NY Times: Unarmed, like the Afghans. And that means?

Interesting:

NYTimes article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/world/asia/panetta-visits-afghanistan-following-massacre.html?_r=2&hp


In a sign of the nervousness surrounding the trip, a sergeant major abruptly told the Marines gathered to hear Mr. Panetta in a tent at Camp Leatherneck to get up, place their M-16 and M-4 automatic rifles and 9-millimeter pistols outside, and return unarmed. The sergeant major, Brandon Hall, told reporters that he was acting on orders.
       

“All I know is I was told to get the weapons out,” he said. Asked why, he replied: “Somebody got itchy — that’s all I’ve got to say. Somebody got itchy. We just adjust.”

Normally, American forces in Afghanistan keep their weapons when the defense secretary visits and speaks to them. The Afghans in the tent had not been armed to begin with, as is typical.

Later, American officials said that the top military official in Helmand, Maj. Gen. Mark Gurganus, had decided on Tuesday that no one would be armed while Mr. Panetta spoke, but that word had not reached those in charge in the tent until shortly before Mr. Panetta was due to arrive.

General Gurganus told reporters later that he had wanted a consistent policy for everyone in the tent, and that “I wanted to have the Marines look just like their Afghan partners,” noting, “You’ve got one of the most important people in the world in the room.” He insisted that his decision had had nothing to do with the massacre; later, defense officials said the decision had had nothing to do with the truck at the airfield.

afghan

Hugo Chavez: US caused the earthquake in Haiti

Leon Panetta's daughter, you know Leon - head of CIA.  His daughter, friendly with Hugo Chavez, and I mean friendly enough they hug and pose for photos.  In any case, the daughter of Leon Panetta has a relationship with the madman of Venezuela, who just recently opined on the disaster in Haiti.

(Perhaps Danny Glover and Chavez could work together and develop one theory that covers both their opinions.)


Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez has once again accused the United States of playing God. But this time it's Haiti's disastrous earthquake that he thinks the U.S. was behind. Spanish newspaper ABC quotes Chavez as saying that the U.S. navy launched a weapon capable of inducing a powerful earthquake off the shore of Haiti. He adds that this time it was only a drill and the final target is ... destroying and taking over Iran.








Chavez

To Kill Al-Qaida

Brilliant analysis. If you follow the link listed below, the entire article is clear.


Link to the Washington Post article


In the article on the 2nd page is the following:



MARK LOWENTHAL

Assistant director of central intelligence for analysis and production from 2002 to 2005; staff director of the House intelligence committee, 1995-97

The irony of the imbroglio over a CIA operational concept (it seems to have been less than an actual program) and briefing to Congress is that the CIA apparently went about this task methodically and deliberately. CIA leadership and officers recognized the daunting legal, logistic and operational issues involved in eliminating al-Qaeda leaders. Rather than bull ahead, they apparently did not put the concept into operation because important questions could not be answered.

Should Congress have been briefed? It is difficult to describe the concept as a "significant anticipated activity" as no activity was anticipated, ordered or in sight. There is also the broader question of whether intelligence oversight committees really want to be briefed on every nascent concept, regardless of its state of readiness. Under these terms, the number of briefings would escalate dramatically, leading to a blur of information and a declining ability on the part of Congress to tell the important programs from the dross. Moreover, it edges lawmakers closer to the line where they would be asked to give approval -- tacit or explicit -- for certain undertakings, something that Congress should not want and cannot carry out.

We have, most regrettably, entered an extremely partisan phase of intelligence oversight. It is difficult to avoid concluding that much of the angst expressed by Democratic members stems from a lingering defense of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her imperfect memory of what she was briefed on and when regarding the terrorist interrogation program. (Republican members also deserve some credit for refusing to let the Pelosi issue die.) Those of us who have worked under the current oversight system for the past 33 years cannot recall a more partisan, more dysfunctional era.





