Former Goldman Sachs chief Philip D. Murphy evidently arrived in the style to which he is accustomed last month to take up his new post as U.S. envoy to Germany, touching down in an ostentatious top-of-the-line executive jet that left German Chancellor Angela Merkel grinding her teeth over President Obama's gift of ambassadorships to wealthy donors.

What do President Obama and the Queen of England have in common?

Why, Lyndon LaRouche, of course.

Laughed off as a wing nut for his longtime campaign to lay the global narcotics trade at the feet of England's monarch, LaRouche rarely merits more than a passing mention in serious political coverage.

But what seems to have escaped the notice of all but a few astute reporters is that those incendiary, TV-worthy posters of Obama-as-Hitler originated not with outraged populists or conservative Republicans but LaRouche.

It's hard to find any clear winners in the new interrogations set-up confirmed by the White House on Monday, but it's easy to spot the losers: Leon Panetta and Dennis Blair.

The lawyer for a defendant in the trial of more than two dozen CIA operatives charged with kidnapping in Italy is trying to stir up interest in his client's plight just as President Obama arrives in Rome for a G8 summit meeting of the world's industrialized nations.

Mark Zaid represents Sabrina Desousa, who was listed as a diplomat at the American embassy in Rome and U.S. consulate in Milan at the time of the 2003 kidnapping of an al Qaeda suspect known as Abu Omar.

The White House confirmed this afternoon it was withdrawing Phil Mudd from Senate consideration to be the Department of Homeland Security's intelligence chief.

Mudd, a career CIA employee who is currently the head of FBI counterterrorism, said the choice was his.

(For a fuller analysis of this case, see "Writing Was on the Wall Before DHS Intel Nominee Withdrew.")

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has taken to many stumps lately to proclaim that the CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques" saved the United States from another terrorist attack.

That leaves the question of what prevented another terrorist attack after the torture, as some call it, of terrorist suspects stopped.

Sure, President Obama got a warm welcome at the CIA. Everybody saw that.

But according to the New York Daily News' James Gordon Meek, the spooks melted like teen girls at a rock concert. 

Finally, reality caught up to the movies.

Americans have been waiting a long time for a U.S. Special Ops team to win one outside the movie theater.

I had to laugh when I heard our next ambassador to Afghanistan say, "every poll will show that 90 percent of the people firmly reject the Taliban."

You can't make this stuff up.   

Lt. Gen. Karl W. Eikenberry may be a great warrior, a very smart guy, and turn out to be a  very fine ambassador. But that's a bunch of baloney.

Candidate Obama called for doubling the size of the storied Peace Corps, but President Obama is falling far short of that pledge, with plans to ask Congress for perhaps a 10 percent budget increase in April.

That has a growing chorus of Peace Corps veterans hopping mad.

In nothing else, Chas W. Freeman's surprise surrender Tuesday shows that when it comes to U.S. national security policy, the Arabs will never trump Israel in Washington, no matter how many think tanks they fund, law firms they hire and former American diplomats they buy.

Once Freeman's name surfaced as the Obama administration's choice to head the National Intelligence Council, he was as doomed as an Afghan villager in the cross hairs of a Predator drone.

Vice President Joseph R. Biden more than backed up his boss's view Tuesday that U.S. and NATO troops are not winning the war in Afghanistan.

"We are not now winning the war, but the war is far from lost," Biden told a news conference in Brussels today after three hours of talks with NATO allies.

But an assertion by Biden that 70 percent of Taliban guerrillas could be persuaded to stop fighting or turn against their Afghan brothers-in-arms drew scoffs from experts in Kabul.

Lost in the weekend hubbub over President Obama's judgment that the U.S. and NATO forces were losing the war in Afghanistan was his interesting remark on renditions.

In a New York Times interview aboard Air Force One, the president reaffirmed that the administration is reviewing the policy of renditions - the practice of capturing a terrorist suspect and "rendering" him (or her) to the United States or elsewhere for detention -- but he pondered out loud one particularly difficult situation:

Norman Ornstein is official Washington's version of Al Michaels and John Madden combined, not just tracking the power plays but assessing them as well.

