• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Another Obama appointment

Tam

Well-known member
Just wondering what do you think of Obama choosing a man that doesn't have any experience in intelligents to head up the CIA? By the news it looks as if there are a few in Washington wondering what he was thinking. Is this another appointment that will lean to Obama having no idea what he is doing?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
reader (the Second)
You do need to understand why this came about. The people who Obama might have appointed would not get confirmed because they approved or condoned torture and waterboarding or NSA wiretaps as senior managers.

I think you just hit the nail on the head reader-- nobody in current supervisory positions in the CIA would pass muster- either by Congress or in the Worlds eyes....Some may even be indicted by US Courts for illegal wiretapping, or the War Crimes Courts after George leaves office and they are no longer under his protective wing...Bush's CIA record, from pre 9/11 on, has been very dismal.... :(
 

Tam

Well-known member
What happen to the comments we have been hearing about how Obama is smart enough to surround himself with people with experience to counteract his in-experience? From what I see the US has one in-experienced Super Spy with the ear of an in-experienced President protecting the US from VERY EXPERIENCED TERRORIST.

From what I understand the concern is coming from those thinking that the US can't afford to have a person with no experience in the Super Spy seat when terrorists are just looking for the opportunity to present itself to attack the US within their borders again.

Read 2 How many foreign terrorist attacks were carried out within the US borders before these other appointments you commented on were made?


For years people have been saying that the terrorist's goal is to destroy the US from within their own borders. What better way than to get a guy with questionable loyalities to the US seated as President and he then seats a guy with no intelligents experience in the seat that is the US's first line of defence against another attack.

And don't bother trying to convince me Obama has loyalities to the US as he proved his loyalities when he thumbed his nose at the US Constitution and voters when they demanded he prove his qualifications. When he started paying lawyers fees to stop questioning voters from seeing his $12 birth certificate he sealed the fate of his creditibliy. :x
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam
a guy with no intelligents experience

Tam- you and Rummy sound about the same for understanding or determining who is best suited to do intelligence work ..... :wink: :lol: :p

"I am not going to give you a number for it because it's not my business to do intelligent work." --Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asked to estimate the number of Iraqi insurgents while testifying before Congress, Feb. 16, 2005

"It's a slam-dunk case!" –CIA Director George Tenet, discussing WMD and the case for war during a meeting in the Oval Office, Dec. 21, 2002
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam
a guy with no intelligents experience

Tam- you and Rummy are in about the same boat for understanding or determining who is best suited to do intelligence work ..... :wink: :lol: :p

Laugh all you want Oldtimer but I'm not the one saying this guy hasn't got the intelligence experience needed at this time in history. :roll:
BTW Obama was on TV today saying the CIA has done an excellent job in the past few years so I guess what you're saying is just more hate mongering crap. :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
reader (the Second)
You do need to understand why this came about. The people who Obama might have appointed would not get confirmed because they approved or condoned torture and waterboarding or NSA wiretaps as senior managers.

I think you just hit the nail on the head reader-- nobody in current supervisory positions in the CIA would pass muster- either by Congress or in the Worlds eyes....Some may even be indicted by US Courts for illegal wiretapping, or the War Crimes Courts after George leaves office and they are no longer under his protective wing...Bush's CIA record, from pre 9/11 on, has been very dismal.... :(

Ummmmm, Obama supported the NSA wiretaps....... If there are any indictments or War Crimes trials, wouldn't that make Obama an accesory to any crimes?

Why would appointees be denied confirmation if they supported the same thing Chairman Maobama did?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
reader (the Second)

I think you just hit the nail on the head reader-- nobody in current supervisory positions in the CIA would pass muster- either by Congress or in the Worlds eyes....Some may even be indicted by US Courts for illegal wiretapping, or the War Crimes Courts after George leaves office and they are no longer under his protective wing...Bush's CIA record, from pre 9/11 on, has been very dismal.... :(

Ummmmm, Obama supported the NSA wiretaps....... If there are any indictments or War Crimes trials, wouldn't that make Obama an accesory to any crimes?