Maybe Obama can do a truce with the murderer Bin Laden








losercrats

Leon Panetta: Tick tick tick. Time in a bottle and Pelosi has the bottle.

Tick tick tick.

What we hear is time ticking away, until Leon decides he needs to spend more time with his family.

He can't very well do it so soon. 6 months seems too early, BUT by December, he could claim he redirected the CIA and accomplished the presidents goal to shore up the intelligence given to the president (a lie) and leave to spend more time with his family (including his Chavez loving daughter).

tick tick tick.

Pelosi can't be happy. Obama hates to hear from that woman, preferring the Republicans to having to listen to her whine.










Pelsoi

CIA v Congress. The Loser: The American People

Former Agents Say Stop Picking on the CIA

Some Say National Security Could Be Put at Risk if Congress Ask Too Many Questions

By JOHN HENDREN and JONATHAN KARL
WASHINGTON, July 12, 2009—
ABC News

Former spies and some political leaders are saying that a lack of trust between Congress and the CIA is putting the county's security in jeopardy.

"It's one of the last nails in the CIA's coffin. It's finished. It's over. It's done," said former Central Intelligence Agency operative Robert Baer, whose exploits in the Middle East was the model for George Clooney's role in "Syriana."

The intelligence agency is back in the hot seat again after reports today that the agency, for eight years, withheld information from Congress on a secret counterterrorism program on the direct orders of then Vice President Dick Cheney.

Also today, word came that Attorney General Eric Holder is likely to push forward with a criminal investigation into the Bush administration's interrogation practices on suspected terrorists.

"I know I've been lied to," Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., said.

The rift between Congress and the CIA has been so bitter that when analysts have headed to Capitol Hill, the agency gave them this stock response: "I'm sorry, but I will be unable to continue our dialogue if you continue to question my integrity or that of my agency."

"The danger is today that we might go too far," Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas. "And that could cause us to not have that critical bit of intelligence that could protect this country."

Not all intelligence experts agree.

"There's absolutely no reason to believe that congressional oversight will lead to terrorist attacks," said former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke and ABC consultant. "And that's essentially what some people are saying & morale will go down and we'll be risk averse, and we won't talk to the FBI, we won't do our jobs and we'll all die of terrorist attacks. That's way exaggerated."

Clarke added that the "CIA has become a master of saying to Congress: 'If you do your job and supervise us it will hurt our morale. If our morale is hurt we won't be able to do our job.' That is largely a myth."

Why is he the go-to guy on these matters. Why? He has a very big mouth.

CIA insiders say they haven't seen anything like this since the 1970s, when the Church Committee probed extreme tactics such as hiring the mafia to kill Cuba's Fidel Castro.

"We're heading back into this Frank Church atmosphere in this Senate and in this Congress, where, basically, where people use the CIA as a whipping boy," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.
The congressional hearings lead to new rules barring the FBI and CIA from sharing intelligence -- rules now blamed for allowing Sept. 11 hijackers to carry out their attacks.

"You have people running for the doors there, continue running for the doors, and it's going to hurt our national security," Baer said. "It's going to interfere with stopping another 9/11."
With rising criticism and poisoned relations with Congress, the agency's headquarters feel like a morgue, he says.

Another blow for morale could come if Attorney General Holder and the Justice Department go through with an investigation of CIA interrogators trying to find out if they broke the law by torturing detainees and going beyond the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, like waterboarding, that were approved by the Bush administration.

Officials say the appointment of a special prosecutor is likely, raising the possibility of high-profile prosecutions of career CIA operatives. Republicans say that's a bad idea.

"This continued attack on the CIA and our intelligence gathering organizations is undermining the morale and capacity of those organizations to gather intelligence," Gregg said.

This comes as Democrats in Congress are vowing their own investigation into the agency's failure to tell Congress about a secret program that went into the planning stage shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

"To have a massive program that is concealed from the leaders in Congress is not only inappropriate; it could be illegal," said Majority Whip Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

When the current CIA director Leon Panetta found out about it, he scrapped the program and briefed the Congressional intelligence committees. One Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee says Panetta told them that Cheney had ordered the program kept secret.