So it's worth taking notice when Ornstein, the go-to guy for quotes on government and politics at the American Enterprise Institute, suggests that President Obama's next pick to run Health and Human Services will have to be a Tom Daschle without catsup on his tie, somebody so familiar with Capital Hill he (or she) could shepherd a health care reform beast through Congress.

Somebody like Leon Panetta, Ornstein said on the Diane Rehm Show on NPR this morning.

Word hasn't leaked yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if President-elect Barack Obama has already figured out that when he wants quick answers to what's going on in the world, the last person to ask is the head of U.S. intelligence.

The steady deterioration of personnel and standards of intelligence analysis, especially at the CIA, has been going on for decades, a number of former top intelligence officials I know say.

The tip of the rot surfaces from time to time, such as with the 9/11 surprise and the gimcrackery reports on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The dogs howl and the caravan moves on. Nothing changes, many well placed former intelligence officials have been telling me.  But the current, possibly fatal dangers we face demand the problems be fixed.

We've been spending too much time chattering about the operations side of intelligence lately, they say, in particular whether Leon Panetta, the former OMB head and chief of staff to President Clinton, is up to handling the spies and back-alley guys and gals.

But officials have been reminding me that it was the dismally poor analysis of intelligence that enabled President Bush to lead the nation into the disastrous invasion of Iraq -- not faulty espionage (such as it was).   

And it's the analysis served up by the CIA and other spy agencies, they point out, that will guide President Obama's decisions on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Korea, among other front-burner emergencies.

And that, say many rueful former officials, is where the agencies need a severe spanking.

Can Obama do it where so many of his predecessors have failed? One can only hope that the erstwhile professor, forged by the Socratic methods of his Harvard Law School instructors, will lay the lumber on his intelligence chiefs and briefers, asking them harder questions than they're used to.

Such as, "How do you know that?" 

Now, this is a staple of a good newsroom. It's a question editors ask reporters, and good reporters ask sources, all the time. I like to think that an old-fashioned city editor would have laughed the pre-war intelligence on Iraq out of their newsrooms.

But the melancholy truth, according to my well placed sources, is that even after the  intelligence disasters of 9/11 and Iraq, President Obama has a better chance of getting up-to-the-minute information on, say, Hamas, from newspapers than he does the PDB - the President's Daily Brief - served up by the Directorate of National Intelligence and CIA.

"So," I asked a former intelligence agency head over seafood this week, "if I'm President Obama, and I call Leon Panetta into the Oval office and ask him to tell me how Hamas leaders are holding up under the Israeli assault, will he be able to tell me?"

The former official shook his head, nearly blushing.   

No.  "That's not the kind of information" they focus on.

"Well, what do they focus on?" I asked.

If the viability of Hamas isn't important right now, what is?
 
He said the CIA, State Department and Pentagon intelligence agencies do have people specializing on the Palestinians, and even Hamas. But it's not likely they would have up-to-the-minute information on whether, say, in response to Israeli military pressure, its leaders are fighting among each other, unifying, or even where they are.

They just don't have that kind of stuff, he said.

Wow.

What about the NSA? I asked. Could the CIA's Hamas guy call his NSA counterpart and get cell phone intercepts from Gaza to help fill in some holes?

"They won't give it to him, because they don't want their information to help CIA look good."

Right.

And the National Intelligence Directorate, which was set up to put an end to that kind of horse play?

A work in progress, he smiled.  

Ok then: What can CIA briefers tell Obama about Hamas next Wednesday morning?

"They would tell them what they know," said, like squids squirting ink, until they could get back to headquarters and ask around.

But even then, said this former official, Panetta or Adm. Dennis Blair, the incoming head of National Intelligence, would probably not have anyone on staff to answer such specific questions.

Unbelievable, even to me.

He agreed: Unbelievable.

He nodded. "You tell people this and they don't believe it."

This from a man who has devoted his entire adult life to U.S. intelligence.

But doesn't the CIA have guys like Robert Redford in "Three Days of the Condor"? I asked, half joking, guys who read books, who specialize in more or less arcane things?

Doesn't it have people immersing themselves in subjects like Hamas, as intelligence intellectuals? A CIA version of New York Times columnist and author Thomas Friedman, to name just one of the better known?