Why would appointees be denied confirmation if they supported the same thing Chairman Maobama did?

Sandhusker - John Brennan was Obama's first choice and he took himself out of the running because as a senior manager in the CIA he condoned and made statements about the CIA's methods of interrogation. There would have been major issues with anyone associated with recent interrogation methods (think Abu Ghraib and worse things you have not heard about). Again, I'm not saying I'm for or against Panetta, I'm trying to explain what brought Obama to someone from OUTSIDE the Intelligence Community.

You missed my point. It doesn't make any sense to block an Obama appointment for supporting the NSA wiretaps when Obama supported them himself. (Of course, he didn't support them before he did :roll: )
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
reader (the Second)
You do need to understand why this came about. The people who Obama might have appointed would not get confirmed because they approved or condoned torture and waterboarding or NSA wiretaps as senior managers.

I think you just hit the nail on the head reader-- nobody in current supervisory positions in the CIA would pass muster- either by Congress or in the Worlds eyes....Some may even be indicted by US Courts for illegal wiretapping, or the War Crimes Courts after George leaves office and they are no longer under his protective wing...Bush's CIA record, from pre 9/11 on, has been very dismal.... :(

Ummmmm, Obama supported the NSA wiretaps....... If there are any indictments or War Crimes trials, wouldn't that make Obama an accesory to any crimes?

Why would appointees be denied confirmation if they supported the same thing Chairman Maobama did?

It isn't the NSA wiretaps that violate the International Laws- it is torturing prisoners and violating the military code......

And there is nothing wrong with the NSA, CIA and FBI wiretaps that were done according to and after passage of the law allowing it....The violation of the law comes because many were done outside the rule of the existing wiretap law and prior to passage of the new law- which GW has admitted to...Being told by a supervisor- even the POTUS- that its OK to violate the law- does not relieve you of criminal responsibility...

I agree he and those within government that did so probably had every good intention with the wiretaps- but they did violate the law...Its another thing Bush had the best intentions with- but screwed up in how he carried it out...

Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent.
Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.
Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
 

VanC

Well-known member
Obama Asking Himself Who Would Be The Most Hilarious CIA Director
December 3, 2008

Chicago, Illinois - As President-elect Barack Obama adds to his list of cabinet appointments, he’s hitting a roadblock with one particular nomination: director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Obama, who ran on a message of change, is attempting to think outside the box for his pick to run the nation’s much-maligned intelligence agency. His angle, he says, is not that the candidate be a dedicated human rights proponent or even an entirely fresh face. What he needs is someone hilarious.

President-elect Barack Obama works on his list of potential candidates to head the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Obama said the criteria he is weighing most heavily is the ability of the candidate to make him laugh.
“I want someone really funny, just side-splitting hilarity,” Obama said, as he jotted notes during lunch, before a meeting with top members of his transition team. Mr. Obama would not reveal the names on his list, but he did talk about who may or may not have what has become the main qualification for the job. “Well, let’s say this. I don’t want to give anything away, but Michael Hayden, as accomplished a man as he is, is not a hilarious guy. In fact, he’s pretty much the antithesis of funny. He’s like a stop sign for a joke that’s speeding down the street. He’s the pin that pokes a hole in the Funny Balloon, and everyone watches it deflate and gets sad, thinking about what might have been. Now, maybe he could be a straight man to a different, funnier guy. But then you have two CIA directors, and that doesn’t work.

“Now, on the other side, just as a for instance, Will Ferrell is a very funny guy. I’d even go so far as to say he’s hilarious. But would he make a good director of the CIA? It’s doubtful, given that he has no experience whatsoever that even remotely relates to government or intelligence work. So, it’s a give and take. Would I love Will Ferrell diving into a table during a briefing? Yeah. Would it make me laugh? Of course. But if you ask me if that would help us stop an attack from Al Qaeda, I’d have to say no.”

