The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Friend
By Susie Madrak Tuesday Jan 06, 2009 10:10amWell, if I embrace that philosophy, I can easily accept Leon Panetta as the new head of the CIA. Why? Because Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller, who both rolled over on torture, FISA and various other abuses, have a problem with him.
And under the circumstances, maybe that's a good thing. Maybe it'll be a good thing to have someone who isn't buddies with the people who perpetuated the horrors of the past eight years. Or maybe it won't, but what the hell, it's worth a shot.
And Salon's Joan Walsh agrees with me:
In other Obama news: I wasn't sure what to make of the appointment of Leon Panetta as CIA director -- until I heard that Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller opposed it. That's not entirely true: I thought the competent and popular Panetta, who came out strongly against Bush administration torture, detention and interrogation policies, was a clear message that Obama wants to change the way our intelligence agencies do business. The two Democrats' pique -- they say Obama didn't vet Panetta with them -- is a good sign that Panetta's not viewed as an insider who will simply roll over for what the intelligence establishment wants, since Feinstein and Rockefeller did little or nothing to stand up against Bush policies (and Glenn Greenwald agrees with me.)
On MSNBC's "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," I said I trust Obama and Panetta on these issues far more than Feinstein and Rockefeller. Pat Buchanan and David Shuster predicted the opposition of Feinstein and Rockefeller would liberate congressional Republicans to savage Panetta in confirmation hearings; I trust he'll make it through, with Obama's strong backing.
Login or Register to post comments.
spend it! It's great that O didn't "vet" with F & P - now they can sit on their hands and STFU!!
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Problem -> Reaction -> Solution
Cui Bono? (Who benefits)
Disaster Capitalism.
All great concepts worth investigating and speaking publicly about.
represents the most dramatic, radical shift in CIA leadership in my 63 years. Of all Obama's picks, this is the most interesting. I hope Obama has very good protection -- unlike JFK.
partisanship aside, how does the panetta choice differ from the GHWBush choice?
which can be found, for example, by digging into the JFK assassination, that GHW Bush was a CIA operative in the early 1960s who was deeply involved in the CIA's Bay of Pigs operation.
This evidence strongly suggests shrub, sr., always has lied when he's said he had no connection to the CIA before becoming its director.
The Secrecy News reports a new Bush family expose from journalist Russ Baker:
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/01/famil...
Just accept the truth. JFK was fucking murdered by people within our government. It isn't that hard to figure out.
n/t
...there are actual photos of GHWB standing outside the Dallas hospital emergency room right after JFK was shot. Not sure where I came across them, but I do remember he was standing by the door with his hands in his pockets, grinning from ear-to-ear.
Those who think GWB has been an awful President and destroyed our country should really learn a lot more about Poppy - he's the real satan in the family - been involved in shenanigans in the CIA, as VP and Pres for over 50 years.
Zapata, Bay of Pigs, et. al, you are very warm.
Before he was selected to as Ronald Reagan’s 1980 running mate, George H.W. Bush had a short and little-known career as an international banker. That effectively started in 1976, while Bush was still CIA Director, a post he held for part of the Nixon and Ford Administration. In the final months of the Ford presidency, Bush made a deal with the newly-appointed head of Saudi General Intelligence Directorate, Prince Turki al-Faisal. The two spy chiefs agreed the CIA would look the other way while the Saudis ran their own global operations. In exchange, the Saudis financed the sort of black ops that had been banned by the Democratic Congress after Watergate and the Church Committee hearings. The arrangement was called “The Safari Club” , and the funding mechanism for this was the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, “BCCI”. See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/8/146... ; http://www.saudiembassy.net/2006News/State...
Newly-elected President Jimmy Carter fired the CIA Director. In early 1977, Houston banker Joe Allbritton appointed Bush to direct his First International Bancshares (dba, First Interbank) and its London and Luxembourg affiliates. According to Kevin Phillips, Bush’s bank was among the first outposts in America for BCCI. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0111-0... In the early 1980s, Allbritton followed G.H.W. to Washington, purchasing Riggs Bank, installing brother Jonathan Bush as a Director.
Riggs closed in 2004 after being fined $25 million dollars for violation of federal money laundering and anti-terrorism laws. Riggs had catered to high-end foreign customers and the diplomatic trade in Washington, as well as having “a relationship” with the CIA. http://www.slate.com/id/2112015 / After 9/11, the bank was found to have transferred money from Saudi Embassy accounts that ended up supporting two of the 9/11 hijackers, Flt. 77 leaders Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khaleed al-Midhar after their arrival in the U.S. See, http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/b...
Know Your Banking Customer: Salem Bin Laden
Meanwhile, back in Texas, First Interbank merged with Jim Baker’s Republic Bank, in which the Saudis had taken a stake with the 1978 purchase of the bank’ headquarters building by members of the Bin-Laden and bin-Mahfouz families. The merger of these two Texas banks several years later created the largest regional financial institution in the U.S. Infused with capital from Saudi Arabia, First RepublicBank went on a massive bargain buying binge in the Southwest oil patch. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/mar/3...