Not so much any more, he said. There was a time when the CIA and other agencies hired and encouraged analysts to drill down deeply in, say, Chinese wheat harvests. 

But no longer, he insisted.  And there's little intellectual curiosity in the analyst ranks today, he maintained. A roguish kind of independence among the best journalists is neither sought, nor encouraged, in U.S. intelligence these days, he said.   

Everyone in the spy agencies is feverish about "current intelligence," writing reports that might get the attention of their bosses, maybe even the President of the United States, he said.

But isn't the current leadership structure of Hamas - I kept coming back to that - "current intelligence"?

No, not necessarily, he said. "Current intelligence" is the big-picture stuff that CIA chiefs like to show off to the president -- "what we know about Iran,"  usually larded with sexy secrets -- not necessarily what the president needs to know. 

It's quite likely that the analysts' bosses might not have asked them to track the state of Hamas, he said.  And when their bosses haven't tasked them with such a challenge, the analysts then to be "passive," fixating on a hot piece of secret information that came in over the transom, no matter how incidental to the more critical question: what's Hamas up to?

After much resistance, CIA and DNI finally did set up an Open Source Center with analysts, some of whom don't even have security clearances, working from unclassified material. And they've proved to be very good, some experts say, giving the spy agency a fresh view on developments ranging from Iran to North Korea. The final verdict is far from in, but one well informed former official said that on at least one subject he was familiar with, the regular CIA analysts "couldn't hold a candle" to the Open Source Center's product.

But of course, that begs the question of exactly what the 16 agencies of the so-called U.S. intelligence community -- who still hoard information like children at day care, according to most accounts -- are actually doing with $65 billion a year.

And what, especially, should be done to fix the CIA, with all those floors upon floors of people scattered across Northern Virgina gathering and analyzing secret information?  

"Blow up the place," my lunchtime guest said, "and start over."

Unfortunately, that's not a new idea, either.

"These are people who are sweating blood everyday to make things happen and living for the day that somebody is going to come in, institute real reform and turn the CIA into the vital, effective organization it should be.  To them this choice just says that no such changes are impending and that all they can look forward to is business as usual."

"I am a big supporter of President-Elect Obama," Faddis added, "but Panetta is not the guy we need to run CIA right now. He may be a very good man. (But) he knows nothing about intelligence, particularly human intelligence" -- recruiting and managing spies.

"To fix that you need to get down in the weeds and really address the nuts and bolts of how CIA is performing its mission.  You cannot do that unless you understand the business, and, frankly, you probably can't do it unless you have been out on the street doing the work yourself."

"Other qualities are capacity to make decisions when there are no easy options and to take responsibility for them, situational awareness about the secondary and tertiary consequences of those decisions, good judgment about what is right, true, or advisable when presented with conflicting assessments -- a common situation in a field where you are almost always dealing with incomplete information.  An instinct for dealing with people -- at the core of the job.  The capacity to communicate clearly to a work force that needs an understanding of the larger picture in order to fit their discrete jobs into the broader mission."

"No matter how well intentioned he is or how intelligent, he does not have the background.  He does not even speak their language. He will end up like Porter Goss did, sitting in an office, talking on the phone, and, at ground level, nothing will change," Faddis maintained.

President-elect Obama's selection of former congressman and White House official Leon E. Panetta to run the CIA is likely to give Republicans fresh ammunition to reopen questions about the Clinton administration's counterterrorism policies.

Critics have long maintained that Clinton was uninterested in intelligence issues and slow to come to grips with the threat of Islamist terrorism, even after the first attack on the World Trade Center, in 1993.

Panetta was budget director and later chief of staff during the first Clinton term.

In an interview three months after the 9/11 attacks, Panetta said that senior Clinton aides viewed terrorism as just one of many pressing global problems.

"Clinton was aware of the threat and sometimes he would mention it," Panetta told the New York Times. But the "big issues" in the president's first term, he said, were "Russia, Eastern bloc, Middle East peace, human rights, rogue nations and then terrorism."

"When it came to terrorism, Clinton administration officials continued the policy of their predecessors, who had viewed it primarily as a crime to be solved and prosecuted by law enforcement agencies," the Times said.

