Putting Panetta in Perspective

For most of my adult life, I thought Democrats should not be allowed anywhere near an intelligence agency. More so after the Cold War ended without ending communism. My reasoning: Throughout the Cold War the American Left did everything it could do to help the Soviet Union.

After the Cold War ended, one Democrat, then-Congressman Robert Torricelli, was so untrustworthy then-Speaker Gingrich wanted him removed from the House Intelligence Committee. Torricelli went on to serve one term in the US Senate where I’m sure he found a sympathetic ear in Senator Patrick “Leaky” Leahy who was removed from the Senate Intelligence Committee for leaking intelligence secrets.

I don’t know how many times I said nobody in their right mind would let Democrats come anywhere near the intelligence community. Creating a Director of National Intelligence (DNI) was my worst nightmare come true because I knew the day would come when Democrats would control the entire intelligence community through one man. When a DNI was in the planning stage, I pointed out that a Democrat DNI could very easily be another Alger Hiss; impeccable credentials, etc.

Now, a hardcore Lefty, CIA Director Leon Panetta, is moving from the intelligence community to the Pentagon.

A little background

Panetta started out as a Republican. Anyone who is interested can find a plethora of Panetta puff pieces about his career after he became a Democrat. I want to point interested parties to a few lesser known items in Panetta’s résumé. The article at this link offers a list:

Panetta keynoted pro-Soviet group's conference
Nominee for DoD chief gave address during height of Cold War
Posted: June 18, 2011
12:40 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=312429

And this:

Who Checked Out Leon Panetta?
Wednesday, 15 June 2011 14:20 Cliff Kincaid

http://www.rightsidenews.com/201106...0dc66fb-daily-rss-newsletter&utm_medium=email

In all likelihood Panetta will be confirmed. Democrats will vote to confirm and they control the process. By all accounts Panetta has some Republicans supporting him as well. Even if a Republican wanted to ask him tough questions about his communist proclivities the questions would not be allowed by a Democrat committee chairman.

Panetta is more important than the usual run of the mill commies Democrats put forward because his government “service” in the highest of places shows that the American Left never stops working to advance worldwide communism. For all of Panetta’s support for communism he never ran for office as a socialist, nor did he ever admit where he stood on communist ideology.

NOTE: Communists dressed in Democrat clothing all believe that communism is a legitimate political posture, yet not a one of them ever admits to being a communist. They also believe that average Americans are too stupid to see the advantages in communism; so it has to shoved down their throats by stealth. American Communists in government and media are certain they will be greeted with a standing ovation after their totalitarian government is up and running.

The only way anyone can find out about Panetta is to study his record. That record ties into two things no one will touch at his confirmation hearings. The first is the New START TREATY. It is essential to know if the secretary of defense thinks New START is in America’s best interests.

The second tie is the blossoming alliance between China and Russia:

Chinese president arrives in Moscow to boost cooperation
07:56, June, 2011

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/7411155.html

Any secretary of defense with Panetta’s record is not likely to admit there is a threat coming from China and Russia. More to the point: Any decisions he makes will be guided by his views on New START and the new Sino-Russian alliance. Less retaliatory deterrent capacity for us, more first strike capacity for them.

It seems logical to me that Panetta and his kind are trying to bring America to communism as soon as possible. Once today’s America is out of the way Communists can, and will, turn their full attention to eliminating Islam and Christianity; neither of which can stand up militarily or politically against a communist America, Communist China, Russia, and Socialist Europe. Don’t be fooled into thinking fundamentalist Islam’s defeat under those circumstances is a good thing. Americans are no better off than they would be if Islam destroyed communism after America is gone.

Finally, I know I suggested a lot of reading, but it is important to know a lot about Panetta before the Senate votes to confirm him. There is a slight possibility enough Senators will back off Panetta if they hear from their constituents. You can be sure the media will pump up this guy. A skeptical look at him before he is confirmed can’t hurt. In any event, knowing Panetta for what he is will give some perspective to the confirmation process when Senators ask him softball questions.

 

I can’t tell you exactly what Panetta will do as secretary of defense, but I can tell you that every decision he makes will be based on what’s good for the United Nations and the International community. I can also tell you that he will never make a decision that challenges worldwide communism.