"He was told the vice president had ordered that the program not be briefed to the Congress," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "I think that is a problem obviously."

There's been no comment from Cheney, but the former vice president's allies say the agency did not need to brief Congress because the program had not yet gone into operation.

The swirl of investigations seems to be exactly what President Obama has repeatedly said he does not want.

"I think that we should be looking forward, and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively," Obama said in April.

But looking backward is exactly what is happening. With a special prosecutor likely to be named and congressional Democrats preparing their own investigations, the debate over the Bush administration's actions after the Sept. 11 attacks remains front-and-center in Washington.




And why wouldn't it ... it allows Democrats to resurrect the Evil Bush, just in time for midterm elections (and yes, they are that political). Worse - Panetta is no longer DCI ... he is a political puppet of the WH and everyone knows what role he is now playing (including CIA employees).

Wouldn't your morale declien if your DCI was nothing more than a political operative, interested not in the agency and morale but in scoring political points. How can employees of CIA accomplish tasks that need to be done if they are constantly monitored - either by their political operative (DCI) or by Big Mouths in Congress - who, as soon as a briefing is given, rush out to make calls to their sources in the media.

Obama said Yes he would conduct investigations, then he said NO, then came the political heat from his backers, and now he is back to saying he may, and Eric Holder is about to proceed with a (from the article) 'Special Prosecutor'.

I know we have been lied to and the lies have come from ... CONGRESS, not CIA. Why on earth would we want more people briefed by CIA - there were at least three leaks for the NY Times story - of people who KNEW what was told to Congress (they were in the briefing or had access to the details) - pretty clear who their paychecks are signed by.

This fiasco should signal a clear sign to the American people - we need to clean out the Congress in 2010.









Obama

Panetta (White House): Cheney did it.

Senator: Cheney and alleged secret CIA program 'a problem'

From Pam Benson
CNN National Security Producer
July 12, 2009


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- CIA Director Leon Panetta testified to a congressional committee that he was told former Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the intelligence agency to withhold information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, told the "FOX News Sunday" program that Panetta testified that "he was told that the vice president had ordered that the program not be briefed to the Congress."

"I think this is a problem, obviously," Feinstein said, adding that the law requires full disclosure of such operations to Congress.

The disclosure by Panetta to both the Senate and House intelligence committees about Cheney's involvement was first reported in The New York Times. Efforts to contact Cheney for reaction were unsuccessful.

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano declined to comment on the report.

"It's not agency practice to discuss what may or may not have been said in a classified briefing," Gimigliano said. "When a CIA unit brought this matter to Director Panetta's attention, it was with the recommendation that it be shared with Congress. That was also his view, and he took swift, decisive action to put it into effect."

[They didn't mention that Biden was involved, nor would he have been consulted. The VP doesn't make these determinations. Panetta is once again playing politics at the behest of the White House - to make nice with Pelosi who is still smarting over the 'lies' they told.]

Panetta briefed lawmakers on June 24 on an unspecified counterterrorism program, according to a letter from seven House Democrats to Panetta made public Wednesday. The June 26 letter characterized Panetta as testifying that the CIA "concealed significant actions from all members of Congress, and misled members for a number of years from 2001 to this week."

The letter contained no details about what information the CIA officials allegedly concealed or how they purportedly misled members of Congress.

A knowledgeable source familiar with the matter said the counterterrorism program in question was initiated shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

The program was on-again, off-again and was never fully operational, but was rather a tool put on the shelf that could have been used, the source said. Panetta has put an end to the program, according to the source.

The disclosures follow a May spat between the spy agency and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who accused the CIA of misleading Congress during a secret 2002 briefing on harsh interrogation techniques being used on terrorism suspects. The CIA responded that Pelosi was told about the harsh techniques, including waterboarding, at the briefing.

