by Frank James
Reports that President-elect Barack Obama intends to make Leon Panetta director of the Central Intelligence Agency not only surprised some key Capitol Hill Democrats but left them questioning the former congressman and Clinton Administration official's bona fides for the post.
For instance, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who will be the new chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, didn't sound pleased. As CNN reported:
(CNN) -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Senate's incoming Intelligence committee chair, slammed President-elect Barack Obama's choice of Leon Panetta as director of the CIA Monday.
"I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA Director. I know nothing about this, other than what I've read," Feinstein said in a statement. "My position has consistently been that I believe the Agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."
A Feinstein spokesman told CNN's Dana Bash that the California senator found out about Obama's pick after her staff showed her a New York Times report.
"The President-elect will now have a chance to make his arguments," the spokesman said. "Her next move is to listen."
Sounds like part of the problem was the way Feinstein learned that Panetta was Obama's choice. She clearly expected more, and not just as the new chair of an important congressional intell committee but she as the chair the joint congressional committee responsible for the Obama's inaugural ceremonies and as someone who was an important bridge between Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton after their divisive primary.
Politically, it was probably a mistake for Obama's people to not consult Feinstein, Rockefeller and others ahead of time to explain Obama's selection of Panetta.
But Feinstein is also criticizing the choice of Panetta because of his relative lack of intelligence community experience, a criticism also made by fellow Democrat Sen. Jay Rockefeller of W. Virginia.
The argument that Panetta is a poor choice because he doesn't have intelligence community experience is a fascinating one because ever since the CIA's birth at the start of the Cold War, experience in the intelligence community has never been a good predictor of how well a person would lead the CIA.
Exhibit A. George Tenet, the long-time intelligence official who told President Bush that evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk." I rest my case.
Actually, let's throw in another piece of evidence for good measure. Exhibit B would be Porter Goss. The former congressman had worked at the CIA recruiting and training foreign agents in the 1960s. when he returned to run the agency in 2004, he and the former congressional aides he brought in to help run the agency clashed with highly respected dsenior career CIA officials who wound up quitting. Goss arguably inherited a dysfunctional agency which he left even more dysfunctional by the time Bush fired him in May 2006.
So let's say the value of long experience the intelligence community can be overstated.
Panetta may not have CIA experience but he's a long-time Washington political insider with deep experience on Capitol Hill, where he was House Budget Chairman, and just as deep experience in the Executive Branch where he served as President Clinton's Office of Management and Budget and Chief of Staff and before his congressional career in Health and Human Services Department.
It's hard to argue that Panetta doesn't have the management skills to run the CIA, clearly a post requiring a strong and wise manager if ever there were one, or the political skills to advocate for his agency.
Besides that, he's roundly respected in Washington despite Feinstein's and Rockefeller's reactions. Given all that has befallen the agency over its history -- the Bay of Pigs, Iran-Contra and the failure to see the Soviet implosion -- it's difficult to imagine Panetta doing any worse than past leaders and easy to see him performing much better.
Comments
I'm really disappointed in this appointment. There are not enough fresh faces on the Obama team. Rehashing old Clintonites is not what I was looking for.
Posted by: GW | January 6, 2009 11:29 AM
Change we can believe in: An incredibly inexperienced and weak Cabinet. I love it that Illinois is sharing its incompetence and shame with the rest of the nation.
Posted by: John D | January 6, 2009 11:49 AM
See, you don't want somebody with actual intelligence experience to head an intelligence agency. That's called "change".
Posted by: MJ | January 6, 2009 12:38 PM
No change here...during his chief of staff tenure he certainly failed Clinton on the growing danger and threat of terrorism. Another Clinton retread...choice made to appease "lefties"...too inexperienced and political to oversee the "nasty and dirty" business of war and terror...we need " Gitmo and tough interrogation " fighting these fanatic animals, and that's a fact...no room for P.C. here...God help us if we go soft.
