Talk:Leon Panetta

Civil Rights
Unsourced claim that "Panetta chose to enforce civil rights and equal education laws" (not sure the significance given that this was his job) ... As far as I understand, Panetta resigned after he read an article claiming Nixon was planning on firing him as part of the Southern Strategy. Never heard of any actions Panetta took that were in confrontation with direct orders. Section needs to be edited and cited or removed. Riselikehelium (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Pencil pushing highlights"
Huh? -- SB_Johnny | talk  16:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Vandalism plus a mistake by a Huggler. Fixed. Avruch  T 17:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Duh! Anyone know how to count? 18, 19, 3!"
The article reads that Leon is the third director, though in the same Wikipedia under CIA Directors 

The Office of United States Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) was established by U.S. President Harry Truman on January 23, 1946 with Admiral Sidney Souers occupying the position. The DCI was coordinating intelligence activities among and between the various United States intelligence agencies, also called the American Intelligence Community.

Until April 2005, the DCI also served as de-facto Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and was often referred to colloquially as the "CIA Director." After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and the subsequent investigation by the 9/11 Commission, a movement grew to re-organize the Intelligence Community. That movement prompted the creation, on April 21, 2005, of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), in whose purview was the job portfolio that had been performed previously by the Director of Central Intelligence. The latter position then ceased to exist.

Porter J. Goss was the 19th and final CIA Director to serve in the position of DCI. either Goss was one and Hayden two making Leon third in succession, or Leon is 2nd, or Leon Panetta is 21st as numbered directors are concerned. Let's not overlook temporary assignments created just after the twin tower incident in 2001 or really who's counting?" Research is not a fast paced existence but there was no research in the publication of this article.

Timeline is kind of odd
If he graduated from law school in 1963, it's kind of odd he wasn't sworn in as a member of the bar in December 1963. Most California attorneys take and pass the bar exam immediately out of law school while their memory of their broader legal training is still fresh. Panetta's official record indicates he was admitted (i.e. sworn in) on January 12, 1965. Something strange is going on... --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As it says in the article (and as it said back in June 2010) he joined the Army after law school, so he may not have needed to join the California bar right away. Lagrange613 06:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Something's not right with his time as a rep from the 17th district. Or even if he really was only there a couple weeks, it also says he was preceded by Burt Talcott, and Burt's page doesn't say anything about that. 173.17.146.184 (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * California's 17th congressional district says Panetta was redistricted there from the 16th as a result of the 1992 redistricting. He served such a short time because Clinton tapped him for OMB. Lagrange613 06:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Bias
this is one of the most biased pages I've ever seen at wiki. He switched parties to Dems since the R's were moving too far to the right? give me a break! Nixon was one of the most liberal Republican Presidents ever. He switched parties since he thought that was personally the most advantageous to himself, this was 1971 after all. Another Arlene Spector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.190.232 (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's supposedly the reason he gave, and although Nixon was quite liberal for a Republican, the party itself was seen by many as moving to the right after 1964. --Mrdie (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nixon was an outlier within the party, as he was uncomfortable with the Republican realignment with the South in the late 1960s. Prior to this, the party was primarily concerned with free markets.  After the realignment, it became the party of social conservatives who were mainly opposed to the new civil rights legislation.  This is the rightward shift that the article talks about. --Icowrich (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

this page gives him too much credit (any is too much) for bin laden's death. gates ran everything and did all the prep work. obama puts a dem in office and gives him the credit for being there the day it happened. it's like giving a guy the manager's job for an mlb team that's a 3-0 in the world series and when they win the series 4-3 they give him all the credit. its the same thing as obama inheriting a $5 trillion deficit, running it up to $14 trillion WITH HIS POLICIES, and claiming he inherited all of it from bush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.200.18 (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There's something to this, but I think the page is okay for two reasons. Firstly, it doesn't really give him that much credit, only claiming that he "presided over" the operations, which is undeniably true. Secondly, there were three CIA directors during the Bush years, making credit for Bin Laden's death so spread out that Leon Panetta probably contributed about as much as anyone else. In the end, it's all classified, so we won't know for sure for a while. A2soup (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ties to Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) and Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)
Seems that there is interesting linkages to Marxist think tanks for Leon Panetta. See www.wnd.com/?pageId=312429 and www.usasurvival.org/ck06.14.2011.html. I'm mentioning this because all of the people in government, in general, have terrible pasts in one way or the other, and it seems Leon is no exception. Wikipedia is a good forum to expose all politicians for their pasts and past associations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickrussom (talk • contribs) 15:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course this is nonsense based on unreliable sources and has no place in the article. Lagrange613 22:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Section "Political career" needs clarification
It says: "[...] Panetta chose to enforce civil rights and equal education laws.[citation needed] Secretary Robert Finch and Assistant Secretary John Veneman refused to fire Panetta, threatening to resign if forced to do so.[citation needed]"