But the June 26 letter from the seven House Democrats noted that Panetta told CIA employees in a May 15 letter -- a response to the Pelosi allegation -- that it was not CIA policy to mislead Congress. The letter from the House Democrats asked Panetta to correct his May 15 statement "in light of your testimony."

Asked about the Democrats' letter, CIA spokesman George Little said Panetta "stands by his May 15 statement."

"This agency and this director believe it is vital to keep the Congress fully and currently informed. Director Panetta's actions back that up," Little said in a statement. "As the letter from these ... representatives notes, it was the CIA itself that took the initiative to notify the oversight committees."

The latest revelations come as lawmakers consider expanding the number of House and Senate members privy to the kind of secret briefing that Pelosi received.

The White House opposes a measure that would increase the number of briefing participants from the current eight to 40 members of Congress. A White House memo warned President Obama's senior advisers would recommend a veto of the bill if it contained the expanded briefing provision.

On Sunday morning news shows, Democratic and Republican legislators sparred over the significance of the withholding of information from Congress.

Republicans agreed that the CIA should comply with all disclosure laws, but questioned if the program Panetta talked about to the intelligence committees met the required threshold.

They also said such disclosures harm the morale of the CIA, and some wondered if the revelation of Panetta's testimony was a Democratic ploy to support Pelosi's allegation that the agency misled Congress.

"This looks to me suspiciously like an attempt to provide political cover to her," Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said on FOX. "I agree with Senator Feinstein -- the CIA should brief the Congress. Congress should exercise responsible oversight. But to trot out the vice president and say he's the one that's at fault, this ... unfortunately sounds like a new theme where they still want to blame the Bush-Cheney administration for the economy and for other things."

Democrats responded that the central issue was the possible violation of laws intended to maintain a vital check on the power of the CIA.

"This is a question of whether the former vice president of the United States denied certain sensitive information to the intelligence leaders in Congress," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota. "That is not acceptable."

The Democrats also praised Panetta for immediately notifying the intelligence committees and canceling the secret program once he learned of it.

This last line is very humorous.

However, more serious - why don't long time analysts of intelligence matters raise questions about Panetta - why don't they say what they all know - that he is being directed by the White House to attempt to discredit Cheney and revive Pelosi. Why? Why don't they. Why don't they tell us that the VP doesn't tell CIA what to tell or not tell ... Why? Why allow themselves to be used as propaganda sources? Why?















CIA

Leon Panetta: When will he leave CIA to spend more time with his family

Always read, and not only read, but try to figure out if something just isn't right in a story. Always.

Obama - weak on foreign policy, shredding our relations with Britain and other allies, weakening our intelligence services

Pelosi - liar liar pants on fire, claimed CIA never briefed her, claimed CIA lied to her, claimed ... and she is a liar. CIA has the forms/signatures which are signed at briefings indicating that everything was revealed, put on the table, nothing was secret or hidden by the Bush administration - Pelosi lied. She denied she lied but the proof exists and could at any minute make its way onto the front pages. CIA (Panetta) comes out and calls her a liar, says she knew, was told ...

White House - not happy that the Speaker may be taken down by her lies, thus weakening the White House, tying up Obama's precious time with the media on matters of Democrats lying to the American people, so ...

Leon Panetta is told by Obama (someone) to spend less time attacking Democrats and more time attacking Republicans who threaten the Obamessiah worship plans. Leon then removes himself from the position as CIA director - because in that capacity he does not have a political role. His role is rather limited: relations with the White House and Congress, approach Congress for money, manage the employees in CIA and keep monitoring of other intelligence services.

HIS ROLE IS NOT political and yet Leon Panetta just jumped into the political ring ... which is what CIA SHOULD NOT AND MUST NOT DO ... because then CIA is political and no liberal wants that (Can we all say Senator Frank Church). Yet that is exactly what Obama has forced Panetta to do, to make amends for his public take-down of Pelosi.



