[mike777]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 7 2009, 04:51 PM, said:

Army air force.
Navy air force.
Air Force

Why can't the marines have one? Oh yeah, they are part of the ....Navy? Army?

Empires (political or other) are built on expedience. What works best. Eventually, bills must be paid and someone has to clean house. Not the best time to do so. you say? Never is.....

They do.

MARINE AIR GROUND TASK FORCE TRAINING COMMAND
MARINE CORPS AIR GROUND COMBAT CENTER

http://www.29palms.usmc.mil/

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Jan 7 2009, 12:41 PM, said:

Personally I don't see why anyone here thinks they have a better idea than Obama does about what qualities we need in an intelligence director. I know nothing about this guy, as I suspect none of us did until his announcement (edit: I may well be wrong about that I admit, given that he was a Chief of Staff), so at this point I'm perfectly happy to give him the benefit of the doubt since Obama has shown good judgment for such things thus far IMO.

you're right... i was upset he chose biden rather than hillary (hell i was *really* upset he won the primary rather than her), but it was obamba's choice and he is the prez-elect

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jan 7 2009, 01:36 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jan 7 2009, 01:30 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 7 2009, 12:41 PM, said:

Personally I don't see why anyone here thinks they have a better idea than Obama does about what qualities we need in an intelligence director. I know nothing about this guy, as I suspect none of us did until his announcement (edit: I may well be wrong about that I admit, given that he was a Chief of Staff), so at this point I'm perfectly happy to give him the benefit of the doubt since Obama has shown good judgment for such things thus far IMO.

Yeah, that New Mexico thing was a winner pick.

I don't know what I should reply. That it WAS a good pick (he wasn't not-confirmed or anything, changing circumstances simply caused him to withdraw), or that I never claimed 100% accuracy, or that it may be fun to sit like hawks ready to pounce at anything that is less than perfect especially if you couldn't have done nearly as good of a job overall but that doing so is rather pointless.

Keeps getting better. Now we have the IRS guy.

Oops! LOL

That's what I want in the head of the Treasury -- either a dishonest man who does not pay his own takes, or a stupid man who cannot figure out the forms, or both. roflol

[Winstonm]

This bodes for some extremely interesting Supreme Court picks - Bernie Madoff for the high court?

[barmar]

How many people do you think there are who are successful in politics that DON'T have something scandalous in their background? Probably most rich people cheat on their taxes to some extent. Obama's campaign was almost derailed by his past association with a "terrorist".

[Winstonm]

barmar, on Jan 14 2009, 04:26 PM, said:

How many people do you think there are who are successful in politics that DON'T have something scandalous in their background? Probably most rich people cheat on their taxes to some extent. Obama's campaign was almost derailed by his past association with a "terrorist".

He didn't pick Cheney as his running mate - that makes Obama already 5000% better in my book.

Minus the 4900% for picking Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, of course.

[Lobowolf]

barmar, on Jan 14 2009, 04:26 PM, said:

How many people do you think there are who are successful in politics that DON'T have something scandalous in their background?  Probably most rich people cheat on their taxes to some extent.  Obama's campaign was almost derailed by his past association with a "terrorist".

I could see putting quotes around "association," but would even that dude from Friends put them around "terrorist" when talking about Ayers?

[jtfanclub]

I don't understand the logic of picking an intelligence guy to run the CIA, any more than I understand the logic of picking a General to be the Secretary of Defense. They have a thousand Generals and Admirals already doing the job, but #1001 is going to be just what they need to do it right? Please. If you're just going to put another spook/General in the top position, may as well leave it vacant.

The job of the CIA head is to...

1. Make sure the CIA is doing things that the Adminstration wants them to do.
2. Make sure the CIA isn't doing things that the Adminstrations doesn't want them to do.
3. Make sure that the CIA can do their job (no unnecessary Congressional investigations, sufficient funding, etc.).

1 requires a good manager. 2 requires a good bean counter (follow the money, and you'll see what the CIA is up to). 3 requires somebody with political clout. Leon is 3 for 3.

I'm a tech person. I don't need my boss to also be a tech person- that would be a waste. They should have at least a passing familiarity with what I do, but what I want in a boss is somebody who makes it clear what my job is, gets me the resources I need to get the job done, and catches flak from other departments who are trying to keep me from getting that job done. Those aren't technical skills. Those are management skills. The spyboys may complain, but what they need at the top is a manager, not a spook.

[mike777]

Not only does the head CIA guy need to do what the administration wants but he may in fact have to tell them what they need.

I will use television as an example. Not only does television need to deliver programs people ask for but it has to figure out what people want when even they do not know it. No one asked for a 24 hour sports channel, now we cannot live without one.

So the head of the CIA needs to drive this sort of issue, what does the President need to know or the agency need to do that even the President may not know to ask for.