Obama talked about his reasons for placing the ability to make others laugh so high on his list of criteria for the position. “Well, this stuff, intelligence and what have you, it’s very serious, very dark stuff sometimes,” he said. “So if you can get someone in there who can give you a detailed, cogent rundown on the latest threats, but then do a killer impression of Joe Biden, I think that’s the ideal candidate. Because that’s the right mix. I mean, you need both in your life. You can’t just have severity and stern-faced seriousness all the time. You just can’t.”
 

Tam

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Tam said:
What happen to the comments we have been hearing about how Obama is smart enough to surround himself with people with experience to counteract his in-experience? From what I see the US has one in-experienced Super Spy with the ear of an in-experienced President protecting the US from VERY EXPERIENCED TERRORIST.

From what I understand the concern is coming from those thinking that the US can't afford to have a person with no experience in the Super Spy seat when terrorists are just looking for the opportunity to present itself to attack the US within their borders again.

Read 2 How many foreign terrorist attacks were carried out within the US borders before these other appointments you commented on were made?


For years people have been saying that the terrorist's goal is to destroy the US from within their own borders. What better way than to get a guy with questionable loyalities to the US seated as President and he then seats a guy with no intelligents experience in the seat that is the US's first line of defence against another attack.

And don't bother trying to convince me Obama has loyalities to the US as he proved his loyalities when he thumbed his nose at the US Constitution and voters when they demanded he prove his qualifications. When he started paying lawyers fees to stop questioning voters from seeing his $12 birth certificate he sealed the fate of his creditibliy. :x

You need to understand the structure of the CIA and of the Intelligence Community. First, Dennis Blair who is a Naval Intelligence guy will be the Director of National Intelligence and will be Panetta (or whoever's) boss. Then the Director of the CIA has Deputy Directors who are career intelligence who actually run the different parts of the CIA -- DDI - Dep Dir of Intelligence and DDO - Dep Dir of Operations -- for example.

The CIA is not the first line of defense. The NSA and military intelligence do the collecting of intelligence. The Director of National Intelligence runs our intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security has a huge counterterrorism mission especially with respect to preventing or responding to terrorism within the U.S.

From what I heard on the radio tonight, there is a crisis in the CIA because Bush pushed them (properly) to double the number of operatives they had and the Directorate of Operations is filled with very young people . As OT said, there is a distinct possibility that the U.S. violations of the Geneva Convention such as waterboarding will end up in prosecutions. Read The Dark Side by Jane Mayer. Bush used the CIA operations guys to do very questionable things and whoever becomes Director needs to be above question and to save the CIA from itself. They actually need someone with the President's strong support because there will be calls to dismantle the CIA I have read.

You need to understand something Reader 2 I'm not the one saying this guy is not right for the super spy seat. According to the news reports I've been listening to there are some high in the US government that don't like this appointment and some in the CIA itself that said they would take early retirement if this guy is seated. So why don't you tell them your little story. :wink: :roll:
 

VanC

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Sounds like it's from The Onion. Very funny actually.

http://thenationalprotrusion.com/

Just stumbled across it tonight. I just posted a few about Bush. I'm no Bush hater, but thought they were hilarious.
 

Tam

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Tam, I'm reading the same reports you are reading. I added what some are also saying about this decision, as well as explained some things about the American intelligence community's organization. Aren't you Canadian? I figured you might not know that intelligence gathering, analysis, and operations are spread out among a number of agencies and organizations in the U.S. and that there is a new supreme head of intelligence which is the position that Dennis Blair has been said to be in line for. Also since DHS is new, you may not know what it's role is in protecting the U.S. from terrorist attacks :)

Geez I would have thought by now the woman that seems to know everything would have known I'm an American Born and raised.
:roll:

Again tell your little story to those that are the ones questioning this appointment I'm only repeating the concerns I've heard from people with I'd guess alot more contacts than even you have Reader.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam- Did you think Ford was wrong to appoint G HW Bush as the CIA Director back in 1976 :???:
Bush had absolutely no intelligence experience having only been an oil millionaire, Congressman, and political appointee...But like now- he was brought in as Director when the CIA was surrounded in scandal regarding illegal and unauthorized activities- as Ford thought an outsider could better bring back national and international credibility to the Agency, which its been reported he did, which helped raise the morale within the Agency...

