The Trouble With Leon Panetta

thenewamerican.com ^ | 07 January 2009 | Warren Mass

[Tailgunner Joe]

On January 5, the nation's new media learned that President-elect Barack Obama would nominate former congressman and Clinton administration official Leon Panetta as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Obama's choice reportedly caught some veteran Democratic senators who had not been briefed of the decision off-guard, and some voiced their skepticism that that Bill Clinton's former chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget possessed sufficient experience in the intelligence field to handle the job.

The New York Times reported on January 7: "Mr. Panetta's lack of experience had drawn the sharpest criticism on Monday from Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat who is chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and whose career in California politics tracked closely with Mr. Panetta's for years. After hearing directly from both Mr. Obama and Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. on [January 6], Mrs. Feinstein seemed to soften her opposition slightly, but she did not indicate whether she would vote to confirm Mr. Panetta."

Senator Feinstein complained publicly about the fact that, as chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, she had not been informed about Panetta's appointment in advance and voiced skepticism about the wisdom of the choice. She reportedly expressed misgivings about Panetta not being "an intelligence professional."

"I know nothing about this, other than what I've read," said Feinstein in a statement reported by AFP. "My position has consistently been that I believe the [CIA] is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."

Vice President-elect (and still Senator) Joe Biden phoned Feinstein to apologize on behalf of the incoming administration and told reporters in the Capitol: "I'm still a Senate man, and I always think this way. I think it's always good to talk to the requisite members of Congress."

With some ruffled feathers apparently soothed, support for Panetta among senators seemed to be building just two days after the news was released. An article carried by Yahoo! News written by Glenn Thrush of Newsday's Washington Bureau and John Bresnahan, the capitol bureau chief of Politico, said that at least five members of the Senate Intelligence Committee were backing Panetta. Among these is Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), a member of the Intelligence Committee, who said in an interview, "Leon is a personal friend of mine. He is eminently qualified and capable to do any job in the U.S. government, including head of the CIA, so I support him."

"Where the incoming administration goofed," continued Nelson, "was they should have reached out as a courtesy to the [chairwoman] of the Intelligence Committee. We have been so frustrated with the Bush administration and their unwillingness to be open and transparent for us to do our oversight job on intelligence. I think Dianne expected better of the new administration."

The coverage of the Panetta selection found in most media, however, does little to shed substantial light on the former chief of staff's makeup. While it is acknowledged by supporters and critics alike that Panetta has no experience within our nation's intelligence community, some regard that characteristic as a plus. Former Representative Lee Hamilton (D.-Ind.), who once co-chaired the government's 9/11 Commission and now heads the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, said of his former House colleague in a statement reported by AFP: "He will be an outsider and I think the president wants an outsider's perspective on the CIA, I think Leon is a superb appointment. I've worked with him for decades. He's exceedingly bright, he's always well-informed."

Another member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Russ Feingold, (D.-Wisc.), was quoted in the New York Times as stating that Panetta would offer "fresh leadership." Feingold said he hoped Panetta would "restore the rule of law after years of lawlessness" — an apparent reference to U.S. intelligence agencies having engaged in harsh interrogation techniques and warrantless wiretaps during the Bush administration.

A review of Leon Panetta's career from even before the time he served in the House, however, indicates that the California Democrat was most likely selected because his very liberal political record is in harmony with the new administration's objectives.

Panetta began his career in politics in 1966 as a legislative assistant to Senator Thomas Kuchel (R.-Calif.), the Senate's Minority Whip, whom Panetta has called "a tremendous role model." Kuchel made himself a champion of the liberal Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party, when on May 2, 1963, he delivered a scathing speech in the Senate directed against conservative, anti-communist Americans, whom he labeled as "fright peddlers."

Panetta served as the assistant to Richard Nixon's Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. Robert H. Finch, becoming the Director of the Office for Civil Rights. Apparently fining the Nixon administration to be too "conservative" for his tastes, Panetta resigned in 1970 to work as executive assistant for New York Mayor John Lindsay, who had been elected on a joint Republican and Liberal party ticket.

Panetta became a Democrat in 1971 and practiced law until 1976, when he was first elected to the House. During his 16-year career in the House, Panetta achieved abysmally low scores in The New American magazine's "Conservative Index" (now called the "Freedom Index"). With 100 percent being a perfect constitutionalist score, Panetta's rarely scored above the low teens and sometimes fell to zero. This put him in the company of some of the House's most committed Leftists, such as Barney Frank, John Conyers, Barbara Boxer, and Ronald Dellums.