Was he attacked (and finally dismissed?) because he enforced civil rights? This sounds like Russian politics... ;-) 139.139.67.70 (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, this part makes no sense whatsoever. Citations won't help since those are 2 loaded sentences, each one meant to convey lots of 'in between the lines' meaning:


 * Republicans hoped that Panetta would allow racism to flourish but to their shock Panetta chose to enforce civil rights and equal education laws. This had to be stopped or the GOP plans to re-enslave African Americans by the year 2030 would have to be recalculated. Secretary Robert Finch and Assistant Secretary John Veneman refused to fire Panetta, threatening to resign if forced to do so. "I will resign rather then stand in the way of Panetta's enforcement of civil rights," former Secretary Robert Finch wrote in his autobiography. "We can't forget about theequal education laws, because Panetta surely didn't," added former Assistant Secretary John Veneman, "I would have taken a bullet for him. Those Republicans sure wanted him fired badly. The racist bastards."
 * Maybe change it? Meishern (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Section "Secretary of Defense" EDIT WAR
Section on "Secretary of Defense" is subject of an edit war. Entries regarding Panetta answering to questions to Congress regarding possible military action in Syria and links to global federalist organizations including JOCI, CGS, and WFI are being repeatedly deleted, in spite of having relevance and verifiable links, generally keeping a neutral tone and stating and referencing the ties in a matter of fact manner. If the editor removing these entries would please engage me here on this talk page, maybe we can come to agreement as to which references are invalid for inclusion and why, however wholesale removal of a broad swath of relevant and well referenced points of interest is not in the best interest of Wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speakerofthespoken (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC) Since that's not what Panetta suggested, the relevance of statements based on the false premise is highly questionable. (Incidentally, if Panetta had suggested such a thing, it would seem to be supporting the Constitution, specifically Article VI, something with which a history instructor might be familiar.)
 * The repeated additions are certainly a "broad swath"; they are not, however, either relevant or well referenced. The only reliably sourced statement in the entire paragraph is the reference to Newt Gingrich's statement, and even for that the cited source says, ""I have been told that the secretary of defense has suggested that international agreements override the Congress," Gingrich told supporters in Gulfport, Mississippi. "If he believes that, he should resign tonight.""


 * The YouTube video – apparently selected, posted, and possibly edited by Senator Sessions' office – is not a reliable secondary source, and even if it is considered usable, it doesn't support the opinionated content for which it is cited ("embroiled in a controversy", "subverting the constitution", etc.). World Net Daily is not a reliable source for much of anything beyond the fact of it's own existence, if even for that, so I see no point wasting time reading their article or discussing the specifics of anything citing it.


 * The rest of the paragraph has citations to show Panetta's involvement with certain organizations, but nothing to tie these past activities to any hypothetical current controversy. And again, interpretations of their positions need to be backed by reliable secondary sources. The linked web pages don't support anything written about the positions of the organizations, Panetta, or the Obama administration. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

--In resubmitting a re-edited version of the information regarding both the Sessions interview and Panetta's involvement with JOCI and CGS efforts have been made to make the content more neutral, removing the "opinionated content" ("embroiled in a controversy", "subverting the constitution", etc.) Reference to WND is limited to showing that concerns do exist and are being expressed, nothing more, and the reference does reliably create source for the existence of concerns. Reference to a transcript of an interview by CGS of Panetta hosted on the CGS website is highly relevant, as are references to the CGS website that show CGS support of a World Federalist movement. Deleting these references removes a valuable source of information for Wikipedia readers looking to find out about Leon Panetta's leanings in respect of global governance, the UN, and concerns about who is influencing the Pentagon and the use of America's global military might.Speakerofthespoken (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Missing Years?
Did I miss something? What did Panetta do from 1997 to 2009?BooksXYZ (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Check out the section titled Activities outside politics. Perhaps the article should be edited differently? I don't know what the wikistyle should be for biographies. Highspeed (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Continuance after Chuck Hagel Confirmation Fillibuster
Panetta was to leave the position this month, however on February 14th 2013, Republicans in congress filibustered the succession of Chuck Hagel; requiring Panetta to stay in the position. A section of this mention should be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.96.126 (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Oracle director
He is a member of Oracle's Board

https://www.oracle.com/corporate/executives/board-of-directors.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.3.229 (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

He is still (13th August 2019) a member of Board of Directors at Oracle ... https://www.oracle.com/corporate/executives/leon-panetta.html <-- does anyone know since when? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.143.193.78 (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Responsibilities out of date
Panetta does not seem to still occupy many of the positions listed in the "Responsibilities" section, and some of these organizations no longer exist. There is no mention of Panetta on the websites of the NYSE, Close Up Foundation, Junior Statesmen Foundation, or Public Policy Institute of California. The only verifiable position he holds is on the Board of Directors of Oracle. Connetics Investor Relations does not exist anymore, and the reference simply redirects to the successor firm's homepage.

Fresh sources and possible removal of old or unverifiable positions may be necessary. Lithiumaneurysm (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)