Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Obama sending Panetta to Pentagon, Petraeus to CIA

World Apr. 28, 2009 - 05:57AM JST ( 19 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

19 Comments

0

AltriaJan. 06, 2009 - 10:38AM JST

mmm...pancetta...
0

WolfpackJan. 06, 2009 - 10:47AM JST

Wow, Obama picked a political hack with virtually no intelligence background. Panetta will get a rocky reception in Congress. Looks like Obama's lack of management and executive experience is starting to show already.
0

SargeJan. 06, 2009 - 02:03PM JST

"no experience in the intelligence world"

Intelligent pick.

Clinton administration 2!
0

adaydreamJan. 06, 2009 - 02:23PM JST

This wouldn't be my selection. < :-)
0

rajakumarJan. 06, 2009 - 02:35PM JST

Obama puts in Clinton past team man, Panetta,good. Clintons should help Obama, to rebuild economy like the did in Clinton administration.
0

smithinjapanJan. 06, 2009 - 03:05PM JST

No experience in the intelligence world beats no intelligence in the intelligence world, like they had with bush. Hell, even bush laments the poor intelligence that led to this and that bad decision.

Anyway, as posted above, it's good that they're putting back so many people from an admin. that had a pretty good rapport world-wide, and certainly a better economy.
0

TriumvereJan. 06, 2009 - 05:20PM JST

...

I'd be curious to hear the rationale behind this particular pick.
0

SargeJan. 06, 2009 - 10:05PM JST

adaydream - Are you beginning to have doubts about the wisdom of voting for Obama?
0

SargeJan. 06, 2009 - 10:10PM JST

Mr. Smith, you contradicted yourself in your above post. "No intelligence" is not "poor intelligence."

And it is not "pretty good" that Obama is filling his cabinet with Clinton retreads. Heck, no one else here seems to think this is a good pick, just you, so far.
0

smithinjapanJan. 06, 2009 - 11:05PM JST

sarge: Gee... all 9 picks, with two being mine and two being yours, are against Obama's choice, eh? So it's fair to point out that, as a matter of fact, in your own words, 5 people are against it. Thanks for clearing that up, sarge. Oh, wait! I guess you didn't read rajakumar's post... he doesn't seem to be too against it. Correction, four people are against it.

And you're right, I stand corrected. No intelligence is what bush's government had, but HE said it was poor intelligence. As I wrote it, it does sound like I am contradicting. Sorry, to clarify, 'no intelligence'.
0

adaydreamJan. 06, 2009 - 11:22PM JST

Sarge this isn't the first time I've questioned Obama's decision on something.

I'm not a Obama can do no wrong, like your "george bush can do no wrong" attitude and post have evidenced.

I'm sure that Panetta is a good manager, his security/intellegence knowledge isn't there. But maybe the CIA needs better leadership and direction, then intellegence leadership alone.

We'll see I guess. < :-)
0

OssanAmericaJan. 07, 2009 - 02:29AM JST

Anyway, as posted above, it's good that they're putting back so many >people from an admin. that had a pretty good rapport world-wide, and certainly a better economy.

An Administration that did nothing but bomb an aspirin factory instead of Bin Ladin, gave away all our missle secrets to China and brought honor to the White House by establishing that fellatio in the Oval Office is somehow not "sex". Congrats smith you outdid yourself on this one.
0

goodDonkeyJan. 07, 2009 - 05:55AM JST

Unless Leon Panetta is there for the short run I don't think it is the best choice. If he is there for a short time to get the CIA functioning better as an intelligence service I think it is a good idea. Leo Panetta is an excellent administrator. He is very efficient and has a wide scope of talents. I do think we should have a spook heading this agency because they understand what a filthy business it really is and the need to show a clean face to the public; both the American public and the World public.
0

SargeJan. 07, 2009 - 07:42AM JST

Mr. Smith, I stand corrected, indeed I missed Raj's post. That makes two posters here, including you, who think this is a good pick.
0

smithinjapanJan. 07, 2009 - 01:01PM JST

And I stand by what I said before: out of a total of 4 people who say it's bad. There are now 15 posts on this sarge, including this one! Evidently, people don't really object to the choice at all, no do they. You are the only one on here screaming it's wrong. Others have said it may not be a good choice, or that there are better ones. I have stated I think it's good that Obama is dialing things back to a government that was far better than the current one, and actually had a government surplus budget instead of the current trillions in debt.

So again, sarge.... 4 people who think it's a bad idea. That's not a lot of people at all.
0

TriumvereJan. 07, 2009 - 06:04PM JST

NRO has an interesting interview up with a pro-CIA reform former agent explaining why he thinks Panetta is a good choice:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDQ3ZmRmNTQyY2ZiNzY5NjIxMzk3NjJkZTNhNGMzNTY=

It's worth a read.
0

TriumvereJan. 07, 2009 - 07:44PM JST

Fred Kaplan in Slate gives a pretty good analysis:

http://www.slate.com/id/2208020/

Which includes the revelation that Panetta has more intelligence experience than you might expect.
0

SargeJan. 07, 2009 - 11:46PM JST

Heck, what does it matter that Panetta has no experience in intelligence? His boss has no executive experience, but that's not stoppin' him from being the Prez!