In April 1985 Panetta joined with 13 of his leftist congressional colleagues — including Ron Dellums, Don Edwards, George Miller, Christopher Dodd, and Les Aspin — in sponsoring a 20th anniversary fund-raising gala for the pro-Marxist Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), which had been described by Brian Crozier, director of the London Institute for the Study of Conflict, as the "perfect intellectual front for Soviet activities which would be resisted if they were to originate openly from the KGB." The IPS was originally funded with millions of dollars from the Faberge perfume magnate and Communist Party member Samuel Rubin and his wife.

On April 30, 1987, Rep. Panetta cast a highly suspect vote for one who would direct our nation's top foreign intelligence agency. On that day, he was one of 183 members of the House to vote against the withdrawal of Most Favored Nation (MFN) status for communist Romania. Romania, at the time, was run by Nicolae Ceausescu, one of the most brutal dictators in the entire Soviet bloc.

Anti-communist publisher Phillip Abbott Luce started the hard-hitting newsletter The Pink Sheet on the Left to expose communist and other organizations or individuals working to increase the size and power of government. After the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, Luce changed the name of the newsletter to The American Sentinel, and changed the publication's emphasis to geo-strategic issues. However, beginning with the February 15, 1993 issue, the biweekly newsletter became The Pink Sheet on the Left again. Editor Lee Bellinger explained his reason for the change, "Consider 10 good reasons why we brought The Pink Sheet on the Left out of retirement: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Strobe Talbott, Albert Gore, Ronald Dellums, Donna Shalala, Ron Brown, Lawrence Walsh, Leon Panetta, and Warren Christopher." (Emphasis added.)

Readers who recall the movement to impeach Bill Clinton remember that one of the charges raised by Clinton's critics was the conflict of interest created when individuals connected with the Chinese Overseas Shipping Company (COSCO) — such as John Huang, Charles Trie, and James and Mochtar Riady — helped funnel contributions to the Clinton reelection campaign. Afterwards, the Clinton administration lobbied for granting COSCO a 10-year lease on the former Long Beach Naval Shipyard in California. During a March 1997 edition of CNBC's Equal Time program, California Republican State Senator Dick Mountjoy noted that COSCO-linked arms dealer Wang Jun had been granted personal access to President Clinton, and that Wang's business associates had smuggled illegal assault weapons into California for delivery to street gangs by making use of a ship owned and operated by COSCO. Mountjoy then stated:

The next thing you know, [then-Chief of Staff] Leon Panetta is down here negotiating that port for the Chinese. [Emphasis added.]

There is much more to the COSCO-Long Beach connection than we have room for here, but a good summary of the threat the arrangement made to U.S. security may be found in an item inserted into the Congressional Record by Rep. Gerald B.H. Solomon on May 20, 1997.

Even the most unbiased of observers may legitimately ask: Why on Earth is an individual who helped negotiate the turnover of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard to the communist Chinese, thereby creating the threat to U.S. national security described in the Washington Times article by Rowan Scarborough and inserted into the Congressional Record by Rep. Solomon, being considered for a top position at one of our nation's most critical intelligence agencies?

Notice that Scarborough observed: "The Clinton administration seems to be going out of its way to help the most serious threat to American security, the so-called People's Republic of China."

With so many Clinton administration staffers — including Leon Panetta — being recycled by Mr. Obama, can this administration be any different?

[ETL]

Great piece! Thanks for posting.

"In April 1985 Panetta joined with 13 of his leftist congressional colleagues — including Ron Dellums, Don Edwards, George Miller, Christopher Dodd, and Les Aspin — in sponsoring a 20th anniversary fund-raising gala for the pro-Marxist Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), which had been described by Brian Crozier, director of the London Institute for the Study of Conflict, as the "perfect intellectual front for Soviet activities which would be resisted if they were to originate openly from the KGB." The IPS was originally funded with millions of dollars from the Faberge perfume magnate and Communist Party member Samuel Rubin and his wife."

__________________________________________

Here's some more info on the IPS...

From David Horowitz's FrontPageMag.com/DiscoverTheNetworks.org:

IPS’s [Institute For Policy Studies] Washington, DC headquarters quickly became a resource center for national reporters and a place for KGB agents from the nearby Soviet embassy to convene and strategize. Cora Weiss headed one of the IPS's most successful forays -- into Riverside Church in Manhattan. She was invited there in 1978 by the Reverend William Sloane Coffin to run the church's Disarmament Program, which sought to consolidate Soviet nuclear superiority in Europe -- in the name of "peace." In 1982 Weiss helped organize the largest pro-disarmament demonstration ever held. Staged in New York City, the rally was attended by a coalition of communist organizations. During her decade-long tenure at Riverside, which became home to the National Council of Churches, Weiss regularly received Russian KGB agents, Sandinista friends, and Cuban intelligence agents. Weiss became infamous for her role in the psychological warfare conducted against U.S. prisoners of war held in the infamous "Hanoi Hilton" during the Vietnam War.

