re: Obama is seeking to save his own life

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Seen throughout several threads is a (minority) idea that president Obama was wise not to tangle with the CIA because he would be assassinated.

That takes an odd view of American civilization...

Any president who shapes policy (other than secret service policy) based on perceptions of his own safety isn't fit to hold the office.

Period.

To suggest anything like that even crossed his mind is a low slander against the man.

Thank God president Obama is a better man (and better American) than some give him credit for.

[Hanse]

1. That's an exceptional claim without any evidence.

If it's true, then he'd be a coward and I'd rather he go ahead and try anyway.

But I don't think it's true.

[Political Heretic]

2. Agreed. If that was his concern he shouldn't have run for office.

But I think the theory is insane anyway.

[MADem]

3. That shit belongs in the conspiracy theory forum.

LEON PANETTA is a tremendous American, a brilliant man, a national security whiz, and a DEMOCRAT. And a friend to Barack Obama.

Obama CHOSE HIM to head CIA.

To suggest that Panetta would wish harm on the man is PROFOUNDLY OFFENSIVE. It's also one of the more stupid things I've read on this forum, and I've read some incredibly stupid shit. That's pretty close to a cake-taker, though.

[chill_wind]

7. I've seen no such claims suggesting "Leon Panetta wishes harm" on President Obama.

If someone actually said that of Leon Panetta's person, I'd have to agree with you. Leon Panetta was a key choice and is a KEY ally to both President Obama and the CIA. Obama ostensibly doesn't want CIA prosecutions, the CIA doesn't want prosecutions of its own, and Panetta has vowed they shouldn't happen. Congress doesn't seriously appear to want them either: He's perfect. He zipped right through.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. The argument is offered about career CIA, not Panetta (that I've seen)

[chill_wind]

9. Yes, that's all I've seen as well. That's why I'm asking

about the assertion made above.

[MADem]

10. When suggestions are made that the Prez is compromising in some fashion

in order to not get offed, that's the same as suggesting that Panetta wants to kill him.

[chill_wind]

11. No it isn't. Please. n/t

[MADem]

12. Obama is seeking to save his own life?? What DOES that mean, pray tell? nt

[chill_wind]

13. You might ask the authors of those posts. Did you?

They were talking about career crazies, weren't they? That still doesn't translate into statements that *Leon Panetta* wants to off the President. You're smarter than that.

DU is crazy enough in real time often enough without making even crazier misdirecting shit up about what exactly DUers are and aren't saying.

[MADem]

14. Look upthread. Of course I did. So now you're postulating that Panetta doesn't have

operational control over the organization he heads, that "career crazies" can go around his authority? How, precisely, is that "better?" Gee, at least Leon ain't trying to off the guy, just a few "rogues" with their own operational chain of command...so it's all good?

DU sure is crazy enough. I find any suggestions along these lines pretty perverse, frankly. They border on horrifying.

[Butch350]

23. There are renegade operatives in the shop!

Some people, no matter how old they may be are just too damn naive.

[Clio the Leo]

4. "I dont do cowering."

http://brazenlyliberal.com/blogs/wordpress/index.html/2008/06/obama-i-dont-do-cowering/

[Butch350]

28. Because you have nothing to cower from - yet.

[spag68]

5. CIA

Even though I personally don't believe this, it does not change my opinion that the CIA needs to be flushed out and rebooted with smarter more Honorable people.

[poverlay]

6. Do you you believe that a person can maintain honor and do some of the very likely immoral, illegal,

and unjust things that are possibly deemed necessary to do their job?

(I mean absolutely no disrespect. I've been struggling with this question for a very long time myself.)

[HamdenRice]

15. Back. And to the left. Back. And to the left. Back. And to the left.

I don't think the point is that he'll be assassinated, although the Kennedy "thing" has been used metaphorically.

It's that pissing off the operational staff of the intelligence services -- plural -- can make life politically very difficult.

Since we can't ask JFK, just ask Jimmy Carter about how the 1980 campaign went while the operational staff was cheering for former CIA director George Herbert Walker Bush to become Vice President. For that matter, ask W about how things went after he pissed of the CIA by trying to blame 9/11 and Iraq WMDs primarily on CIA incompetence.

It may be depressing, but there it is.

[Renew Deal]

16. This post will get 300 replies

And there will be people insisting that the CIA would do this. Just watch

[redqueen]

19. lol

[GeorgeGist]

17. A little corruption is necessary ...

to defend goverment from it's critics and slaves.

[cwcwmack]

18. serious...

tin foil hat stuff here....

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. It's a dumb fucking claim

Not much more to it than that.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. I didn't think I'd have to kick this, but the sick meme is back and stronger than ever

[kid a]

22. kudos with a *

You have been a voice of reason today.
Therefore, a donation to DU in your name is in order.

:toast:

[Cali_Democrat]

24. If you're so outraged by that claim, then why don't you respond to the poster in that thread

Why do you have to create your own thread and scream for attention?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. Answer to you snarky question: My time machine was broken

This OP was posted Thu Apr-16-09 10:38 PM

The thread you refer to was posted Fri Apr-17-09 12:41 PM

[Cali_Democrat]

26. I wasn't referring to any specific thread. You really don't make any sense

In THIS OP you said...."Seen throughout several threads is a (minority) idea that president Obama was wise not to tangle with the CIA because he would be assassinated."

You obviously have an issue with that idea and you disagree with it. So you decided to create your own OP and rail against people who spout that idea. Instead of doing that, why don't you respond to the threads you were referring to in this OP?

Duh.

:crazy:

[TheKentuckian]

27. I don't think this is a major piece of the puzzle BUT

I am tin-foily enough though to believe there are limits on how much and for how long you can poke the dragon with a stick and not get burned.

Yeah, I think the CIA has had a hand in offing more than a few leaders right here at home, that they or others are beyond the control of elected officials for the most part, and that on occasion, at least, the shadow government squashes the civilian one if they feel they must to protect their larger interests.

Here, I think Obama is literally telling it how he sees it combined with how is capable of managing the situation in the most productive and effective way possible. The bang for the buck is in going after big fish. It does nothing except to make matters worse to get low level and let BushCo. off the hook.
I think most focused on this piece are just afraid BushCo are already off the hook and want to be sure someone takes the hit.