Information gathered through grand jury investigations by the Justice Department after the 1993 bombing pointed to overseas, but the information was not shared with the CIA because of the "wall" that existed then between intelligence and law enforcement operations.

As for Afghanistan, the CIA virtually abandoned the region in 1989 after defeating the Red Army, and the Clinton administration (and Congress) did nothing to reverse that policy, leaving the spy agency with few sources to follow the emergence of al Qaeda.

Another Clinton aide back then, George Stephanopoulos, said he believed the 1993 attack did not gain more attention because, in the end, it "wasn't a successful bombing."

"It wasn't the kind of thing where you walked into a staff meeting and people asked, what are we doing today in the war against terrorism?" he added.

It wasn't until a truck bomb tore into the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, killing 168 people, that plans to reorganize the government's counterterrorism efforts were revived, Panetta said.

If Oklahoma City could be hit, a terrorist attack could "happen at the White House,"  Panetta said.

Two months after the bombing, the Times reported, "Mr. Clinton ordered the government to intensify the fight against terrorism. The order did not give agencies involved in the fight more money, nor did it end the bureaucratic turf battles among them."

Three years later, Clinton responded to the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa with cruise missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan, moves that drew caustic comments from Republican presidential aspirant George W. Bush   during the 2000 campaign.

Panetta was appointed chief of staff to Clinton in 1994, and served in that position until 1997.

In 1996 he was handed the duty of informing then-CIA Director John M. Deutch that his appointment would not be renewed in the second administration.

He was a Democratic congressman from California's 17th district from 1977 to 1993.

Panetta was also a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which recommended a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

He is firmly on the record against the use of torture to interrogate terrorist suspects.

"We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that," Panetta wrote in The Washington Monthly last spring.

"[In] reality the risks to maritime flows of oil are far smaller than is commonly assumed," Blair and Kenneth Lieberthal wrote in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs. 

"First, tankers are much less vulnerable than conventional wisdom holds. Second, limited regional conflicts would be unlikely to seriously upset traffic, and terrorist attacks against shipping would have even less of an economic effect. Third, only a naval power of the United States' strength could seriously disrupt oil shipments."

"According to a participant who would speak only if he was not identified, that led Cambone to stalk over to Blair after the meeting, jab his finger into his chest and declare that he expected more out of him," Newsweek said.

"Blair worked on a report that helped the Air Force decide to pursue a multiyear contract for F-22 Raptor fighter jets. At the same time, he was on the board of EDO Corp., a subcontractor to Lockheed Martin on the F-22 project. After news reports about the apparent conflict of interest, Blair resigned as the head of IDA and his board seat at EDO."

"In a time of war with these difficult legal issues, he is going to have many, many tough issues to face. But they couldn't have picked a person better suited or more qualified to address them."

The draft of a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq says that the country is in danger of flying apart in a new spiral of violence provoked by unresolved conflicts between Sunnis, Shias, Kurds and other groups.

"U.S. officials familiar with the new National Intelligence Estimate said they were unsure when the top-secret report would be completed and whether it would be published before the Nov. 4 election," McClatchy News reports.

A few days ago I wrote a column trying to clear up the campaign debate over the value of having "direct talks" with Iran, North Korea, etc.  

The Obama-Biden team, I wrote, had not been clear about what it means, which I thought opened them to phony charges of "appeasement."

What both sides should agree on is what "direct talks" mean, for the good of the country, if not themselves. It does not mean, as Obama has carelessly implied in some interviews, sitting down with, say, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, without pre-summit talks.

Of course, there are always pre-summit talks, also called "preparation," and these are done -- Yes, Virginia - without preconditions.  Given all the e-mail I've gotten,  I guess I didn't make that clear.

As Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who refined "direct talks" with their secret dialogue with China, have often said, you cannot find out what the other guy wants, and tell him what you want, without first sitting down "without preconditions."

Think of it in terms of  Tony and Phil, in The Sopranos. First they send emissaries to lay out their position. If they still have problems, then they have the sit-down. If that doesn't work, then they apply a little pressure.

If that doesn't work, then they whack the guy. But hey, ya gotta try to tawk first. 

