In other words, you charge of corruption against the incoming Obama administration is totally unsupported, yet another bithead argument with no basis in reality.

Got it.

Consider; While there's no doubtin my mind Hillary Clinton is corrupt in the extreme... Panetta may not have been corrupted by the people around him. If you discount that argument, you may want to address the isue of Obama and the mess we know as Chicago politics, as to how he could have arisen out of that particular sewer without getting any crap on his halo.

Change, did someone say? It's the Clinton administration without Bill... with all the attendant corruption.

So, the implication is that Panetta is corrupt, or perhaps you are just ranting with very little coherence.

You have yet to offer up a shred of evidence of actual corruption by any party involved. Once again, ante up...

Do you have any actual evidence that Panetta is corrupt? Or Obama? Ante up, bubba....

And at what point did I say Panetta was corrupt?

As you say... Ante up. We'll wait, but not for long.

Change, did someone say? It's the Clinton administration without Bill... with all the attendant corruption.

Do you have any actual evidence that Panetta is corrupt? Or Obama? Ante up, bubba....

His objection to torture of any kind during interrogations I think is a direct result of over-riding concern for civil rights.

Maybe he doesn't like torture because it degrades us, shames our nation, alienates our allies, improves terror recruiting, and does nothing for our security.

Just a thought.

That is, intelligence is highly technical and specialized, an extremely complex organization requiring a need for historical perspective, and would benefit from someone steeped in the field.

Just as a Wall Street investment bank doesn't need a CEO who just happens to be a world class tool and die man..........or removal of a brain tumor calls for a neuro, but not a heart surgeon -or accountant - no matter how brilliant, competant, or experienced and intellectually nimble the acct or cardio man may be.

I've seen the defenses. They seem a bit tortured. I'm not buying this Panetta thingy.

My take is that this is a pick that Obama had not thought all the way through… or if he did, that the consequences of not making that pick were higher than making it and putting up with fellow Democrats publicly bitching about it.

What consequences? Well, I suggest that Panetta was Hillary Clinton’s pick for the post, and not Obama’s per se’. If you’ll recall, I asked here and at my own place a couple months ago, what all the negotiation between Clinton and Obama was about… Clearly, both Clinton and Obama were laying out their conditions…I’ve started to think Panetta at CIA was one of Clinton’s conditions. Given the way this appointment was publicly (mis-)handled and the way Obama’s usual processes were bypassed, it makes far more sense than it being a whim appointment on Obama’s part. He’s many things most of them deplorable, but Obama’s simply not that stupid. I suggest Panetta was rammed through because of Hillary Clinton and her preconditions. It’s exactly why Obama is not suffering the debate over Panetta’s appointment well, and went so far out of his way to cut off debate on the issue, to the point of not informing the Intel comittee leaders in either house… members of his own party. That handling of the matter has a rather Clinton-like feel to it.

Let’s not forget the Deputy Atty General appointment I mentioned a couple of days ago… David Ogden… who served under Janet Reno. One of many Clintonistas appointed by Obama.

Is anyone detecting the pattern, here, I wonder? All these people Clinton has worked with in the past, and clearly has some personal sway with today, and all of them in key positions.

Change, did someone say? It's the Clinton administration without Bill... with all the attendant corruption.

Not an intel career by any means but formal training with "the basics". Some DCIs lacked even that.

Elements within the CIA have pursued a strident, anti-administration agenda, under-cutting President Bush’s policies on Iran’s nuclear program and other issues. Case in point: the intelligence community’s infamous 2007 assessment of Tehran’s nuclear ambitions–largely based on CIA analysts–which effectively ended any chances for U.S. military action against Iran. The long-term consequences of that analytical power play have yet to be determined."

At this point, Spook86 should be renamed SpookDeadEnder, or perhaps SpookBithead.

However, it is good that you quoted enough of his garbage so that intelligent people can disregard him.

Here's a specific example of intelligence gathering that requires expertise that Mr. Panetta probably doesn't have: what was done in the NSA controversy. Not only does he probably not understand it, he probably doesn't have the necessary background to acquire an understanding of what was actually going on.

What NSA controversy would that be?