So was Ford wrong too in bringing in an and appointing an inexperienced outsider :???:
 

Tam

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Be careful, Tam, Haymaker may get jealous of all the attention you are paying me :shock: :shock: :lol: :lol:

Geez I start a thread, you reply to it in your usually know it all way and some how Haymaker is going to get jealous because I'm paying attention to you. Please do us all a favor and get over yourself. :roll:

And yes I may have spent my adulthood in Canada but I don't live in an igloo somewhere north of the northern forest. I live within a few miles of the US border and still have family in the US that I visit weekly. I have had family serve in the US armed forces. The one currently serving was even seriously hurt in Afganistan so I tend to keep up on the US and their war efforts. So tell your little story to someone else :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam- Did you think Ford was wrong to appoint G HW Bush as the CIA Director back in 1976 :???:
Bush had absolutely no intelligence experience having only been an oil millionaire, Congressman, and political appointee...But like now- he was brought in as Director when the CIA was surrounded in scandal regarding illegal and unauthorized activities- as Ford thought an outsider could better bring back national and international credibility to the Agency, which its been reported he did, which helped raise the morale within the Agency...

So was Ford wrong too in bringing in an and appointing an inexperienced outsider :???:

Since I was in High School in 1976 I doubt I even thought once let alone twice about Ford appointing Bush. I might ask you Oldtimer since Reader 2 doesn't seem to want to answer the question, just how many terrorist attacks were carried out against the US on their own soil before Bush was appointed? I don't seem to remember one.
I think those in the US that are voicing concerns about an in-experienced guy in that seat at this time in History have very good reason to be concerned.
 

Tam

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
You do love me obviously Tam or you wouldn't be saying "my little story" over and over. You lavish the same affection on me that you normally lavish on Haymaker.

Get over myself lol, woman, can't you recognize sarcasm? Or is sarcasm something you have to swear to leave behind in the United States when you emigrate?

If you have nothing intellegent to say about the topic of this thread then move on or STOP TYPING. :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
It's pretty scary considering that the U.S. is a strong supporter of the Geneva Convention so that these types of things don't happen to our soldiers.
Tell me, what is more civil...water boarding or decapitation, dragging bodies through the streets, and hanging them from a bridge....and celebrating it?????????? You and OT are damn naive if you think our treatment of prisoners will change them one bit!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam- Did you think Ford was wrong to appoint G HW Bush as the CIA Director back in 1976 :???:
Bush had absolutely no intelligence experience having only been an oil millionaire, Congressman, and political appointee...But like now- he was brought in as Director when the CIA was surrounded in scandal regarding illegal and unauthorized activities- as Ford thought an outsider could better bring back national and international credibility to the Agency, which its been reported he did, which helped raise the morale within the Agency...

So was Ford wrong too in bringing in an and appointing an inexperienced outsider :???:

Since I was in High School in 1976 I doubt I even thought once let alone twice about Ford appointing Bush. I might ask you Oldtimer since Reader 2 doesn't seem to want to answer the question, just how many terrorist attacks were carried out against the US on their own soil before Bush was appointed? I don't seem to remember one.
I think those in the US that are voicing concerns about an in-experienced guy in that seat at this time in History have very good reason to be concerned.

Tam- Heres just the ones in the 20th Century that occurred on US soil...There are hundreds more where Americans were killed in terrorist attacks on foreign soil....

1901 September 6: American President William McKinley was assassinated by anarchist Leon Czolgosz.

1910 October 1: A bomb at the Los Angeles Times newspaper building in Los Angeles, California, United States, killed 21 workers.

1915 July 2 Frank Holt, (a.k.a. Erich Muenter) a German professor, exploded a bomb in the reception room of the U.S. Senate. The next morning, he tried to assassinate J.P. Morgan, Jr. (son of the financier whose company served as Great Britain’s principal U.S. purchasing agent for munitions and other war supplies), in a bid to stop the United States entering World War I against Germany

1920 September 16: Wall Street Bombing killed 38 people and wounded 300 others.

1933 October 10: A Boeing 247 was destroyed in midflight by a nitroglycerin bomb. All seven people aboard were killed. This incident was the first proven case of air sabotage in the history of aviation.