Cheney: I Hope Panetta Was 'Misquoted' in Claiming My Wish for Attack

After the CIA director apparently told The New Yorker that he thinks the former vice president is crossing his fingers for another attack on America, Dick Cheney says he hopes his "old friend" didn't really say those words.

FOXNews.com
Monday, June 15, 2009


Dick Cheney says he wants to know if he heard Leon Panetta correctly.

After the CIA director apparently told The New Yorker that he thinks the former vice president is crossing his fingers for another attack on America, Cheney said Monday he hopes his "old friend" didn't really say those words.

"I hope my old friend Leon was misquoted," Cheney said, in a written statement to FOX News. "The important thing is whether the Obama administration will continue the policies that have kept us safe for the past eight years."

Others were not quite willing to give Panetta the benefit of the doubt, as his politically charged quote stirred controversy on Capitol Hill.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called on Panetta to "retract immediately" his statement, arguing that the director crossed the line.

"I disagreed with the Cheney policy on interrogation techniques, but never did it cross my mind that Dick Cheney would ever want an attack on the United States of America," the former GOP presidential candidate told FOX News Monday. "And it's unfair, and I think that Mr. Panetta should retract, and retract immediately.

"By the way, I hear morale is not at an all-time high over at the CIA under Mr. Panetta's leadership," he said.

Panetta, a long-time Washington insider with scant intelligence experience, has been caught in the middle of a political war during his first few months on the job. First, he had to deal with morale issues as President Obama cracked down on the rules for detainee interrogations. Then he stepped up to dispute House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's allegation that the CIA misled Congress about the use of "enhanced" interrogation techniques.

This time, he's firing back against Cheney's frequent media appearances in which he's accused Obama of making America less safe.

According to The New Yorker, Panetta said Cheney "smells some blood in the water" on the security issue.

"It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics," he said, according to the piece.

Asked about the statement, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs ducked.

"I'm not going to get into motivations. That's not what our business is. The president's concern is keeping the American people safe," Gibbs said Monday.











Panetta and Obama

CIA: Cheney wants the US attacked, or invaded or nuked or drowned or ....

CIA chief believes Cheney almost wants US attacked
Sun Jun 14, 2009


WASHINGTON, June 14 (Reuters) - CIA director Leon Panetta says it's almost as if former vice president Dick Cheney would like to see another attack on the United States to prove he is right in criticizing President Barack Obama for abandoning the "harsh interrogation" of terrorism suspects.

"I think he smells some blood in the water on the national security issue," Panetta said in an interview published in The New Yorker magazine's June 22 issue.

"It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point."

Cheney, who was a key advocate in the Bush administration of controversial interrogation methods such as waterboarding, has become as a leading Republican critic of Obama's ban on harsh interrogations and his plan to shut the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In a blistering May 21 speech, Cheney said Obama's reversal of Bush-era policies were "unwise in the extreme" that would make the American people less safe.

Panetta called Cheney's actions "dangerous politics."

He told The New Yorker he had favored the creation of an independent truth commission to look into the detainee polices of former President George W. Bush. But the idea died in April when Obama decided such a panel could be seen as politically vindictive.




OMG - I wonder, how many people on earth do not know that: Cheney, who was a key advocate in the Bush administration of controversial interrogation methods such as waterboarding ...

I cannot imagine there is one person on earth not aware of this fact. AND WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? Why does it need to be inserted, as if to argue against Cheney - anything he says is tainted by ... interrogation / waterboarding.

Why is the CIA Director commenting on political issues? Shouldn't he be watching his daughter and ensuring she isn't off with Chavez. That is as relevant as his idiotic comments.

And what about when Obama or Clinton or Biden were attacking the CIA, arguing the US was less safe as a result of actions taken by the Bush administration.


Bloody hypocrits.

I know I feel oh so much less safe now.











Obama

WHO SAID IT?