Posted by: Bubba Porter | January 6, 2009 12:38 PM
With the CIA having become too much of a "Bourne Identity" (etc sequels) kind of operation, I'm glad a CIA"outsider" has been chosen to head the agency.
People forget that, as Director of the OMB (Office of Managment and Budget) under CLinton, he was the architect of the first (and only) time in the past 50 years or more that the US gained a bugdet SURPLUS, not a deficit.
He is also unquestionably one of the most respected (by BOTH parties) members of Congress in the past 30 years.
Of course, those who feel that the Bush policy that torture is acceptable and rewarding will be against this appointment.
In the Washinton Monthly, last year, he wrote: “Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise.” And he also stated: “We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that.”
I had hoped that Panetta would get a high level position, one where he could make a difference. He has always done that before, and he will again.
Posted by: Ron Pierce | January 6, 2009 12:44 PM
Leon Panetta is an excellent choice. A new brooim sweeps clean. I see him being able to pull together excellence in the CIA and demand excellence and competency from those gathering information.He has a sharp mind and does not owe anyone in the CIA. No favors are to be expected just accountability and that door swings both ways. He is loyal to America and has capabilities that will serve well in this post.
Posted by: CHEEZGRITS | January 6, 2009 12:50 PM
Bill Clinton seems to be doing the pickng.
Posted by: brigitte | January 6, 2009 12:55 PM
The CIA can be quite insular, as any 'promote from within' company is. They get stuck in the 'same-old same-old' view of countries and governments and don't see change coming. As in the Soviet implosion. The people promoted are the people whose thinking mirrors that of the older generation in charge. Self-perpetuating.
I don't want the head to have CIA experience, but SOME sort of intelligence experience would be helpful - which I believe was the point of Feinstein and Rockefeller.
Still, I like Panetta.
Posted by: Tom J | January 6, 2009 1:21 PM
"TENET SPEAKS"
Does this mean I have to give back my Medal?
Does this mean, all "Truths to become Self-Evident?"
I lied and they all died!
Does this mean I have to give back my Medal?
Does this mean, all "Truths to become Self-Evident?"
It was "Cheney Law"
It was "Bush Law"
We did it for the "Homeland"
We did it for "Ashcroft"
We did it for "Haliburton"
We did it for "The Patriot Act"
We did it for "Homeland Security Act"
We did it for "S Bill 1639"
We did it for the "Border"
We did it for the "Protect America Act"
We lied, and millions and millions have died!
It was "Cheney Law"
It was "Bush Law"
We did it for "Federalist Preambles"
We tried, we lied, and they all died!
Does this mean I have to give back my "medal?"
It was the "Bush Doctrine"
Posted by: Roger Morris | January 6, 2009 1:32 PM
You have to laugh at all the Republican crying and whining about Obama. I think it's fairly safe to say an Obama administration will be much better than the illegitimate, incompetent and failed administration of the past eight years. Bush was a embarassment to the United States and the entire world. Maybe you folks should move overseas to a socialist country.
Posted by: Doug R. | January 6, 2009 3:02 PM
From the article...
"So let's say the value of long experience the intelligence community can be overstated."
Now this is an "ends justify the means" bit of rhetorical genious..
This is the kind of pretzel logic you get when you want to be both a journalist but also don't want to say anything critical about the messiah. So you avoid stating the obvious common sense notion that electing a CIA chief with no experience is a really bad decision...
Scaaary....
Posted by: heartburn | January 6, 2009 3:44 PM
"...Of course, those who feel that the Bush policy that torture is acceptable and rewarding will be against this appointment. .."
Posted by: Ron Pierce | January 6, 2009 12:44 PM
Which includes leading members of both congress and the senate- all, (including Pelosi) were briefed on the interrogation tactics-none had a concern until it was politically expedient.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120464870255997.html
Paneta was chief of staff while Clinton was treating terrorism with law enforcement, and ignored offers from foreign intelligence groups to capture Bin Laden -
Why would we put this guy anywhere near a post as critical as CIA chief..
Posted by: heartburn | January 6, 2009 4:39 PM
Gotcha, Bubba; I'm disappointed too-- I love torture and hate my civil liberties. MJ--check some recent history, please.
Posted by: Flo | January 6, 2009 4:50 PM
Posted by: heartburn | January 6, 2009 4:39 PM
again the blood thirsty right show up. This time to support the use of torture. What dark and evil people they are. Cheering the killing of Palestinian civilians, supporting the use of torture as long as the victims are Muslim. They simply are filled with anger hate and the urge to kill and destroy. They are the very thing they claim to be against. They are Hamas by a different name. They are terrorists to the very core. I weep for what so many of my countrymen have become.
Posted by: Salaam | January 6, 2009 5:31 PM
Tenet reminds me of George Clooney in that movie Michael Clayton--smoothie con artist who was able to ingratiate himself to characters as different as Bubba and W.
If Tenet represents "professionalism
" then let's try Leon for awhile.
He has Obama's low blood pressure approach and probably won't play along with "MAI" (made as instructed) intelligence.
Posted by: ornery | January 6, 2009 5:43 PM
Posted by: Bubba Porter | January 6, 2009 12:38 PM
Don't be PC. Don't just say Gitmo and tough interrogation, Say what you really mean. Have the guts to say :"We need concentration camps and torture." Don't just say "God help us if we go soft" have the guts to say "I support suspending civil liberties. Fascism will keep us safe." Have the courage to admit that you want to look to the Nazi's and the Soviets for tips on how to run a security state. Be honest that you are so completely terrorized that you are willing to destroy everything America used to stand for to save your sorry excuse for a life.
Posted by: Lou | January 6, 2009 6:02 PM
Let's stick to the same CIA that missed 9/11 or the WMDs in Iraq. Who needs a change?
Posted by: bill r. | January 6, 2009 7:52 PM
Nominate Panetta for CIA chief? Why not? While we’re at it, I know this burly guy who works at a meat processing plant who knows something about “protection.” Maybe we can get him in as the new head of Homeland Security. And then there’s this guy down to the local fish market who would be a shoe-in for Commerce Secretary.
Posted by: John W. | January 6, 2009 11:14 PM
“I think it's fairly safe to say an Obama administration will be much better than the illegitimate, incompetent and failed administration of the past eight years. . . .”
* * * * *
Posted by: Doug R. | January 6, 2009 3:02 PM
.
Is that really saying anything? To me it’s about as useful as saying, “Roasted Kitten tastes better than Barbeque Puppy.” We needed much better than not-as-bad to replace really bad because stuff is getting much worse.
Posted by: John W. | January 6, 2009 11:21 PM
Panetta is no Intelligence expert, he's a bean counter. The only reason Obama would want to put a bean counter in charge of the CIA is that the real intent is to strip their budget to help pay for all the socialist initiatives he promised during the campaign. These liberal idiots are bound and determined to bare our throats to the barbarians at our gate. God help us all, because the new administration is obviously determined to destroy us.
Posted by: Ric S | January 7, 2009 4:45 AM
who else can be trusted to keep a blind eye on billary's donor list? lieberman unber alles!
http://politiqs.tommyjonq.com
Posted by: tommy jonq | January 7, 2009 9:00 AM
This President-Elect is starting out on the wrong foot. He's already flip flopped on several issues. He is getting very bad advices. I'm surprised someone from the Clintons' team hasn't suggested my all time low life Sandy Burger for the post. I hope this is not what we have to deal with for the next four years or this guy will be a one term President.
Posted by: Paul | January 7, 2009 10:12 AM
Tenet informed CLINTON FIRST of WMD. Liberals can stop saying Bush manufactured this claim.
"Bush retained the same CIA director, George Tenet, who served under Clinton. Tenet described the case for assuming the dictator possessed WMD a ‘slam-dunk.’ After the invasion of Iraq, Clinton publicly said he thought Saddam still had the weapons. A few months after the Iraq invasion, the former president visited Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, who later said, ‘When Clinton was here recently, he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime.’"
Posted by: JS | April 3, 2009 11:19 AM