Bob McCarty Writes

Leon Panetta

Members of the mainstream news media seem to have no interest in Leon Panetta’s past open involvement with the Institute for Policy Studies, an anti-CIA think tank closely linked to the former Soviet Union’s KGB spy agency.  But they should.

Such disinterest is evident in the results of a Google News Search of “Panetta” and the exact phrase “Institute for Policy Studies.”  I ran that search this morning and turned up one result.  An identical Google Blogs Search yielded less than three-dozen results, while a Google Advanced Search produced more than 12,200 results.

Peruse the articles below — which turned up in the last search — and I think you’ll understand why the Barack Obama-friendly news media is reticent to discuss the background of Panetta, a man who once served as chief of staff for President Bill Clinton.  In addition, I hope you’ll share this post with others so that more bloggers — and, possibly, some news outlets — will share this information with their readers:

• Why Panetta Is the Wrong Man to Lead CIA (Jan. 10) — During a time of war — and facing threats no less menacing than the Japanese Empire — President-elect Barack Obama selected a man (Panetta) who is singularly unqualified to lead a key intelligence agency.

• Obama’s Preferred Future Spy Chief Leon Panetta Supported Communist-Linked Anti -CIA Think Tank (Jan. 9)– Leon Panetta is not the best choice for heading the CIA. There are serious reservations in Washington about his qualifications for such an important position. Of course, Panetta can in no way be associated with hostile foreign intelligence services. But his previous support for a dubious think thank like the Institute of Policy Studies – an outspoken anti-CIA lobby group, manipulated in the past by former Soviet intelligence services is anything but a recommendation for a job like CIA chief. Such a display of naivete should become him ill.

• The Trouble With Leon Panetta (Jan. 7) — 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.