50 percent hike in gas tax

[Turtle]

I'm glad you didn'[t take offense to the cartoon, as it was pure humor, nothing more.

As for Obama's experience, or complete lack thereof, history has shown that executive and military experience means exactly squat when it comes to how well a president performs.

 

[simon says]

The authors of this thread ought to worry more about the supposed economic stimulus plan. It amounts to possibly $500 each to the working man, and huge tax cuts to the companies. Sounds like more of the trickle down theory we have heard ever since R. Rea-gun, carried through to W. No government is going to raise the fuel tax to those levels- it's just scare tactics by the right wing---. Some of the above listen to too much rabid talk radio.

BTW: "Osamaba" (pardon me if I did not see the 'a' ) sounds and looks a lot like Osamba- now doesn't it? Do you get it now?

 

[layoutshooter]

Your welcome Turtle, it just goes to prove I am not the raving lunitic many think I am. No one enjoys poking fun at me more than I do.

As to your other comment, I kinda agree. Jimmy Carter had some expericance but he was a dreamer, his feet were not grounded in reality. His policies led to and caused most of the problems we are dealing with today. THen after the embassy take over, which he was told was coming by the agency I worked for at the tme, his total inept reaction gave our enemies power and standing.

Bush 1 handled the intellegence services well. He had great back round and knew what he was doing. On the other hand, his handling of the Gulf War was silly. He could have and should have taken out Iraq at that time. Big mistake. He was adivised to by everyone in his chain of command. By the way, I worked weather data in that conflict.

Reagan gets my highest mark (C+) of every president since Dwight D. for handling the military. He knew he had no backround but put very competent people in those positions to help him. That was his strongest suit, picking very good solid people.

Clinton, along with Carter, gets my lowest marks (F). Those two are the cause of this mess we are in. Clinton closed the site I was working at as soon as he got into office. He claimed it was too expensive and doing an un-important job. He closed 5 other field sites world wide that were doing the same job. Same reason, too expensive for a job that was not needed. All 6 sites were mainly involed with counter-terrorism. Smooth move exlax.

Bush 2 gets a C-. He at least knows what end of a piece the round exists. He had lots of good ideas but he did not know how to put them into play. He was good at the stratigic game but did not understand tactics.

Obama starts off with a F-. Leon Penetta has NO business in the C.I.A. what so ever. If that is what we can expect from Obama we had better be prepared a war that will make WW3 seem like a picnic. Millions of lives will be lost. All joking aside, Obama's lack of understanding of reality scares me to death. This pick proves it. I never thought it would be possible to get anyone in that office that was less suited for that portion of the job than Carter or Clinton, but we have. I base this on my 20 years in that business. I know many that are still working in the business and thier feelings echo mine. They are scared. Several are looking to get out, they, as I under Clinton, do not want to work for a man with so little backround and questionable charcter. They believe, as I do, that we are headed for one of the darkest periods in our history. These guys are good at thier job. I respect thier oppinions. I believe that they are right. This is just TOO important to be playing political games with C.I.A. or any of the other intell agencies. By the way, I was not C.I.A. Layoutshooter

 

[layoutshooter]

By the way, just in case you were wondering, I might have put Blair in charge at C.I.A. and then I would have put Bobby R. Inman in the position that Blair was named for. Inman is by far, the absolute best man I ever had the privilege to serve with. He is an intelligence genius. In all my 20 years he was the best Director that I had. I could sleep at night if he was involed. Obama most likey not be able to work with him. Inman is just soooo far advanced Obama could not understand his thinking. He would never believe him either. Look him up. A great American. The only other man I would have trusted is now dead. He died in the late '80's. His name was Joe Amatto. He was the Chief of a division I was in. VERY VERY smart. Knew how to get the best out of his people and trusted them. Much like Cheney in that regurad. My dealings with Cheney impressed me. He assumed that if you were put into a position that you were there because you could handle it. He never looked down on his subordinates. Layoutshooter

 

[Turtle]

Well, after doing the research and taking a close look at the chart of all the previous presidents and their experience versus how they performed in office, I'm not concerned about Obama's experience level. There's obviously something other than experience required in order to be a good president. Obama's either got it, or he doesn't, and we won't know one way or the other for quite some time. I have a feeling that the most important qualities are things like organizational and motivational in nature, the ability to pick the right people surrounding you, the ability to have a varied perspective on things and look at them from all angles and possible consequences of decisions, as well as being comfidently decisive once decisions are made.

Clearly, he ran of of the the best, if not the best, presidential election campaigns in history. True, the circumstances of a possible Pivot Point Election may have played a part in all of it, but that doesn't mitigate the crushing of the Clinton political machine to get there. the amount of funding he managed to garner, nor how the world community views him. Some of that was him, but a lot of it was who he had around him. If the campaign is any indication of how his abilities might manifest themselves as president, I'm willing to wait and see. I don't think the campaign can fortell very much, though, since the decisions of a president are far different and much more unique than any decisions made during a campaign. But many of the presidential qualities stated above did come to light in the campaign. Let's just hope the translate into the Office of the President of the United States.

