"Leon will be leaving," Hey Obama! Take this job and shove it!

[scandal 951]

Wow. Much ado about nothing.

With your team, "National security" always is.

Focus, Danno. This topic is about Leon Panetta getting angry, yelling out some explicatives and allegedly threatening to quit....only he hasn't quit. But if you see a story there in the OP, please tell me what it is.

The story is the CIA is tired of being a whipping boy everytime Obama's numbers turn south. I have always respected Panetta: He is a favorite here in Northern California, and has produced some interesting debates. He is a professional, far from being a partisan, and pulls no punches, much to the dismay of your buddies Romm Emmanuel and David Axelrod.

Bill, that's about the most idiotic statement I've read you make. That falls under another Conspiracy Theory of the Right Wingers - that Democratic Presidents are most concerned about their poll numbers. Come on Mr. Blue Dog Democrat....that's the same stupid sh!t the Right Wingers said during Clinton's presidency. At least try and come up with some new theory instead the same rehashed lame blame sh!t. Oye.

Getting a little personal there Steve! I notice when logic escapes you turn to attacking the messenger, not the message. Just because I don't fit in your little box of what a Democrat should be, you never cease with the putrid responses.

It should be noted that Obama was on record before being elected, and since, that his preference would not be to open indictments into Bush-era intelligence activities.

He would far rather have the national agenda be focused on his forward-looking proposals than in the rear view mirror.

However, it is well established that the Attorney General (Holder) has wide latitude to decide which cases ought to be pursued, without interference from the Administration.

My guess is that Obama probably empathizes more with Panetta than with Holder in this skirmish but feels bound to grant the AG the prosecutorial discretion. It's an interesting situation, where one can see compelling arguments on all sides. No one ever said it was easy at the top.....

I don't see this as a particularly partisan situation, either. In this case it happens to have fallen into the lap of a Democratic Administration. Previously in history (think Nixon/Watergate) AG-presidential tussles have happened in Republican Administrations.

[HAL 9000 96]

Could also be a reminder to future field officers to not overstep their investigative powers. There likely isn't that much disagreement regarding this issue and perhaps some are noticing the frictional part of the 'debate' more than the overall plan.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Wow. Much ado about nothing.

With your team, "National security" always is.

Focus, Danno. This topic is about Leon Panetta getting angry, yelling out some explicatives and allegedly threatening to quit....only he hasn't quit. But if you see a story there in the OP, please tell me what it is.

Wanna take bets that he does not finish out obamers first term?

Who gives a sh!t?

[Niels Bohr 72]

In the early 2000s upto 2004, the CIA was sufferred from old technology. They were using DOS based system while the FBIs and the city police were dealing with Windows machine.

As much as I like to agree with Hal9000, the CIA needs to replace their ways to manage new recruits and help bring all their database, and computer systems to be the level of standard needed. Their field agents (the experienced ones are nearing their 60s of age). The new commers who barely have any experience gathering (the new recruits who are to be replacing the 30 years veteran field agents don't have the same skill set from their predeccer who dealt with the cold war).

Since the end of the cold war, there were very little need to do intelligence gathering. Right now, as their management team is decreasing morale, the CIA will continue to waste alot of money with little results. It's sad.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Wow. Much ado about nothing.

With your team, "National security" always is.

Focus, Danno. This topic is about Leon Panetta getting angry, yelling out some explicatives and allegedly threatening to quit....only he hasn't quit. But if you see a story there in the OP, please tell me what it is.

The story is the CIA is tired of being a whipping boy everytime Obama's numbers turn south. I have always respected Panetta: He is a favorite here in Northern California, and has produced some interesting debates. He is a professional, far from being a partisan, and pulls no punches, much to the dismay of your buddies Romm Emmanuel and David Axelrod.

Bill, that's about the most idiotic statement I've read you make. That falls under another Conspiracy Theory of the Right Wingers - that Democratic Presidents are most concerned about their poll numbers. Come on Mr. Blue Dog Democrat....that's the same stupid sh!t the Right Wingers said during Clinton's presidency. At least try and come up with some new theory instead the same rehashed lame blame sh!t. Oye.

Getting a little personal there Steve! I notice when logic escapes you turn to attacking the messenger, not the message. Just because I don't fit in your little box of what a Democrat should be, you never cease with the putrid responses.

It's a conspiracy theory ridden speculation against the sitting President that you allegedly said you voted for. You've got no substantial evidence that supports your wild a$$ assumption. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Edited August 25, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Wow. Much ado about nothing.

With your team, "National security" always is.

Focus, Danno. This topic is about Leon Panetta getting angry, yelling out some explicatives and allegedly threatening to quit....only he hasn't quit. But if you see a story there in the OP, please tell me what it is.

The story is the CIA is tired of being a whipping boy everytime Obama's numbers turn south. I have always respected Panetta: He is a favorite here in Northern California, and has produced some interesting debates. He is a professional, far from being a partisan, and pulls no punches, much to the dismay of your buddies Romm Emmanuel and David Axelrod.

Bill, that's about the most idiotic statement I've read you make. That falls under another Conspiracy Theory of the Right Wingers - that Democratic Presidents are most concerned about their poll numbers. Come on Mr. Blue Dog Democrat....that's the same stupid sh!t the Right Wingers said during Clinton's presidency. At least try and come up with some new theory instead the same rehashed lame blame sh!t. Oye.