Spy stuff by definition is confusing and contradictory but at some point you need to throw out some stuff and give the President a coherent briefing that is useful. Call it cherry picking call it whatever you want but you do not give the President raw intelligent data and say here you decide what is true or not true.


To use your tech example how do I know if you are the right tech person for the right job? Do I basically guess? Do I say you have been doing this for 30 years so you must know what you are doing or have you basically been doing it wrong for 30 years?

[Winstonm]

Quote

The job of the CIA head is to...

1. Make sure the CIA is doing things that the Adminstration wants them to do.
2. Make sure the CIA isn't doing things that the Adminstrations doesn't want them to do.
3. Make sure that the CIA can do their job (no unnecessary Congressional investigations, sufficient funding, etc.).

My opinion is drastically different from yours - no surprise there.

The CIA should not be an Administration tool. It should be insulated from Administration meddling. It should not be used to achieve agenda but to help determine correct agenda.

And to keep the agency in check, it needs oversight, even the unnecessary kind that Congress at time provides.

It is still a Republic - barely - and the Dick Cheney imperial Presidential model is antipathy to the founding thoughts.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jan 14 2009, 05:43 PM, said:

Quote

The job of the CIA head is to...

1. Make sure the CIA is doing things that the Adminstration wants them to do.
2. Make sure the CIA isn't doing things that the Adminstrations doesn't want them to do.
3. Make sure that the CIA can do their job (no unnecessary Congressional investigations, sufficient funding, etc.).

My opinion is drastically different from yours - no surprise there.

The CIA should not be an Administration tool. It should be insulated from Administration meddling. It should not be used to achieve agenda but to help determine correct agenda.

And to keep the agency in check, it needs oversight, even the unnecessary kind that Congress at time provides.

It is still a Republic - barely - and the Dick Cheney imperial Presidential model is antipathy to the founding thoughts.

I could not disagree more strongly. I do not, not want an independent CIA agency setting its own agenda. Having any government agency insulated from an Administration sounds horrible let alone a spy agency whose job is too basically break the law in every country but our own and not get shot. Keep in mind they are spies, they steal, bribe, and even at times kill people directly or indirectly through other people. They deal with the scum of the earth. They are not angels dancing on the head of some pin.

[Winstonm]

Quote

they steal, bribe, and even at times kill people directly or indirectly through other people. They deal with the scum of the earth. They are not angels dancing on the head of some pin.

You're describing politicans.

Quote

Having any government agency insulated from an Administration sounds horrible let alone a spy agency whose job is too basically break the law in every country but our own and not get shot.

The majority of the duties of the intelligence agencies are analytical - gather information and deduce a meaning from it. One of the problems you have when an intelligence agency grows too political is what happened to the C.I.A. during the Reagan years, where the agency's duties were transformed into reinforcing the Reagan agenda to increase defense spending to battle the Soviet threat - a threat that the C.I.A. analysts knew to be overexagerated and in decline because of the limitations of a communist economy. But they were thwarted from presenting a realistic portrayal of the threat because it did not match the Administration's agenda.

If an intelligence agency cannot speak truth to power, it is only a shill.

[jtfanclub]

mike777, on Jan 14 2009, 05:39 PM, said:

Spy stuff by definition is confusing and contradictory but at some point you need to throw out some stuff and give the President a coherent briefing that is useful. Call it cherry picking call it whatever you want but you do not give the President raw intelligent data and say here you decide what is true or not true.


To use your tech example how do I know if you are the right tech person for the right job? Do I basically guess? Do I say you have been doing this for 30 years so you must know what you are doing or have you basically been doing it wrong for 30 years?

In my case my manager would go to my team lead (top technician) and ask if I'm the right person for the job. If we're interviewing new people, the team lead gets to sit in, and so forth.

Leon needs lieutenants who are spies, preferably career CIA guys. Those people will sort through the data and provide the most useful of it to him. But IMHO that's not what top guy should be doing. In any organization:

The Lieutenants tell the boss where we are.
The Boss tells everyone where we want to go, and makes sure we can get there.
Then the Underlings get us there, directed by the Lieutenants.

[kenrexford]

barmar, on Jan 14 2009, 04:26 PM, said:

How many people do you think there are who are successful in politics that DON'T have something scandalous in their background? Probably most rich people cheat on their taxes to some extent. Obama's campaign was almost derailed by his past association with a "terrorist".

I'm not sure I buy this. In fact, I'm quite sure that I don't.

I would not pick Amy Winehouse, for example, as the Drug Czar.

I would not pick the captain of the Valdez as the head of the EPA.

I would not pick a Kennedy to head up the FAA.

And, I would not pick someone with known tax problems to head up the Treasury.

It just kinda looks bad.

[PassedOut]

kenrexford, on Jan 15 2009, 09:17 AM, said:

And, I would not pick someone with known tax problems to head up the Treasury.