This Saudi-financed merger of the Bush bank with the Baker bank created the nation’s largest bank holding company, and soon the largest bank failure, resulting in a $1 billion tax-payer funded bailout in 1987. This was to become a pattern for the trillion dollar rip-off to come. See, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...
McCain's Role in Covering Up the The Trillion Dollar Bank Heist
It’s been said that the American people didn’t become very angry about the S&L crisis because the explanations given for what caused it were too complicated for many to comprehend. That seems to have set a pattern for financial scandals to follow. Nobody dared tell the American public – although the 1992 Kerry Commission report came close -- that their financial system was being looted by a well-funded, highly-organized global criminal organization with ties to half a dozen of the world’s most powerful intelligence services, including elements of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. They didn't name CIA Headquarters, "The George H.W. Bush Intelligence Center" for nothing. See,
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/b...
As the group’s scams became more sophisticated and wide-ranging, the price tag for bail-outs escalated. The federal rescue of Neil Bush’ Silverado S&L cost the taxpayer $1.3 billion. The price tag for Charles Keating’s Lincoln Savings & Loan bailout eventually reached $2.6 billion. http://www.slate.com/id/1004633 BCCI was termed “the $20-billion-plus heist.” (Beatty, Jonathan; S.C. Gwynne. The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride Into the Secret Heart of BCCI Beard Books (1993)).
i did not know the covert history of papa bush...
thanks for the 411
you'd think there would be a better choice for CIA dir.
panetta's stance against torture is commendable. but, then again, i was against torture too, and i would make a terrible CIA dir.
I'd make a totally kickass CIA director, though. Anyone from the Obama team reading this by any chance?
Porter Goss said the same thing to Michael Moore, that he was totally unqualified to be director of CIA and they would never ask him to do it.
"I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified, I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably, And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day: 'Dad you got to get better on your computer.' Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have."
is that the key to getting appt to a senior level, just claim you are wholly unqualified?
Then go in and destroy the agency or company you've been put in charge of. You are such a fast learner. I new you'd make a good director of CIA. ;)
come. shamble-ize. leave.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qdxYf70wtI&fe...
just watched the vid...
can u effin imagine
But all forms of torture have long been prohibited by American law and international treaties respected by Republican and Democratic presidents alike.
Our forefathers prohibited "cruel and unusual punishment" because that was how tyrants and despots ruled in the 1700s. They wanted an America that was better than that. Torture is illegal, immoral, dangerous and counterproductive. And yet, the president is using fear to trump the law.
The same rationale is used to justify eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without a warrant. The president has made clear that the failure of the Congress to pass this authority could jeopardize our security. Instead of trying to negotiate a compromise with Congress that would meet both our intelligence and privacy concerns, it is easier to threaten with fear.
Not!
And secret government even less.
Am I an Anarchist!
Rockefeller when torture revelations came out was visibly shaken in initial interviews.
Why? Dirty deeds done cheap.
He was right in there as was Feinstein who maintained greater composure.
I am all for not giving them anyone they like.
Most of all I am for dismantling the CIA entirely.
-John Kennedy had similar ambitions about dismantling CIA. We remember what their answer was the first time around. This is not to say I disagree.
But in this current spineless political climate who has the 'nads to take up the crusade?
how will panetta--who is against torture--deal with the potential DNI, dennis blair--who tactily approved torture?
The DNI does not have the legal authority to tell the Director of the CIA what to do. The Director of the CIA serves at the pleasure of the President. Fancy way of saying only the President can fire the Director of the CIA.
agrees.
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/01/hbc-90004141
Straight to the point.
There's a good letter on TPM from a 30 year intelligence guy who claims CIA's gotten away from primary mission of figuring out what's going on and making sure the president understands it. They've been consumed lately with supporting battlefield tactics in Iraq and Afganistan. Add that to the need to flush out the torture nonsense and I think there's a good chance that Panetta might be able to reorganize the CIA and at the same time not be pushed around by the likes of Feinstein. He'll get a lot of support from connections he has outside of the CIA. Might be a great choice. I feel like I know Panetta better than some faceless spook admiral.
...but I am old. And, I live been around long enough to know that if one takes the time to really investigate most of the nasty things that have happened in the world over the last 60 years, you will discover that the CIA (or some part of the US clandestine services) was involved in one way or another. Mostly, their mission is to foment distraction and unrest so the M-I folks can move in and start a little conflagration or "corporatize" a country, or what-have-you. Nothing is as it seems.
Prescott Bush Led Fascist Coup Attempt Against FDR - Somni-Forum3 posts - Last post: Apr 5, 2008
... that has received little historical attention, the conspiracy on behalf of a group of influential powerbrokers, led by Prescott Bush, ...
forum.poppies.org/index.php?showtopic=15422 - 55k - Cached - Similar pages
She seems as upset as a puppy who did a bad thing on the carpet when hearing the owner returning.
I guess you two miss the point about Panetta's nomination--Obama is nominating a fresh face from the outside with an objective view, not some insider syncophant bent on furthering the failed status quo.
