What are the problems with Panetta? I actually like this choice a lot--but you can cue the MSM librul villagers asking, "is this change?"

Do they realize the central part of CHANGE was from from that war CRIMINAL George W. Bush who ruined the country?--

>>the MSM librul villagers asking, "is this change?"

Before I lay into you, to whom does this refer?

Well, the CIA is weird. They don't like outsiders and Panetta doesn't have any intel experience beyond whatever he did as Chief of Staff for Clinton. So I'm interested to see how this shakes out.

Beyond that, I think it's a decent choice.

OK, I have to add this to the discussion. When Jimmy Carter was President he asked his CIA Director for the Area 51 information.

The CIA Director(George H.W. Bush) told the president to fuck off.

This means that the dumbest people on the planet know if aliens really crash landed in New Mexico. Scary shit right?

How the hell did Jimmy Carter get Bush as his CIA director and why didn't he shit can him after the alien thing?

Before you all go Ann Coulter on me, I didn't make this shit up I saw it on the History/Discovery Channel.

Seems to me, that we now have a Clinton government-in-exile. Guess you can have 2 Presidents at once.

Panetta works for me. He's not a fascist git.

In what universe is this librul MSM of which you speak JG?

The MSM here in the U.S. has been the principle cheer-leading squad for the fascist overthrow of our government. Corporatists/Fascists are not librul.

>>Seems to me, that we now have a Clinton government-in-exile.

It hurtsssss

Here is Panetta writing for the Washington Monthly:

ccording to the latest polls, two-thirds of the American public believes that torturing suspected terrorists to gain important information is justified in some circumstances. How did we transform from champions of human dignity and individual rights into a nation of armchair torturers? One word: fear.

Fear is blinding, hateful, and vengeful. It makes the end justify the means. And why not? If torture can stop the next terrorist attack, the next suicide bomber, then what's wrong with a little waterboarding or electric shock?

H/T to Andrew Sullivan and Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic

That sentiment puts him squarely in the Bob Cesca camp, I would have thought.

QT

--but you can cue the MSM librul villagers asking, "is this change?"

Bullsh!t. The only people repeating the "is this change? mantra are the republican concern trolls whose only goal is to sabotage this administration before it even begins.

Apparently Dianne Feinstein opposes his nomination. Given her record on eavesdropping and general capitulation to the chickenhawks, Feinstein's opposition is enough of an endorsement for me. Can we get rid of her?...she really sucks these days.

HEY, HUFFPO REPORTING ANN COULTER "TODAY SHOW" CANCELED!

Sorry about the caps. I got excited.

Coulter Canceled? What'd she do.....catch a car and have to get her jaw wired shut again.........?

>>>Before you all go Ann Coulter on me, I didn't make this shit up I saw it on the History/Discovery Channel.

Damn, cos I had a really sweet zinger about how you wear panties and like musicals... Oh man, that Ann Coulter. She's a clever minx.

"How did we transform from champions of human dignity and individual rights into a nation of armchair torturers? One word: fear. "

Apparently we must have been transformed sometime after World War Two, because in that war, Americans and American soldiers DEFINITELY believed that torture was justified if it meant saving American lives.

In fact, of all the soldiers I know, and i know quite a few, I don't know of a one who wouldn't torture a suspect if it meant he could save American lives, especially his buddies. I don't know about GI theJoe. I have a sneaky suspicion that if it was personal enough, Joe might crack, too. Just guessing. No one ever wants to be in that situation.

Officially and for the record, of course, every one of them detests any form of torture for any reason. But tighten the screws in an already tense situation, and you can see how they might respond unofficially.

Look, this is a nasty topic and the results of either choice could be catastrophic. But let me paint a scenario for you. An armed man breaks into your home and kidnaps your child. One day later, you find this man, and he refuses to tell you where your child is, only that your child is in extreme danger.

What do you do? Take the high road? Let your child die so you can say you didn't torture a criminal?

Sorry for being so contrary on this issue, but I don't think people really think this one all the way through.

Incidentally, my problem with Panetta is two fold: the close Bill Clinton connection, and the fact that I just can't see a career politician being the man to take the CIA to its highest level of service.

PPP: I have to disagree. Yes, any one with a personal stake in things is prone to snap. But snapping, and having established policy removing the need to call it "snapping" are two different things. The one earns deserved time off and mental health care, while the other earns medals while our humanity and national soul slip further away.

QT

Uhmm.. Panetta might be a good choice.. Thats exactly how Obama's transition works.. Pick someone not necessarily fit for the job.. It's worth a try..

QT,

I understand your view. I understand the angst over the "policy". It was a policy, as we found out the hard way. But the people who made the decision to authorize it, for them, it was personal. Was it made in fear? You bet it was.

I can't imagine being President or Vice-President, and presiding over the absolute worst act of war on the continental USA ever. I think I'd make a vow to do EVERYTHING in my power to prevent it from happening again. I'd be willing to take the heat for my decisions, so long as I could have even a prayer of protecting my country. If that included torture, well, I still don't think any one of us put in the same position can say with any certainty that we would have responded differently. We're just sitting here playing Monday Morning Quarterback...because it's supposedly that easy.

I get it, QT, I am even upset about it. I just don't believe i would have decided differently

Terrorists don't have to succeed every time out. They only have to succeed once, while a nation must succeed over and over and over. One failure in intelligence, one slip up in the sharing of information, and we see what happens.

Bush and Cheney panicked, plain and simple. Their policy isn't any different than an individual snapping; it's just on a much bigger scale. I don't support Bush or Cheney, but in this instance, I don't think any of us has enough information to judge the decision. I don't think any one of us would want the information.

PPP: I appreciate your honesty. There is a reason I stick around here despite not being "liberal" or even all that welcome here, on account of being religious and more Obama supporter than progressive, is that Bob is a champion of principles over fear. People of faith and patriots have this in common - a belief that some things ought to stir our conscience beyond our fear. Bob's book is an excellent exhortation from the patriot's pov. I highly recommend it.

QT

Here a Hack, There a Hack, Everywhere a Hack-Hack

Leon Panetta, no experience needed.

http://www.izerc.com/?p=219