Panetta to Head Up CIA
| Mon Jan. 5, 2009 4:39 PM PST
PANETTA TO HEAD UP CIA....Apparently Barack Obama has chosen Leon Panetta to head the CIA. This is a pretty unconventional choice since Panetta has no intelligence experience, but David Corn is enthusiastic:
A CIA director who has denounced torture, advocated intelligence cuts, and backed greater congressional control of covert operations — that would be....different. This appointment certainly has the potential to spark opposition from inside and outside the agency. But if Panetta manages to make it to Langley without much fuss, that would indeed signal real change in Washington.
More about Panetta at the link. Panetta on torture here.
UPDATE: Feinstein and Rockefeller apparently aren't very enthusiastic about this choice.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Will they vote against Obama's choice? If Democrats start hammering Obama on Panetta or the stimulus or anything else all they will do is breathe life back into the Republican corpse.
OK, express reservations upfront, then shut up and vote yes.
If true, a strange choice. As Clinton's CoS, there is no doubt Panetta was involved with much palace intrigue. Whether he can convince the spooks to be loyal and honorable will be the real challenge. No one knows how they will react to integrity.
Well y81, it not like the insiders have been doing so great. Additionally the Bushies have not treated the CIA well at all. If Panetta is able to get the trust of the professionals all will be well.
Now, will the Senate Dems get behind there guy or will they be more interested in laying down political markers for later use.
Oh, and Go Buckeyes!
Sounds like it could be an inspired choice. Will have to wait and see how it works out. The Feinstein & Rockefeller reaction are a plus in my book.
Go BHO !
"To call it 'herding cats' would be to oversimplify it. It's like herding dogs, cats, wolves and sheep." - Felicia Marcus
A guy with no intelligence experience to head up the CIA?
The guy that Bush appointed who did have intelligence experience didn't work out so well, so it's not clear that intelligence experience is the most important quality for the CIA head to have. An ability to not take bribes might be important, too.
For those of you just tuning in, Leon Panetta's blog, ThinkProgress.org was determined by link graph topology and semantic analysis back in June to be the political blog most similar to Kevin's.
Panetta has plenty of experience with intel as a former presidential Chief of Staff -- the guy who decided for years whether updates from Langley are important enough to pass along to Clinton.
I am confident that Panetta will be able to patiently explain to Feinstein and Rockefeller why getting the most accurate intelligence possible is more important to national security than beating the shit out of them.
Excellent choice! Policy Wonks 1, Torturers 0.
What happened to rubber stamp Diane? Feinstein is a waste of a Senate seat and now she is pissed because she wasn't consulted and wanted the job for her pal Jane Harman. It would be nice if CA would elect a Democratic governor so Obama could appoint Feinstein to Ambassador to Fuckuastan
I don't know if I am all that against it if Rockefeller doesn't like it. He has sucked big time as the lead Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.
I was reading a email on TMP from a purported intelligence guy saying that he likes the Panetta pick because Panetta has his own powerbase and knows how the system work - which could be good for CIA considering how the last 8 years haven't been so good.
As for the lack of experience - try and find someone with enough political heft, with the intelligence experience, that hasn't been tainted directly or indirectly with the crap going on over at Langley the last 8 years. The likely explains why it took so long and killed the last guy rumored to be up for the job.
Panetta's obviously got the management background from his COS days to kick some ass and line things up at CIA.
The spooks always pout that no one can really understand them, and try to bully the director into buying their crap. That's why CIA sucks.
If Panetta can get in there and fire whoever would rather whine than serve, then maybe there's a chance for the agency.
Maybe they can get this through their heads -- that this *is* their last chance. Defense would take over all the CIA's functions in a skinny minute, and Obama might just let 'em do it.
I'll second ET's comment. The TPM post is very enlightening and it explains the factors that may make Panetta a great choice.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/01/really_a_mystery.php