"There could be situations -- and I emphasize 'could be' because we haven't made a determination yet -- where, let's say that we have a well-known al Qaeda operative that doesn't surface very often, appears in a third country with whom we don't have an extradition relationship or would not be willing to prosecute, but we think is a very dangerous person," he said.

"I think we will have to think about how do we deal with that scenario in a way that comports with international law and abides by my very clear edict that we don't torture."

.... told a Senate hearing that suspects might still be sent to third countries for questioning, subject to assurances they would be treated humanely.

Dear Leftists,

For 5-6 years you attacked Bush - he was doing everything possible to subvert your rights and treat innocent people badly. Your side made a movie about this - Rendition (didn't do well in the theaters) ...

Your Savior said the above. Your Savior will carry on the same policies as before ... or He will not torture, and He will not allow innocent people to be caught up in rendition ... unlike the Bushies who didn't care. And of course, He will be able to tell the difference when he has 10 seconds to make a decision.

Honestly, do you realize how utterly foolish, stupid, and dangerous you are. I am not sure which will kill you first - your naivete or the killers who wish to slit our throats and blow up our cities.

Have a nice day.






Obama

Panetta: Don't Touch Me or My Goon Will Get You.

That's the way you do it, when you're a liberal.

You'd think these guys were Rich Republicans trying to steal your rights ... but oh no, it's not ... it's a lib.

Amazing.

Let's keep it in perspective. The guy is NOTHING right now. Not even DCIs are so difficult. Panetta is nothing as yet.





Reporter restrained after Panetta hearing

February 6, 2009

Following Leon Panetta’s confirmation hearing Thursday, several reporters approached the CIA director-designate in the hallway outside room G-50 in the Dirksen Building.

There, CongressDaily reporter Chris Strohm — upon asking a question — was physically restrained by a man who accompanied Panetta at hearings both days. Strohm, when reached by phone Friday, said he was unsure of the man’s role.

“I felt this hand grab my right arm and push me aside,” Strohm said. By his account, Strohm told the man, “Please don’t touch me” more than once. Eventually, the man let him go. Tim Starks, a reporter for Congressional Quarterly, said he witnessed Strohm approach Panetta and ask a question, just before the man began “grabbing him by the arm and moving him away.”

“I said to the guy, ‘That’s not the way you do it,’” recalled Starks.

Starks said that he’s covered the CIA for years and had never seen a reporter strong-armed that way before, adding that the agency is typically respectful of journalists.

Reflecting on the incident, Strohm played it down somewhat, saying that he’s “had worse happen” while reporting.

A staff assistant at The Panetta Institute said they are not addressing any media inquiries before Panetta’s confirmation. The White House declined to comment.

After today’s hearing, there was no similar incident: Panetta briefly answered questions from reporters.





Panetta

Panetta, CIA and the Secret Payoffs

I could imagine if this had been Bush - Treasury Secretary - never paid taxes. Commerce nominee - under investigation for illegal kickbacks. OMB - she never paid taxes. Health and Human services - he failed to pay his taxes. UnderSecretary - lobbyists for defense contractor. CIA nominee - his daughter's relationship (and by extension, the role Panetta played) with Chavez; not to mention his fees paid by huge financial institutions (a la oil company). A Secretary of State who has a husband with a closet full of issues - from women all over the world to funding by Arab sheihks and emirs, along with the richest of men, who funded Mr. Clinton's adventures. I recall the headlines when Bush took office - he first contacted Mexican President Fox ... and the media played with this for several days - it broke tradition, it broke the standard policy that had been adhered to for decades of doing the Canadian side of the border first. Obama did it - he called the Palestinian terrorist-in-chief first, gave his first interview to Arab TV, interjected himself in Indian affairs where he was unwanted (alienating our ally), attacking an ally by sending rockets crashing into their country ... and the media role in all this? Even if you like the guy, can't you even crawl out of your cave to see how biased the media has been? How twisted you have been in attacking Bush and finding all Obamessiah does as divine?

I didn't think so. Figures.