It just kinda looks bad.

It does indeed, and I've been wondering why his nomination still has such strong bipartisan support. So I read with interest this NY Times article this morning: Geithner’s Skill May Trump Tax Issue

Quote

“These are not the times to think in small political terms,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who just returned from Afghanistan and Pakistan with Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., and briefly met with reporters on Wednesday alongside Mr. Obama. “I think he is the right guy.”

Mr. Graham thereby validated what the president-elect had just said: That Mr. Geithner, by bipartisan agreement, is “uniquely qualified.”

“Look, is this an embarrassment for him? Yes. He said so himself,” Mr. Obama said, referring to Mr. Geithner’s remarks in a private meeting with the Senate Finance Committee the day before. But Mr. Obama said Mr. Geithner had made a common mistake and corrected it.

The committee chairman, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, early Wednesday postponed Mr. Geithner’s confirmation hearing from Friday to the day after the inauguration. Senators said the delay was unrelated to the tax issue, but at least for a time it will leave Mr. Obama without a Treasury secretary.

The panel’s senior Republican, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, declined for a second day to take a position on Mr. Geithner’s nomination. In an interview with Iowa reporters, Mr. Grassley reiterated his concern about having a Treasury secretary, with responsibility for the Internal Revenue Service, who had been delinquent on taxes. But he said Mr. Geithner had been “very sincere” in accounting for his violations.

He added: “I don’t believe there’s any doubt about his qualifications. For a partisan person like Obama, appointing a relative political independent as Geithner is, I think that that’s a plus.”

Mr. Geithner called other senators to discuss the controversy, if they wanted, as well as his views on the big issues that otherwise had been expected to dominate his confirmation hearing: an emerging $800 billion economic recovery blueprint, plans for the remaining half of a $700 billion financial bailout fund, and ideas for rewriting regulations for the nation’s financial system to avoid another collapse.

The controversy over his taxes, as it happens, goes to the one area where Mr. Geithner has the least experience, despite serving 13 years at the Treasury Department: domestic tax policy.

Mr. Geithner, 47, rose from a lower-level civil servant at the department at the end of Ronald Reagan’s presidency to under secretary for international affairs under President Bill Clinton, then was a director of the International Monetary Fund before becoming president of the New York Fed in late 2003.

Mr. Obama chose Mr. Geithner on Nov. 24, despite knowing of the tax issue.

Aside from his other qualifications, it seems that Mr. Geithner does not shrink from confronting the overbearing Larry Summers when necessary.

But it would definitely have been a lot better if he had not messed up his taxes!

[Winstonm]

Maybe I stated my position poorly, but what I fear is politicalization of the intelligence agencies - as happened in Israel according to this: http://www.haaretz.c...es/1053882.html

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jan 15 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

Maybe I stated my position poorly, but what I fear is politicalization of the intelligence agencies - as happened in Israel according to this: http://www.haaretz.c...es/1053882.html

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision this week to pack the House intelligence committee with Democrats — despite a clear recommendation from the 9/11 commission to keep politics out of intelligence matters — has roiled Republicans."

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/pelosi_in.../14/171413.html

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jan 15 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 15 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

Maybe I stated my position poorly, but what I fear is politicalization of the intelligence agencies - as happened in Israel according to this: http://www.haaretz.c...es/1053882.html

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision this week to pack the House intelligence committee with Democrats — despite a clear recommendation from the 9/11 commission to keep politics out of intelligence matters — has roiled Republicans."

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/pelosi_in.../14/171413.html

This is not a surprise to me. I am on record in these forums stating that I believe there is little-to-no difference between the two parties. This non-distinction becomes even more blurred concerning foreign policy.

The "why" part of the no-differnce-in-foreign-policy equation happens to agree with Mike - that we get the government (and foreign policy, therefore) that we deserve (and want).

Let me use this forum to set the record straight about my beliefs. First, I do not hate George Bush - I feel sorry for him. I think he is not bright enough for the job to which he was elected, and he relies on bullying, bravado, and the Evangelical's strict sense of moral superiority to make it through the daze (sic intended).

My distaste is for the neo-conservatives - Dick Cheney in particular.

I am not an Obama supporter, per se - I am too cynical to believe in change. I will be grateful if his legal and constitutional training allows him to roll back the rights usurped by the Bush/Chency cartel and if he can rehabilitate the U.S. concept of a nation of laws.

I think Ronald Reagan truly believed what he preached and thought - but his naivete' and willing participation of all of us in his Disney-like dreams has led us to the brink of collapse - and in that mirage was the C.I.A., led by Robert Gates, painting a knowingly false picture of a healthy and vibrant Soviet enemy to play patsy to the borrow and spend insanity of the Reagan Paradox of Big Defense-Little Government.

The ones to blame look back at us in the mirror every day - that's what I think.