1940 - 1956: George Metesky, the "Mad Bomber", placed over 30 bombs in New York City in public places such as Grand Central Station and The Paramount Theater, injuring ten during this period in protest against the local electric utility. He also sent many threatening letters.

1950 November 1: Puerto Rican nationalists failed to assassinate U.S. President Harry S. Truman.

1954 March 1: U.S. Capitol shooting incident by Puerto Rican nationalists wounded five Congressmen.

1958 October 12: Bombing of the Hebrew Benevolent Congregation Temple in Atlanta, Georgia, suspected to have been done by white separatists.

1965: The Monumental Plot - New York Police thwarted an attempt to dynamite the Statue of Liberty, Liberty Bell, and the Washington Monument by three members of the pro-Castro Black Liberation Front and a Quebec Separatist.

1971 August 24: The Army Mathematics Research Center on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus was blown up resulting in one death


1971 October 22: An antipersonnel time bomb explodes outside a San Francisco church, showering steel shrapnel on mourners of a patrolman slain in a bank holdup; no one is injured. The Black Liberation Army is suspected.

1970-1972: The Jewish Defense League was linked with a bomb explosion outside of Aeroflot's New York City office, and a detonation outside of Soviet cultural offices in Washington. Also a JDL member allegedly fired a rifle into the Soviet Union's mission office at the United Nations. Two JDL members were convicted of bomb possession and burglary in a conspiracy to blow up the Long Island residence of the Soviet Mission to the UN.

December 1972: A travel agency in Queens, New York, is bombed; the incident is attributed to FIN, a Cuban exile groups opposed to the government of Fidel Castro.

1972 December 11: New York City. The VA-Cuba Forwarding Company is bombed. Cuban exile groups opposed to the government of Fidel Castro suspected.

1974 September 8: TWA Flight 841: Bomb kills 88 on jetliner. Attributed to Abu Nidal and his terrorist organization.

1974 December 11: A bomb set off by the Puerto Rican nationalist group FALN in East Harlem, New York, permanently disables a police officer. The officer lost an eye as a result of this act.

1975 January 24: FALN bomb the Fraunces Tavern, killing four and injuring more than 50.

1975 April 19: FALN sets off four bombs within a forty minute period in Manhattan, New York, injuring at least five people.

1975 December 29: Bomb explodes at New York's LaGuardia Airport, killing eleven and injuring 75. No arrests ever made in this case and the reason for this attack remains unknown.

1976 United States, Canada, France, September 10–September 11: Croatian Freedom Fighters hijack a TWA airliner, diverting it to Gander, Newfoundland, and then to Paris, demanding a manifesto be printed. One police officer was killed and three injured during an attempt to defuse a bomb that contained their communiques in a New York City train station locker. Zvonko Busic who served 32 years in prison for the attack was released and returned to Croatia to a heroes welcome in July 2008.

1976 United States, September 21: Orlando Letelier assassinated in Washington by Chilean government.


I differ with you-- as I think new leadership may bring us back cooperation with other agencies- especially some foreign ones- that we lost during the Bush reign- and some credibility/respect with the world populace which they totally lost during that time...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
reader (the Second) said:
OT you forgot the Oklahoma City bombing. That's domestic terrorism.

Yeah there are 100's more- but Tam only asked for those prior to George HW Bush becoming CIA director...Problem is most these folks think of terrorism and only think Muslims-and think its something new because of the fearmongering GW and Rush have done---but there have been both domestic and foreign organized terrorist groups around for years....
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
reader (the Second) said:
OT you forgot the Oklahoma City bombing. That's domestic terrorism.

Yeah there are 100's more- but Tam only asked for those prior to George HW Bush becoming CIA director...Problem is most these folks think of terrorism and only think Muslims-and think its something new because of the fearmongering GW and Rush have done---but there have been both domestic and foreign organized terrorist groups around for years....


Don't forget Obama's buddies the weather underground. :roll:
 
Top