Panetta confirmed as Defense secretary
In a 100-0 vote, the Senate backs the former CIA director, who will replace Robert M. Gates. The vote comes as President Obama prepares to announce a plan for reducing troops in Afghanistan.
By Lisa Mascaro and Ken Dilanian, Washington Bureau
June 22, 2011

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-panetta-20110622,0,5295850.story

 

Never believe anything Hussein says —— watch what he does. The same is true of Panetta. More so with Panetta because he has a track record:

Those critics have pointed to Panetta’s background as House Budget Committee chairman and Office of Management and Budget director as evidence President Obama was sending him across the Potomac River to do a deep dive into the Defense budget. What’s more, they note he was White House chief of staff in the 1990s, when the Clinton administration slashed Defense spending.

Aside from philosophical rhetoric when Hussein was campaigning his record in the US Senate was brief although it was clear what he stood for. Since becoming president he implements the socialist/communist agenda while talking like Jack Armstrong, All-American Boy.

The scary thing about Panetta is that he was confirmed unanimously —— 100 to zip. Not one Senator saw a reason to vote nay; so every Republican senator will share the blame for everything Panetta does.

Panetta promises defense cuts will not leave Pentagon with 'hollow force'
By John T. Bennett - 07/01/11 10:13 AM ET

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta took over at the Pentagon on Friday and immediately promised the budget cuts he will oversee will not produce a “hollow force.”

Panetta acknowledged the Defense Department will be forced to make “tough budget choices,” but called it a “false choice” that fiscal discipline means weakening national security.

“Even as the United States addresses fiscal challenges at home, there will be no hollow force on my watch,” Panetta said in a statement released after he was sworn in at 8:48 a.m. in his new Pentagon office. “That will require us all to be disciplined in how we manage taxpayer resources.

“Throughout my career in public service ... I have focused on achieving that balance,” Panetta said. “I will continue that approach at the Pentagon.”

The statement touched on a number of issues, from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to the meaning of Independence Day, but the inclusion of his budget vow was his first shot back at critics — many pro-defense GOP House members — who have speculated that he was sent to the Pentagon to usher in deep budget cuts.

Those critics have pointed to Panetta’s background as House Budget Committee chairman and Office of Management and Budget director as evidence President Obama was sending him across the Potomac River to do a deep dive into the Defense budget. What’s more, they note he was White House chief of staff in the 1990s, when the Clinton administration slashed Defense spending.

“Mr. Panetta's tenure begins just as President Obama and bipartisan majorities in Congress are insisting on deep cuts to defense spending,” former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wrote Friday in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. “It will be tempting to accede to the White House's proposal to carve out $400 billion, if not more, from the national security budget by 2023. It would also be a grievous mistake.”

Rumsfeld urged Panetta to avoid terminating weapons programs, arguing savings today could hinder military operations down the line.

“With no immediate outward signs of negligence, the political penalties for cutting weapons systems and delaying reinvestment in equipment and infrastructure are close to zero for those in office today,” Rumsfeld wrote. “But the penalty for being ill-prepared tomorrow when the unforeseen occurs — whether another terrorist attack at home or a major crisis abroad — can be measured in American lives lost.”

The former Defense chief said big savings can be found by resisting billions annually injected by way of congressional earmarks; repositioning U.S. forces from Cold War era bases; and military healthcare and personnel system reforms.

For his part, Panetta sounded a tone Friday that suggested he will take Rumsfeld’s advice to spend time “fending off White House and congressional raids on national security spending.”

“We must preserve the excellence and superiority of our military while looking for ways to identify savings,” Panetta said. “While tough budget choices will need to be made, I do not believe in the false choice between fiscal discipline and a strong national defense. We will all work together to achieve both.”
The new Defense secretary also addressed the Afghanistan war and the situation in Iraq, saying, “We must prevail against our enemies.”

“We will persist in our efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately defeat al Qaeda,” he said, repeating Obama’s often-used line.

Panetta, who was CIA chief and played a big role in the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, called that mission “a major step toward that goal.”

On Iraq, Panetta said Washington must “cement a strategic relationship with the Iraqi government, one based not solely on our military footprint there but on a real and lasting partnership.

“It is in America's interests to help Iraq realize its potential to become a stable democracy in a vitally important region in the world, and to reinforce that responsibility for the future security of Iraq must belong to the Iraqis themselves,” Panetta said.

During his confirmation hearing last month, Panetta was the first Obama administration official to publicly predict that the Iraqi government will ask Obama to keep U.S. forces there beyond this year.

Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 9 that "it is clear to me" that a request from Iraqi officials to keep some U.S. Forces there beyond this year "will be forthcoming."

Under an existing U.S.-Iraqi pact, all American military forces must be removed by Dec. 31.

http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/...-day-as-defense-chief-to-fire-back-at-critics

 

OK. I will gladly sacrifice some benefits and pay as soon as the rest of the government does.