Sorry it upsets your private club view of your organization and your inflated perspective of your importance but here are the two words I think that describe how the public feels about your wounded ego:
Tough shit.
Now get over it and serve the public interest, not your supersized egos.
Diane Feinstein has been a war-profiteer (via her husband's business connections), and a soulless right-wing hawk who has contributed to the criminal WH murder machine the past 8 years. She deserves endless public derision and contempt, along with her enabling colleague, Nancy Pelosi, and also, to some extent, Hillary Clinton (who never genuinely apologized for having endorsed a criminal war of aggression against a sovereign country, leading to the death of a million+ innocent human beings (including a sizable number of blue-collar Americans- who have little value to these self-serving, bloodthirsty goons)).
I am a little wary of the number of former Clinton WH personalities showing up in BO's cabinet; however, after a lawless, terrorizing 8 years of mafioso killers, it has to bring some relief to the world.
These fake Dems need to get on board or they may get run over. Obama has a vision and a plan. I doubt he will let these cry babies sway him off track. Feinstein and Rockefeller are just nervous about their own complacency with the Bush admin. They should be embarrased. The American people know who was in on the torture, illegal wiretapping, etc. Were they part of the gang of 8?
I had mixed feelings about this appointment, until I read that Rockerfeller and Feinstein are in a snit. Apparently, it's because he has a large enough network of his own that he won't be able to be controlled by them or entrenched political-types within the CIA. I also read a comment from a thread on another blog earlier today from a career intellegence person who was liking him for the very same reason that R&F don't, and that he might be the person who could re-align the CIA back to it's prime mission.
We'll see. Overall, I still get a sinking feeling when I look at the scope of Obama's cabinet, and still can't help thinking that we've elected a moderate-to-right wing Republican instead of a Democrat.
Funny, that was my gut instinct yesterday when I heard Feinstein opposed the appointment. Glad others see it this way as well.
Wonder who President Elect Clinton will appoint next. Oops.
Senator Fiengold approves of Panetta contrary to Feinstein. Feinstein is a Neocon Zionist in the guise of a Democrat and there are plenty others including Schumer. Maybe Obama wants to keep an eye on this bloodthirsty faction from here on in and Panetta is the the man. We have to end the stranglehold Israel has on our country.
Amen to that brother.
Le-chaim!
You would have never know it, as he never spoke out.
"known it"......... sorry..
(yikes)
Isn't grandma/Diane Frankenfeinstein bad enough? Did you really have to bring up Joan Walsh too??!
Eeeeeeeeek!
Diane Feinstein's husband Mr. Blum has made millions working with the Bush Administration and the Carlyle Group. Now remember the Carlye Group who's memebers were Bin Ladin Family, Bush Family and others. Well it seems Mr. Blum did contract work with the Iraq invasion as his wife Diane Feinstein set on the Committee and approved the corrupt deals. Diane had no problem confirming without question CIA Director Porter Goss who didn't even know how to use a computer/cell phone. Goss set back and allowed Wilkes and Fargo make corrupt deals and yes good old Mr. Blum get his share of that free taxpayers money thanks to his wife Diane Feinstein. Diane needs to know the Obama appointee to the CIA will not report her husband illegal acts or she's busted. Obama/Biden's new policy of transparentcy will destroy Diane Feinstein, Speaker Pelosi and even Harry Reid's careers. Pelosi got her husband a US Govenment Contract to keep the Impeachment of Bush off the table and Harry has been dealing for what ever he could get as he followed the orders of the White House. Most think Republicans were the only corrupt group but many old school Democrats went along for the raid for the free taxpayers money the White House was giving out.
sorry but she has to go
I'm not crazy about Panetta (mainly due to his Clinton ties) but like others above, if Feinstein doesn't want him that's a lot of points in his favor.
However, I'll be immensely glad when I never have to see Feinstein's Joker/Clown makeup'd face again. I voted Green instead of for her last time but I swear to Dog I'll vote Republican if it'll get rid of her. At least it'll be an "honest" Republican...
He's a free thinker. He's not one of them. He's very smart. He's against torture, FISA, The Patriot Act.
He's pretty much the man for the job. Like I said, He's very smart and he doesn't take shit from anyone. To be the guy to replace Gates.........He's a great choice.
Now, If he can only get by Congress.
Do you ever wonder why so many of the establishment are against him?
Because they fear him. He's honest.
And a guy like that with so much access to intelligence scares the shit out of them.
My first guess is Obama is doing OK. Could Feinstein be involved with part of the CIA Obama needs to clean up? How about cleaning up the CIA from the outside this time!
I am delighted to see Ms. Madrak and Rachael Maddow both calling out Feinstein and Rockefeller for their horrendous, spineless performances during the Yoo/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Shrubbery constitutional shredding of the past 7 years.
It's been just intolerable and I completely approve of the so-called "Leftys" getting after the miscreant Democrats who stood by and did little to nothing to stop this disgrace.
Login or Register to post comments.