I think I'd rather have a president with the strong skills in the above mentioned qualities, and him be able to pick the right people as advisors, than I would one that was highly experienced in a particular field that would naturally, and necessarily, color his decisions. I wouldn't want a president with blinders on who sees things from a narrow perspective, like, say, the blinders of a 20 year intelligence office who looks at all things from that perspective. I'd much rather have a president without blinders, but who has a 20 year intelligence officer as a close advisor.

I was a little taken aback (OK, a lot taken aback) by his choice of Pannetta as CIA chief. As former White House Chief of Staff he's certainly familiar with the intelligence community and how it all works, having sat in on most of the PDB's, but still his strengths are in management and budget. Plus, he's an outsider, something that the CIA doesn't exactly have a stellar record in accepting. Then again, Bush 1 was an outsider, as was John McCone, and they turned out to be exceptional as CIA heads. Pannetta's age concerns me a little, as I think we need someone in there who can be there ,onger term, but that might not matter.

Obama needed to appoint someone who wasn't involved in the detention and torture aspects of the CIA, though, so appointing an insider probably wasn't going to happen. More important is getting a strong manager in there who will make people accountable, and I think Pannetta can do that. And just as important, maybe more important, is having the combination of Pannetta at the helm of the CIA, which will give the CIA a more direct route and stronger voice to the White House, and having Blair as the director of national intelligence. Pannetta and Blair make a powerful tandem in management, accoutability and intelligence experience, and it may work as being a brilliant choice on Obama's part. Then again, at 70 years old, if Pannetta were to fall ill or die, it could end up being a disaster.

Still, the CIA Director is a manager, at least it has been ever since Dulles left, and I'd rather have a strong manager in that job, and have those strong in intelligence actually doing intelligence rather than wasting them in a pencil pushing managerial position. We'll see. The CIA has blown a lot of calls lately, and whatever they're doing over there isn't working, so a change one way or the other is needed. Someone at the helm with strong management and organizational skills seems like as good a place as any to start.

 

[layoutshooter]

I don't believe that the C.I.A. has blown that many calls. Having worked as an analyst it is not NEARLY as easy as the Goofy News people make it out to be. Given the huge loss of talent during the Clinton years and knowing that it takes a minimum of 10-15 years of working your way up from the bottom on a target, it will be quite a while till all the intell services recover from Clinton. I can also tell you that the intell budgets were never and are most likely not now even close to adequit to do the job. Example: When I ran my branch I controlled 100% of the collection resorces for the largest Division at our agency. The Divison had a compliment of 211 people and, at that time, 263 National Priority One targets. I had total control of 100% of the U.S. assests for a period of one week. During that week I was not able to cover even 1 Battalion, of one Army, let alone 263 Priority One targets. We have NEVER been close to being able to do the job that the Congress tasked us with. When I say 100% of the assests you need to remember one thing. ALL of the intell agencies SHARE the same assets. So, during that one week ONLY that one Battalion was being watched by my Agency or any other Agency. All other targets at our Agency and every other agency were not being watched at all. I hope that scares the "Stuff" out of you. That is how bad it was after the huge build up during Reagan and Bush 1. Imagine what it was like after Clinton and if Obama does what I think he will we are toast.

NOW, Obama has a chance to do great things, I don't think he has the talent and doubt if whoever it is that "owns" him will let him, BUT, here is what he should do.

Double the budget of the Intell agencies

Increase the active military to WW2 numbers

Increase the size and training of the Reserves, use them to back fill rear echelon duty as active duty is sent to fight

DO NOT use the National Guard overseas, they should be on boarder duty here, Our boaders need sealed

Hire Bobby Inman and Jerry Curry. Put them in charge of his Security team and LISTEN to them (there are others that should be included but my brain is slipping a bit)

Get rid of Finestine and put that new Senator from PA, a Dumbecrat, in her place on the Senate Intell Committie. That guy did many years in Navel Intelligence. He knows the real world. Finestine needs to be told when to inhale and exhale. Get Carl (Marx) Levin off of ANY committie that involves the mililtary or intell services

Get rid of Hillary as Sec of State and put Joe Lieberman in her place. I trust him.

The job of President is not to rule. It is a managers job. Obama has never managed anything in his life. He should pick people who know that job that they are being picked for reguardless of the political ilk. And then, having picked good quality people, listen to them. He needs to forget his Goofy Coca-Cola Idea of the world and had better get his feet on the ground soon or we are all in big trouble.

On a side note, you once said I should run if I thought I could do a better job.(my dead dog could do a better job than I think Obama will) I was once asked, after a rather passionate (big surprise) speech I made at a public meeting with our U.S. Rep where I lived in SC ( I can't remember his name, he did not run again after that speech, I ripped him a new one.) to run in his place. After one meeting it was clear to the Party that I would NOT play thier game and I could not be controlled. I told them that if I had to be a puppet that they could forget it. I told them to get ahold of Geppetto and he could cut them a candidate. I said I was my own man and would conduct myself as such if elected. That ended that. Also Bobby Inman was offered a shot at the GOP ticket. He refused, for similar reasons to mine. Layoutshooter