 

Here’s one more update on Panetta. I, too, wondered what the hell he was talking about in relation to the war against Islamist fundamentalism?

July 11, 2011
What does 'strategically defeating Al Qaeda' really mean?
Jerry Philipson

Newly appointed United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has announced that the U.S. is "within reach of strategically defeating Al Qaeda". He also said that America will narrow its focus and concentrate on capturing or killing 10 to 20 Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen.

Panetta is an Obama favorite and loyalist and a long-time Washington insider who understands how politics work. He can be counted on to put the best possible spin on events for the President as the 2012 election draws nearer. Whatever he says about anything should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism because it will probably have more to do with getting Obama re-elected than reality, spin being spin and smoke and mirrors being smoke and mirrors.

So Leon, what does strategically defeating Al Qaeda really mean and how does it differ from actually defeating the terrorist monsters? If Al Qaeda isn't defeated in actuality how is strategically defeating it going to prevent it from attacking the United States yet again? How is strategically defeating it (whatever that means) going to prevent it from continually spewing out its poison? Is use of the word strategically nothing more than a cynical public relations ploy calculated to lower American's expectations? Since Al Qaeda won't be actually defeated on Obama's watch perhaps he can mollify and fool voters by claiming to strategically defeat it. Is that why you used the word, to mollify and fool voters?

Is narrowing the U.S. focus to capturing or killing 10 to 20 Al Qaeda leaders part of the same line of thinking? After all, every time someone is captured or killed it gives Obama an opportunity to put his public relations machine into high gear and trumpet his strategic triumph to the skies, even though in the grand scheme of things it will prevent nothing and make no difference at all...capturing or killing someone being much easier than effectively dealing with the anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Semitic animus on which Al Qaeda thrives and which is the root cause of attacks on America and its friends and allies in the first place. Since Obama can't defeat Al Qaeda before the next election capturing or killing someone wil give him a chance to take credit for a victory, small, insignificant and meaningless though it may be. Is that the thinking?

Good questions all.

Here are a few more.

Is talking about strategically defeating Al Qaeda and narrowing the focus really an admission of failure, an admission that it won't actually be defeated under Obama and that occasionally capturing or killing a leader is all American's can expect?

Sure it is.

Is talking about strategically defeating Al Qaeda like talking about strategically balancing the budget and does it deserve the same reaction?

Yes and yes.
Does Obama really believe ha can get away with this bull...?

Unfortunately he does.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...tegically_defeating_al_qaeda_really_mean.html

 

Somebody better be watching Panetta. He’s another filthy communist sneak just like his boss and the rest of the top Democrats. This excerpt exposes him:

He made it clear that winning the nation's wars, including the NATO-led air campaign in Libya, remains his top objective.

But he also gave clear indications that he is intent on setting limits — on his military commanders, on the expectations of America's allies and on the defense budget — in an effort to gradually shift the Pentagon from a permanent war footing.

"We need to prevail in these conflicts and bring them to a responsible end," he told soldiers from the 25th Infantry Division in Iraq. He thus echoed President Obama's description of his plan to withdraw 33,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the fall of 2012 as a "responsible" drawdown.

If you analyze his position stated in the enclosed article you will see that “responsible end” means Peace Without Victory. Go further and you’ll see that he considers the UN’s touchy-feely war in Libya far more important than is defeating an enemy that has sworn to destroy America.

There’s nothing new about Panetta. He espouses the same old Leftist garbage Communists have been spouting since the Vietnam War era. It goes without saying that he will never support fighting a war against a communist country let alone win it.

Convincing Americans to fight in foreign lands for the United Nations is Panetta’s goal. That has always been a stumbling block for American Communists. Being a sneak as well as working for a sneak he will try to bring the American military closer to fighting for the United Nations rather than fighting solely for America.

Like I said “Somebody better be watching Panetta.” Don’t count on anybody in the US Senate doing it. They confirmed that bum 100 to ZERO.

Panetta signals a new tone on U.S.-led wars
The new Defense secretary makes it clear he wants to set limits — on his military commanders, on the expectations of America's allies and on the U.S. defense budget — to get the Pentagon off a permanent war footing.
By David S. Cloud, Los Angeles Times
5:03 PM PDT, July 12, 2011

Reporting from Baghdad

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta carried an unmistakable message on his first overseas trip since taking office this month: One way or another, the two wars that have consumed the Pentagon for much of the last decade are nearing an end.