Getting a little personal there Steve! I notice when logic escapes you turn to attacking the messenger, not the message. Just because I don't fit in your little box of what a Democrat should be, you never cease with the putrid responses.

It should be noted that Obama was on record before being elected, and since, that his preference would not be to open indictments into Bush-era intelligence activities.

He would far rather have the national agenda be focused on his forward-looking proposals than in the rear view mirror.

However, it is well established that the Attorney General (Holder) has wide latitude to decide which cases ought to be pursued, without interference from the Administration.

My guess is that Obama probably empathizes more with Panetta than with Holder in this skirmish but feels bound to grant the AG the prosecutorial discretion. It's an interesting situation, where one can see compelling arguments on all sides. No one ever said it was easy at the top.....

I don't see this as a particularly partisan situation, either. In this case it happens to have fallen into the lap of a Democratic Administration. Previously in history (think Nixon/Watergate) AG-presidential tussles have happened in Republican Administrations.

The problem is you have Dennis Blair as DNI, trying to keeping a lid on Panetta (appointed to appease the conservative), while at the same time you have Emmanuel and Axelrod trying to keep the Progressives from leaving the fold, based on Obama's williness to compromise on healthcare legislation. Having Eric Holder as AG (appointed to appease the Bush-Haters) designate a special prosecutor, and giving the Progressives some raw meat, just might distract them enough to get some sort of bill to conference and to his desk, ready for signature. It's all miss-direction at its finest!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Wow. Much ado about nothing.

With your team, "National security" always is.

Focus, Danno. This topic is about Leon Panetta getting angry, yelling out some explicatives and allegedly threatening to quit....only he hasn't quit. But if you see a story there in the OP, please tell me what it is.

The story is the CIA is tired of being a whipping boy everytime Obama's numbers turn south. I have always respected Panetta: He is a favorite here in Northern California, and has produced some interesting debates. He is a professional, far from being a partisan, and pulls no punches, much to the dismay of your buddies Romm Emmanuel and David Axelrod.

Bill, that's about the most idiotic statement I've read you make. That falls under another Conspiracy Theory of the Right Wingers - that Democratic Presidents are most concerned about their poll numbers. Come on Mr. Blue Dog Democrat....that's the same stupid sh!t the Right Wingers said during Clinton's presidency. At least try and come up with some new theory instead the same rehashed lame blame sh!t. Oye.

Getting a little personal there Steve! I notice when logic escapes you turn to attacking the messenger, not the message. Just because I don't fit in your little box of what a Democrat should be, you never cease with the putrid responses.

It's a conspiracy theory ridden speculation against the sitting President that you allegedly said you voted for. You've got no substantial evidence that supports your wild a$$ assumption. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Again, with the personal attacks! There really are no big secrets in Washington, and if you don't think they consider all the angles, then you may be fooling only yourself.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There really are no big secrets in Washington, and if you don't think they consider all the angles, then you may be fooling only yourself.

What ever floats your boat there, Bill. Some people like to entertain wild ideas of conspiracies and some people like to argue on substance.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

On Holder and the CIA

By Quin Hillyer on 8.25.09 @ 1:51PM

Leon Panetta, a good man (albeit too liberal) serving a bad administration, really ought to resign. And Eric Holder, a very bad man proving himself even worse than was expected, ought to be hounded out of office. Panetta's resignation should be in protest, of course, of Holder's decision to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate CIA interrogation methcds despite explicit promises not to do so. Panetta clearly is on the outs with this outrageous administration anyway, so he ought to go down ina blaze of glory, over a matter of principle rather than hanging on to provide cover to these thugs and Alinskyites.

As for Holder, the man is a menace to this nation. He helps secure pardons for rich, awful cretins like Marc Rich, and for murderous Puerto Rican terrorists. He promises not to do "midnight raids" to steal Elian Gonzalez from his family, then justified breaking his pledge by saying it was "almost dawn." He refuses to prosecute New Black Panthers for voter intimidation and then sends out his flacks to lie about who made the decision. He calls the United States a "nation of cowards." He goes back on his word on numerous fronts, catalyzing Republicans who voted to confirm him to rake him over the coals in committee hearings because of his rank dishonesty. He promises to honor the Office of Legal Counsel, but instead overrides its considered legal opinion at the first opportunity. And so on, ad infinitum. Now he endangers the country and breaks his word again by appointing this special prosecutor, putting a terrible chilling effect on CIA operatives worldwide who now KNOW that Washington does not have their backs even when they have already been assured otherwise.

I repeat: Eric Holder is a menace to this nation. He is a bad man, a bad human being. And the president who stands by him is, by doing so, completely complicit in his perfidy.

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/08/25/on-holder-and-the-cia

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well, there you have it. Cold, hard opinion to substantiate wild speculation. Bill, you like comics?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well, there you have it. Cold, hard opinion to substantiate wild speculation. Bill, you like comics?

Adult comix, for sure!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

More like this?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

More like:

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[Peikko 1,575]

It's so very tempting to ask you guys to take your pissing match out of the public arena