The Liberation News Service, which is a news source for hundreds of "alternative" publications nationwide (with antiwar, Marxist-oriented perspectives), was founded in 1967 with IPS assistance. "

[lots more at link...]

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6991

[PhilDragoo]

Place Panetta in the context of the Clinton-ChiCom treason of the 90's:

A Chinese Naval Base -- at Long Beach

by Patrick J. Buchanan

March 13, 1997

And last year, Johnny Chung, who gave $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee, showed up for a Clinton radio broadcast at the White House, with six Chinese in tow, including an adviser of Cosco. The president begged off being photographed with his guests, which raises a question: If Bill Clinton is leery of being seen with these characters, why is he giving them a Long Beach naval base?...

Does anyone care about national security anymore?

Until this week, the heart of the historic U.S. Naval Base at Long Beach was about to be leased to a shipping company, Cosco, that is a virtual subsidiary of the Chinese Communist Army.

In 1995, a Cosco ship, the Empress Phoenix, was boarded by Customs agents, who seized a cargo of 2,000 AK-47 assault rifles -- destined for Los Angeles street gangs.

And who was chief lobbyist for handing over the historic naval base to China? None other than the president of the United States. Clinton held two meetings, one in the White House with Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and a deputy secretary of defense, to press Long Beach to make the deal.

Clinton's National Security Council was not even asked for comment on whether giving China a base on the U.S. West Coast might compromise national security. Now that the deal has exploded, both Democratic senators from California have asked that the NSC review the lease.

And who will be chief reviewer? Clinton's new national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger -- a former lobbyist for the Communist Chinese at Hogan & Hartson law firm in Washington, D.C.

What a sweetheart of a deal this is for Beijing. First, the U.S. Navy gave the historic base, free, to the city of Long Beach. To persuade China to take it off their hands, the city port is building a $200 million dock for container ships to bring Chinese goods into the United States. The Chinese will pay $14.5 million a year to lease the base, and the deal will create between 300 and 600 jobs! And what will the Chinese be shipping in, besides toys?

Consider: Not only was Cosco implicated in smuggling assault rifles into the United States, federal officials say Cosco ships are subjects of frequent surveillance and have brought in "all kinds of contraband."

According to the March issue of The American Spectator, those 2,000 assault weapons on the Empress Phoenix were the first of many shipments a Chinese gun-running firm, Polytechnology, had in mind for us: "Court documents reveal that Poly had hoped to expand their business even further; they were planning to move beyond assault rifles to Chinese-made hand grenades, mortars, RPG-7 anti-tank rockets and hand-held anti-aircraft missiles (Chinese copies of the Stinger) capable of knocking commercial airliners out of the sky."

Sell RPGs and surface-to-air missiles to the Crips and Bloods, and the next L.A. gang war could be very exciting, especially at LAX. What's happened to America? Can one imagine the reaction if Ronald Reagan learned that Fidel Castro was smuggling assault rifles to U.S. street criminals?

The proper U.S. response to China's support for terrorism on the streets of L.A. should have been to call in China's ambassador and tell him that if public punishment of the offending officials was not forthcoming, he could pick up his passport. And if future arms shipments to U.S. street criminals were tied to Beijing, China would find herself discussing the matter with the 7th Fleet.

If our leaders are indifferent to national security, what about national self-respect? Within weeks of that incident with the Cosco ship, the Chinese president of Poly was having coffee with Clinton.

And last year, Johnny Chung, who gave $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee, showed up for a Clinton radio broadcast at the White House, with six Chinese in tow, including an adviser of Cosco. The president begged off being photographed with his guests, which raises a question: If Bill Clinton is leery of being seen with these characters, why is he giving them a Long Beach naval base?

Henry Kissinger now warns us, "We should not provoke what we fear most...Declaring China an enemy today before they have actually done any expansion...would have major consequences in which, in my view, we would have no allies."

But America has not been provoking China. China has been provoking us. And what is being asked is not a declaration of war but an end to appeasement and a new policy that accords with national interests and national honor: Inform China that her behavior no longer justifies the trade privileges America grants her best friends.

Congress should reject any new request for extension of Most Favored Nation status for China. If this means none of our Asian "allies" stand with us, we can do without such allies. After all, who is defending whom here?

The establishments of both parties have been deeply corrupted by corporate contributions and the China trade. It is time the grass roots told the party elites that we are going to end MFN, and they have three choices: Lead, follow or get out of the way.

[PhilDragoo]

"Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics , Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a corporation deciding where to do business, you're starting to think, 'Beijing looks like a pretty good option.'"