Panetta declared after departing Washington on Friday that Al Qaeda appeared on the verge of defeat. In Afghanistan, he stressed that the U.S. military must transfer security responsibility to the Afghan army. And in Iraq he emphasized that most, if not all, U.S. troops would pull out by year's end.

In tone and substance, it was a noticeable shift from his predecessor, Robert M. Gates. During his tenure, Gates gradually adopted the view of many of his top commanders that defeating insurgents and terrorists was a generational struggle, requiring painstaking counterinsurgency warfare, prolonged deployments of U.S. forces abroad, and ever-growing defense budgets.

Panetta, who returned to Washington late Tuesday, did not directly repudiate that way of thinking. He made it clear that winning the nation's wars, including the NATO-led air campaign in Libya, remains his top objective.

But he also gave clear indications that he is intent on setting limits — on his military commanders, on the expectations of America's allies and on the defense budget — in an effort to gradually shift the Pentagon from a permanent war footing.

"We need to prevail in these conflicts and bring them to a responsible end," he told soldiers from the 25th Infantry Division in Iraq. He thus echoed President Obama's description of his plan to withdraw 33,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the fall of 2012 as a "responsible" drawdown.

During his four-day visit to war zones, Panetta displayed a mix of bluntness and joviality, tossing off a joke about a "priest and a rabbi" in the same speech in which he described the operation to kill "that son of a b-itch" Osama bin Laden.

He also showed a fondness for mild profanity that was jarring after Gates' starched Midwestern reserve.

"This dam-n country has a hell of a lot of resources," Panetta said Monday, referring to Iraq's oil wealth. His point was Iraq can afford to defend itself in the future without large numbers of U.S. troops.

Panetta, who spent the last two years as CIA director, still appears more comfortable with the secret intelligence world than with the vast military bureaucracy he now controls. In sessions with troops and reporters, he spoke with assurance about Al Qaeda, which was his top focus at the CIA, but he sounded less surefooted about military terminology and strategy.

He is in many ways a better fit for Obama than Gates ultimately was. With Panetta, the president has gained an ally who is willing to draw down troops faster in Afghanistan than military commanders prefer and to cut the Pentagon budget by hundreds of billions of dollars in coming years, a task Gates resisted.
"I do not believe that you have to choose between fiscal savings and a strong defense," said Panetta, who once headed the House Budget Committee and directed the Office of Management and Budget during the Clinton
administration.

At the CIA, he embraced the agency's fondness for small-footprint, low-visibility warfare. He sharply expanded the use of drone aircraft strikes and other covert tactics to kill Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan, Yemen and
elsewhere.

Obama also appears convinced that paramilitary operations — not troop-heavy counterinsurgency campaigns lasting decades and costing billions — are the least expensive, most effective options in remote and dangerous
places.

But the Pentagon has a way of shifting the outlooks of new defense secretaries. Gates was a former CIA director too when he replaced Donald Rumsfeld as Pentagon chief in late 2006, and he promised a "responsible" and successful end to the Iraq war.

Gates quickly concluded that tens of thousands more U.S. troops were needed. After Obama was elected and kept him as Defense secretary, Gates helped persuade the new president to order a similar troop buildup in
Afghanistan.

Now it will fall to Panetta to wind down those wars — if he can.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-panetta-assess-20110713,0,5533907.story

 

I find myself a bit hopeful about Panetta at Defense.

I was face palming myself when he was nominated and confirmed as CIA director, and he had a very rocky first year, but he did finally grow into the job and turned into a fairly good advocate for the CIA with an administration that had little interest or trust in the IC.

So that makes me hopeful that he can do a good job as SecDef.

 

Most Americans are focused on the war against Islamic fundamentalism and Iran’s drive to join the nuclear club. Americans should be focused on the things Hussein & Company are doing to help Communist China. Ratifying the New START Treaty was only the beginning.

With Panetta as Secretary of Defense the plan to gut the US military is underway. No one is questioning his motives. That’s why I put this message in this thread. I’m hoping a few will take the time to look at Panetta’s background.

Gutting the US military will not affect this country’s ability to deal with Iran militarily, but it greatly decreases America’s ability to dissuade China from its intentions. Remember that a superior military was the only thing that held the Soviet Union at bay —— eventually defeating the Evil Empire without going to war. Guys like Hussein and Panetta will not let that happen to China.

Obama Mulls 80 Percent Disarmament of Nuclear Arsenal
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 03:06 PM

The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.

Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama's 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.

No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to: 1,000 to 1,100; 700 to 800, and 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.

The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.

A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union. The U.S. numbers peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003.

Obama often has cited his desire to seek lower levels of nuclear weapons, but specific options for a further round of cuts had been kept under wraps until the AP learned of the three options now on the table.

A spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, said Tuesday that the options the Pentagon has developed have not been presented to Obama.

The Pentagon's press secretary, George Little, declined to comment on specific force level options because they are classified. He said Obama had asked the Pentagon to develop several "alternative approaches" to nuclear deterrence.

The United States could make further weapons reductions on its own but is seen as more likely to propose a new round of arms negotiations with Russia, in which cuts in deployed weapons would be one element in a possible new treaty between the former Cold War adversaries.

Even small proposed cuts are likely to draw heavy criticism from Republicans who have argued that a smaller nuclear force would weaken the U.S. at a time when Russia, China and others are strengthening their nuclear capabilities. They also argue that shrinking the American arsenal would undermine the credibility of the nuclear "umbrella" that the United States provides for allies such as Japan, South Korea and Turkey, who might otherwise build their own nuclear forces.

The administration last year began considering a range of possible future reductions below the levels agreed in the New START treaty with Russia that took effect one year ago. Options are expected to be presented to Obama soon. The force levels he settles on will form the basis of a new strategic nuclear war plan to be produced by the Pentagon.

The United States already is on track to reduce to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads by 2018, as required by New START. As of Sept. 1, the United States had 1,790 warheads, and Russia had 1,566, according to treaty-mandated reports by each. The treaty does not bar either country from cutting below 1,550 on their own.

Those who favor additional cuts argue that nuclear weapons have no role in major security threats of the 21st century, such as terrorism. A 2010 nuclear policy review by the Pentagon said the U.S. nuclear arsenal also is "poorly suited" to deal with challenges posed by "unfriendly regimes seeking nuclear weapons" — an apparent reference to Iran.

It's unclear what calculus went into each of the three options now under consideration at the White House.

The notion of a 300-weapon arsenal is featured prominently in a paper written for the Pentagon by a RAND National Defense Project Institute analyst last October, in the early stages of the administration's review of nuclear requirements. The author, Paul K. Davis, wrote that he was not advocating any particular course of action but sought to provide an analytic guide for how policymakers could think about the implications of various levels of nuclear reductions.

Davis wrote that an arsenal of 300 weapons might be considered adequate for deterrence purposes if that force level was part of a treaty with sound anti-cheating provisions; if the U.S. deployed additional non-nuclear weapons with global reach, and if the U.S. had "hypothetically excellent," if limited, defenses against long- and medium-range nuclear missiles.

New U.S. cuts could open the prospect for a historic reshaping of the American nuclear arsenal, which for decades has stood on three legs: submarine-launched ballistic missiles, ground-based ballistic missiles and weapons launched from big bombers like the B-52 and the stealthy B-2. The traditional rationale for this "triad" of weaponry is that it is essential to surviving any nuclear exchange.

As recently as last month the administration said it was keeping the triad intact under current plans, while also hinting at future cuts to the force. In the 2013 defense budget submitted to Congress on Monday, the administration proposed a two-year delay in the development of a new generation of ballistic missile submarines that carry nuclear weapons. That will save an estimated $4.3 billion over five years.

In congressional testimony last November, the Pentagon's point man on nuclear policy, James N. Miller, declined to say what options for force reductions the administration was considering. Rep. Michael Turner, a Republican and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's strategic forces subcommittee, unsuccessfully pressed Miller for key details about his policy review. As recently as last month Turner said in an interview that he feared the administration was bent on cutting the force.

In his written testimony at a Nov. 2 hearing chaired by Turner, Miller made it clear that the administration was making a fundamental reassessment of nuclear weapons requirements. In unusually stark terms he said the critical question at hand was "what to do" if a nuclear-armed state or non-state entity could not be deterred from launching an attack.

"In effect, we are asking: What are the guiding concepts for employing nuclear weapons to deter adversaries of the United States, and what are the guiding concepts for ending a nuclear conflict on the best possible terms if one has started?" he said.

Nuclear stockpile numbers are closely guarded secrets in most states that possess them, but private nuclear policy experts say no countries other than the United States and Russia are thought to have more than 300. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that France has about 300; China, about 240; Britain, about 225; and Israel, India, and Pakistan, roughly 100 each.

Since taking office, Obama has put heavy emphasis on reducing the role and number of nuclear weapons as part of a broader strategy for limiting the global spread of nuclear arms technology and containing the threat of nuclear terrorism. That strategy is being put to the test most urgently by Iran's suspected pursuit of a nuclear bomb.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obama-Nuclear-Weapons-reductions/2012/02/14/id/429403