(I thought the subejct line more in line with Bush attacks - no matter how innocent or non-criminal, leftists turned everything into a secret cabal, campaign, payments.)




FEBRUARY 5, 2009

CIA Nominee Panetta Received $700,000 in Fees

By GLENN R. SIMPSON
Wall Street journal

WASHINGTON -- The White House's nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta, has earned more than $700,000 in speaking and consulting fees since the beginning of 2008, with some of the payments coming from troubled financial firms and from a firm that invests in contractors for federal national security agencies, according to financial disclosures released Wednesday.

Mr. Panetta received $56,000 from Merrill Lynch & Co. for two speeches and $28,000 for a speech for Wachovia Corp., according to disclosures released ahead of Thursday's scheduled Senate hearing on Mr. Panetta's nomination.

Both Merrill and Wachovia reported big losses last year and were acquired by larger firms. The Wachovia honorarium was dated October 30, and the last Merrill Lynch honorarium was dated October 11, according to disclosure forms filed by Mr. Panetta in connection with his nomination. At the time, Bank of America had agreed to a rescue of Merrill Lynch; Wachovia had agreed to be acquired by Wells Fargo & Co.

The Senate confirmation hearing for Leon Panetta, nominated to be director of the CIA, is scheduled for Thursday.

Mr. Panetta's disclosure form illustrates how retired politicians commonly make money giving speeches and consulting for prominent companies with significant interests before the government. That was one element in the controversy over the cabinet nomination of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who withdrew Tuesday.

The former White House chief of staff's disclosure form also shows the delicate balance President Barack Obama is trying to strike -- trying to curb the influence of lobbyists in his administration, while relying on long-time Washington veterans who often help clients navigate the halls of power. Mr. Panetta's forms show that he performed government affairs consulting last year and also sat on the board of a public affairs firm that lobbies Congress. Like Mr. Daschle, who also worked for a firm with lobbying clients, Mr. Panetta doesn't violate Mr. Obama's ban on hiring registered lobbyists.

"We anticipate that tomorrow's hearing will focus on the substance of Mr. Panetta's views about how to strengthen our intelligence gathering and keep our nation safe, as all of Mr. Panetta's income and investments have been thoroughly reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

Mr. Panetta also received a $28,000 honorarium from the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm that owns companies doing business with national-security agencies of the U.S. government. Carlyle holds a majority stake in the government consulting arm of Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., which works for the CIA and other agencies. A Carlyle spokesman said Mr. Panetta was paid to speak at an investor conference and that the matter was unrelated to Booz Allen or any other defense contractors.

Mr. Panetta also reported receiving a $60,000 "Governmental Advisor Fee" from the Pacific Maritime Association, which represents the shipping industry. The group lobbies the federal government regarding terrorism laws that affect shipping. A spokesman for the association didn't respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Panetta is a former Congressman from central California who served as White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton. A White House spokesman said Mr. Panetta "provided consulting services on port security issues and some labor issues" to the Pacific Maritime Association. The spokesman said Mr. Panetta was "unaware" if his work was related to lobbying efforts by PMA in Washington that were described in public disclosure forms. Regarding potential conflicts of interest involving his speaking fees from Carlyle and other firms, the spokesman said, "All of his income and investments have been thoroughly reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics, and he will abide by whatever they require."

Fleishman Hillard, a large public affairs and lobbying firm, also paid Mr. Panetta $130,000 in director's fees. Fleishman vice chairman Paul Johnson said Mr. Panetta advises firm clients on policy and economic issues but performs "absolutely no lobbying or government relations work."

Another source of income for Mr. Panetta was California State University, Monterey Bay, which hosts the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy, a nonprofit foundation run by Mr. Panetta and his wife. The school paid Mr. Panetta $150,000 in "consulting fees," he reported. A spokesman for the chancellor's office referred questions about Mr. Panetta's work there to Mr. Panetta's White House aides, who did not respond to requests for comment.—Susan Schmidt contributed to this article.





Obama