[TigersEye]

Fact Sheet: Extraordinary Rendition (12/6/2005)
ACLU.org

The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton.

The ACLU might lie about a lot of things but would they lie about that?

Did Leon Panetta know about 'extraordinary renditions' under Clinton?
Telegraph - Alex Spillius at Jan 6, 2009

But according to one former agent, Michael Scheuer, the extraordinary rendition programme that has so tainted the agency during the Bush administration actually began in the Clinton administration, when Panetta would, or should, have been fully aware of it.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[RoadTest]

His experience and qualifications don’t matter. All the matters is that he’s a member or a darling of The Council on Foreign Relations.

[RoadTest]

Did you think you were living in a Democracy? A Republic maybe?

Sorry. It’s an Oligarchy.

[JDoutrider]

Marker

[driftless2]

Hey, why not Panetta? Obama is just as ignorant about what’s going on in the world as Panetta, probably more so. I doubt we can dig up a Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, etal in Panetta’s background. Heck, for that matter the drunk down at the end of the bar probably knows more about how the world works than Obama or his cronies.

[MeekOneGOP]

** Samuel R. Berger **

- - - - - - -

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Samuel+R.+Berger&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

The SAME Sandy Berger that stuffs secret documents in
his socks !!!!

“Sloppy! ... Sloppy!”

[MeekOneGOP]

Obama settin’ up to do Kringtone’s Third Term !!!

That’s Hope (Arkansas!) & Change I can do wifout !!

So THAT’S what he meant by “Hope & Change” ???

[Inwoodian]

It’s always about the fellow-traveling. Leon Panetta’s name was (or is) prominently displayed on the letterhead of the Institute for Policy Studies, a Kremlin front from the Cold War days. If he doesn’t mind being up there with Robert Borosage and Tony Lake, I believe, then perhaps they should consider someone else for CIA head.

[ETL]

I doubt we can dig up a Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, etal in Panetta’s background.

Didn't you read the article? Panetta is also hooked up with the commie left (Institute For Policy Studies is a Marxist think tank). Both Ayers and Wright are communists, btw. See my FR Home/About for the details.

http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/

[ETL]

So THAT’S what he meant by “Hope & Change”???

_______________________________________________

"The Communist Party USA views the 2008 elections as a tremendous opportunity to defeat the policies of the right-wing Republicans and to move our country in a new progressive direction.

The record turnout in the Democratic Presidential primary races shows that millions of voters, including millions of new voters, are using this election to bring about real change. We wholeheartedly agree with them."

http://cpusa.org/article/articleview/907/1/4/
_______________________________________________

Congratulations on an extraordinary history making election!

We can think back with pride to decades of hard work toward our strategic goal of a big enough, broad enough and united enough labor and all-people’s movement that could overcome the ultra-right blockage to all progress. That all people’s movement has come to life, it is dynamic and it has the potential to keep growing.

The election of Barack Obama and a strengthened Congress creates new conditions in our country. There is now the possibility to shift gears and move forward. This new day requires us to further develop our tactics in order to continue to deepen and broaden labor and people’s unity.

There are thousands of experiences that we all have had in these momentous days, some large, some small, all of which express the enormity of change in thinking and readiness for involvement that is underway and that steels us for the battles ahead.

The tears of joy we all shared as crowds gathered to watch the election results here and throughout the world dramatize the new moment we are in.

http://cpusa.org/article/articleview/991/1/154/
_______________________________________________

Saul Alinsky on "Change":

From Rules for Radicals, Alinsky outlines his strategy in organizing, writing:

"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution."

Saul Alinsky, The Latter Rain
http://latter-rain.com/ltrain/alinski.htm

[driftless2]

I didn’t say I liked Panetta. I simply meant at least he probably doesn’t have as many PERSONAL!!! friends who are anti-American wackos as The Great Spreader does. Just about all major libs are hooked up with some kind of commie-front, leftist organization. Very few have as many bad actors as personal friends and associates as Obama has. My point was naming someone like Panetta to head the CIA is something to be expected fro the Obama admin. Incompetents appointing other incompetents.

[MeekOneGOP]

Oh, my!

Makes me sick to see all that. (But it’s true).

People goin’ to the polling place with
blinders on, votin’ for a “Rock Star”.

They just don’t give a shiite, I think. :(

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[uncommonsense]

When I started reading this article, I thought "OK, maybe Leon is not too far left". As I read on, his appointment within the context of Obamunism made more sense. This is disturbing.

Remember when Bill Cling-ton authorized sharing super high tech missile guidance technology to China? He gave Rockwell permission to sell this to the Chinese, then when word leaked out, he slapped Rockwell's hand. That technology got China over a major hurdle in improving the accuracy of their guided weapons. I see we can expect more of the same.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks....