Yet isn't it the responsibility of Richardson to be upfront about all this?
Posted by John at January 6, 2009 02:16 AM"The Obama team selected Panetta without consulting any of the congressional Democrats leading the intelligence committees..."
Assuming you are referring to Feinstein and Rockefeller, these are the same "dems" that abided torture, were instrumental in bringing the FISA debacle, MCA etc etc. Who gives a damn what they think committee or no?
Posted by Ron at January 6, 2009 03:30 AMPersonally, I don't think it makes even a bit of difference if the guy at the top of the CIA has intelligence experience. My biggest concern is that he's not a spook's spook and will be treated as an outsider by the rank and file. At the director level competent management decision making is what is needed. There's a whole agency below him trained in how to deal with intelligence. Sometimes a little seperation between the two is a good thing. Panetta certainly seems to have a healthy scepticism. We all remember how well George "Medal of Freedom" Tenet worked out.
Posted by snark at January 6, 2009 05:39 AMYou actually think Dianne Feinstein should have had a say in this appointment???
Feinstein voted back in the 1990s to censure Bill Clinton, but refused to vote to censure George W. Bush. She voted for the Patriot Act, without even reading it first, and voted again to renew the Patriot Act. She voted in favor of starting the Iraq War. She supported Michael Mukasey for Attorney General, in spite of his support for torture. She was a major Bush enabler on FISA. You're bent out of shape because Obama didn't consult her?
Really??
Posted by GreenVTster at January 6, 2009 05:50 AMAnd from what I gather Obama "throwing Richardson under the bus" is a reaction to this;
But a source with the Obama transition said Richardson's disclosures to the team were incomplete.
A Justice Department source also said Richardson neglected to mention the ongoing investigation on a background-check questionnaire.
Now, they may have dropped him off at the bus stop. But I find it hard to believe that comment constitutes being "thrown under the bus". Especially if he didn't mention it on his DoJ questionairre.
Posted by snark at January 6, 2009 05:58 AMThe Obama team selected Panetta without consulting any of the congressional Democrats leading the intelligence committees, perhaps wanting to avoid a leak.
If the Obama team failed to make a courtesy call to inform DiFi and Rockefeller about Panetta, remember that a courtesy call is not the same thing as asking permission: As others have noted, DiFi and Rockefeller have been enablers of the Bush regime. Bloomberg is reporting that Ron Wyden said he was consulted about Panetta so the DiFi/Rockefeller oversight appears intentional.
Your indignation over Panetta's selection is misplaced, largely because you rely on the Washington Post, another Bush regime enabler. To this day, Fred Hiatt and the editorial team still think things in Iraq are going well. But I digress.
A commenter at TPM highlights two main benefits that Panetta brings to the position:
1. Panetta has been around for a long time and has his own network. He knows how intelligence needs to be presented to the President - that is the critical issue here.
2. Panetta is a skilled operator, he knows how to get things done. He knows how to get a budget approved and to make the wheels of government work. He will be a force - both in the Administration and on the Hill -- much larger than any career guy could be. This is good. It gives the CIA the opportunity to re-create itself within the current structure.
Panetta has a great deal of integrity. He was a member of the Nixon Administration who resigned in protest. This is a guy who will let the CIA do its job yet is also willing to draw the bright line that it should not cross.
Posted by Ainslie Place at January 6, 2009 06:25 AMSteve....it's a good thing. Panetta is a good choice.
Also, I remember reading where you were telling us to give Obama a break 'cause he's not the prez yet. Let's give him time to put his policies in place before we get our diapers in a bunch....what happened?
It's ok....we just cant help ourselves....it's what we do. Glad to see your that you're posting more often.
Posted by Parallax at January 6, 2009 06:40 AMI'm inclined to agree w/ Ainslie Place and especially w/ GreenVTster. I'm no longer impressed w/ DiFi.
Posted by bartcopfan at January 6, 2009 07:24 AMI dunno, I wouldn't qualify either as a stumble...
I'm not sure what to think of the Panetta selection and have read some things I'm glad to hear. For example his strong outspoken views on certain issuse. Given his resume and experience in guv't that I've read about at tpm, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here. Either way, I'm inclined to agree with those that state the fact that some of the worst Dino Bush enablers on intelligence matters here were miffed at their not being informed is certainly one reason to think it was a good selection.
On the Richardson issue, once again compared to what Bush would have done here (he would've kept his pick and then with a huge media assist and faux outrage blasted Dems -who would've caved to his demands- for not giving him his cabinet pick). I really think it's not an issue or at least it shouldn't be. It certainly isn't as far as I'm concerned...The end result is that most likely it was the right thing to do, which is far different than what a repuke administration would have done. That's certainly a change for the better imo.
Posted by emal at January 6, 2009 07:29 AMIf there is an attack due to intelligence failures at CIA, Obama will rue the day he hired a man with no experience as it's head.
Another choice that shows his poor judgement.
Posted by manapp99 at January 6, 2009 07:55 AMAnother choice that shows his poor judgement.
Heh. Speaking of poor judgement, your butt-buddy GeeDubya: worst president in US History? Or worst "leader" in the world?
Yeah, who cares about DiFi, at least the guy wasn't in on the torture shit. That's gotta count for something, right?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 6, 2009 08:16 AMMap, Didn't W have an experienced head at the CIA when we WHERE attacked?
Posted by goose1 at January 6, 2009 08:31 AMI can't figure out if you're joking or not.
On the chance that you aren't...
I don't know how well Panetta will do as head of the CIA but it certainly can't be much worse than anyone Shrub picked. And was Bush, Sr. ever an intelligence "professional"? I think not, yet he was head of that spying agency.
So, let's hold our horses here and thank God that someone was chosen for the head of the CIA - AND the dude that he reports to - that thinks what W had done is a horrible erosion of the constitution and illegal or immoral. Maybe we will finally see the ending of torture and extraordinary rendition. And maybe if we're really lucky, we'll see the prosecution of GWB (read Cheney and lackeys) for some of his many sins.
Yeah, I know. I live in a fantasy world where right (or left :-) prevails.
Posted by gmknobl at January 6, 2009 08:51 AMPerhaps Steve would like to have Dick Cheney as head of the CIA. Word on the street is that Cheney will be looking for a job in just two weeks, and gawd knows he's plenty knowledgeable about things like torture and subversion.
Posted by joel dan walls at January 6, 2009 09:27 AMAbove post
Posted by goose1 at January 6, 2009 09:33 AM
[T]he choice itself of a political manager who knows zip about the world of intelligence reeks of a White House that wants control of the apparatus through a master beancounter. This is far less desirable than redirecting the Agency's policies and improving its morale by appointing a capable veteran like Stephen Kappes.
Prime Minister Putin, I know and you know that the KGB has a long history of engaging in unfortunate, problematic behaviors like torture and assassination, but please, sir, it would be a big mistake to shake up the organization now, when so many agents are demoralized. The new director of State Security ought to be someone with established links to the intelligence community--someone who can establish a rapport with all those demoralized field operatives troubled by lack of logistical support (not enough poison-tipped umbrellas, for example).
This Californian says that Feinstein, Rockefeller and John Yoo are peas in a pod, supporting any tough talking military man or spy. I don't know whether Obama intentionally snubbed DiFi or not, but I find that almost anything or anyone that she supports is bad for peace and bad for little people. We need real change in the CIA and in Congress. How many in Congress dare to speak up against insane US militarism and back-breaking military expenses?
Posted by erewhon at January 6, 2009 10:34 AMI hope Panetta does come in and manage the shit out of the CIA.
Cut costs, stop the militarization and politicization of it, get on with hiring efficient and competent personnel, bring it into the 21st century, and reclaims the integrity that was lost during the bu$h administration.
Diane Feinstein can take a long walk on a short pier! DiFi and her husband are only looking out for their MIC interests. Talk about a conflict of interest.
Keep it up Obama, looking good... I'll give you the time you need.
Posted by Seven of Six at January 6, 2009 10:47 AMwe used to call feinstein swinestein at uc berkeley
way back when she was anti gay jusy a piglette
now she is a huge jonas-r-slob main feeder at the corporate trough. the demos didnt realize that
us peasants are sharpening the ole pitchforks,
no health ins. no jobs, blah blah
gupta is pretty lame. i would rather have universal heath care.
Posted by ralphy-rocks at January 6, 2009 01:28 PMSteve;
I wanted to welcome you back from your sabbatical. However, your anti Obama rhetoric is same as you were doing during the primaries because you were supporting Hillary. How about accepting the election results and giving Obama a chance before you start criticizing. I think you should go back on sabbatical.
Posted by suresh at January 6, 2009 03:08 PMSteve: Seems your return from sabbatical is a bit sour....folks seem to like Leon....who gives a rats meow what DiFi thinks....good for Obama..just waiting to see how B.O. really feels about the wholesale slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza....welcome back tho' Steve and Happy New Year to Left Coasters.....hey Coyote, did your snow melt yet....finally did in Vancouver...after 23 miserable days!!
Posted by Goyo at January 6, 2009 04:35 PMI do not like Panetta as CIA head, but I don't think failure to consult DiFi carries any significance whatever. She is a proven poor judge of character and credentials (witness: Mukasey).
She deserved to be snubbed.
Obama can fail on his own. He doesn't need her help.
Posted by gtash at January 6, 2009 04:55 PMGoyo, we're finally almost melted away, thank goodness. December sucked big time - the whole year did. This new year better be happy, is all I'm saying.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 6, 2009 06:28 PMLeon's a great pick. As someone else has said...he's just there to make sure Obama doesn't get impeached. It will be business as usual there with minimal interference. Goes with most all the other great picks at Defense and NSA amongst others. Difi and otheres must have wanted to see 'change' at the CIA. This guy won't know what to change.
I heard this great one from a Clinton source...Leon's great at keeping secrets, with Monica in the office for 14 months while Leon was his chief of staff.
Way to President elect! Bush version 3.0 coming in less than two weeks.
Posted by peter at January 6, 2009 07:37 PMPants pissin pete..no one is as stupid as you appear..but you are proof that repukes are braindead..
Posted by headxray at January 6, 2009 08:48 PMSteve, not to pile on, but not telling the heads of the intelligence committees is the best thing about it.
Jay Rockefeller has been an absolute failure as the ranking Dem on the intelligence comm, bowing down in sniveling obesience to the threats from Cheney isn't my idea of leadership or serving the public good. HE KNEW ALL ABOUT THE TORTURE and did nothing, said nothing, took no steps to stop it, because the Bushites threatened him. What, they would arrest a sitting Senator for exposing their criminal and immoral activities?
And you should know way better about Feinstein, she deserves the back of the hand from California, and Obama, for her enabling and active participation in all the gop frames that have so poisoned our democracy and our society.
No, I think Obama sent those two fools a message.
And as for Panetta, he's a manager, not a spy. And he's dealt with National Security and the effects of intelligence gathering while working in the WH. And I don't think he can be rolled by politicians and their tools like Rocky was on a regular basis. No, I like his choice, and the same with the Admiral. No torture and spying on Americans taint to them sounds like a real positive to me.
Posted by Duckman GR at January 6, 2009 10:33 PM