. Sort of like "The beatings will continue until moral improves."

Ever try to actually fire a Federal employee? I thought not. It can be done, but requires a dedication that would daunt even Obama. It's usually easier to transfer them to a less sensitive position, which hardly jives with your vision.

Maybe I'm wrong about this. We'll see. But your "Big hand wave over a little map" approach to strategy is more than trifle naive. So brace yourself in case you're wrong.

richard mcenroe said...

Actually, Panetta passed the most crucial part of Obama's screening: "Hillary, do you know someone who can keep his mouth shut?"

Bear in mind, Panetta was in the White House when Jamie Gorelick was erecting the Clintons' Chinese wall, so he does understand the most important thing about the intelligence community: keeping it away from the President.

TW:'simuse'-- The nasal leading man on CSI:NY

Anonymous said...

"...he does understand the most important thing about the intelligence community: keeping it away from the President."

True. That's the only tradecraft Leon really needs, and I'm sure he learned that lesson well while working for/with the Clintonistas.

Anonymous said...

Why would you want someone with intel experience heading up the CIA?

/moonbat

Anonymous said...

Hi, all іѕ going nicеlу heге and
ofсourse every one is sharing facts, that's in fact excellent, keep up writing.

Here is my web site 1 month loan
My web site 1 month loan

Anonymous said...

Wow, marvelouѕ blog structure! How long have уou been гunning a blog for?

you make running a blog look easy. Thе еntire look оf your ѕite is wonderful,
as ѕmartlу аѕ thе contеnt materiаl!


Here іs my web blоg; guaranteed payday loans
Feel free to surf my webpage - guaranteed payday loans

Anonymous said...

It's very effortless to find out any matter on web as compared to textbooks, as I found this paragraph at this web site.

Check out my web page - short term loan
My blog short term loan

Anonymous said...

Ηi theге, all thе tіmе і
usеd to check weblοg posts herе earlу in
the morning, since i like to fіnd оut more and more.


Vіsіt my ωeb blog diet