One of the more provocative but little noticed passages in Bob Woodward's fascinating new book, The War Within, reports on a meeting between Defense Secretary Robert Gates and retired Army General Jack Keane, the White House's secret, backchannel conduit to the Iraq War commander, Gen. David Petraeus.

President Bush and Vice president Cheney were using Keane, a plain spoken Irishman with a boxer's face, to get around the Joint Chiefs of Staff and communicate directly with Petraeus, who'd presided over a dramatic reduction in violence in Iraq.  It didn't hurt that Petraeus welcomed more troops in Baghdad, while the Chiefs worried about U.S. forces being stretched too thin to handle emergencies elsewhere in the world. He'd also managed the Sunni tribes' U-turn on al Qaeda in Iraq

On April 7, the end of Petraeus's tour of duty was on the horizon, and Keane was working hard to convince the brainy general to take over CENTCOM, where he'd be responsible for U.S. military forces across the entire region, instead of the far more comfortable, and traditionally prestigious, slot as supreme commander of NATO.

Keane also wanted Gen. Ray Odierno, the highly regarded, "unsung hero" of the turnaround in U.S. fortunes in Iraq, to take Petraeus's job in Baghdad.

Both men opposed any withdrawal timetables of U.S. forces in Iraq while the situation remained dicey there.

An Obama administration would find it difficult to oust either of them, Keane argued to Gates.

"Let's be frank about what's happening here," Keane says.

    "We are going to have a new administration. Do we want these policies continued or not? Do we want the best guys in there who were involved in these policies, who were advocates for them?"

Keane presses Gates.

    "Let's assume we have a Democratic administration and they want to pull this thing out quickly, and now they have to deal with General Petraeus and General Odierno. There will be a price paid to override them."

After his July visit to Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama said he would listen to the senior military leadership on Iraq, but not be bound by their advice.

    "It is clear that Gen. David Petraeus, in his role as U.S. commander in Iraq, prefers 'maximum flexibility' over a timeline for troops withdrawal. The notion is that either I do exactly what my military commanders tell me to do, or I am ignoring their advice. No, I am factoring in their advice and placing it into this broader strategic framework."  

An Obama spokesperson could not be reached late in the afternoon, but it's safe to say that the Democratic candidate will replace, or keep, any general he wants to as commander-in-chief.

McKelvey: You liken Obama to Britney in your famous ad, while portraying yourself as the more serious candidate. Which celebrity would you like to be compared to? Bob Dylan? Jack Nicholson?

McCain: Kiefer Sutherland. [laughs, imitates a voice from the show 24] "It's Jack Bauer." We have a lot in common because he escapes all the time.

McKelvey: Um, he's also a torturer.

McCain: Yeah, that's right. That's where Jack and I disagree. He believes in torture, but I don't. He says, "Tell me where the weapons are." The person says, "I won't." Bam! "OK, I'll tell."

Barack Obama sounds almost Rumsfeldian when he talks about a couple brigades -- about 7,000 troops -- being enough to save our bacon in Afghanistan. The Pentagon says it wants three, which also could turn out to be far from adequate.

"A lot of intelligence -- much of it unclassified and possible to discuss here -- indicated that senior Afghan officials were deeply involved in the narcotics trade. Narco-traffickers were buying off hundreds of police chiefs, judges and other officials. Narco-corruption went to the top of the Afghan government. The attorney general, Abdul Jabbar Sabit, a fiery Pashtun who had begun a self-described "jihad against corruption," (said)  he had a list of more than 20 senior Afghan officials who were deeply corrupt -- some tied to the narcotics trade. He added that President Karzai -- also a Pashtun -- had directed him, for political reasons, not to prosecute any of these people."

The curtains are coming down on a lingering, virtually meaningless Senate debate on "several apparently doomed amendments" to electronic surveillance legislation, my CQ colleague Tim Starks reports, with final votes scheduled for tomorrow,

Passage of the legislation overhauling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act without amendments that would make telecommunication companies legally liable for their participation in the adminstration's warrantless monitoring of phone calls and emails is all but certain.

"Currently it looks like they'll finish up tomorrow afternoon," Starks just told me by e-mail from the Senate press gallery, where he's he's following debate.

 And Sen. Barack Obama is expected to vote for it, he says.

I'm thinking it'll get about 75 votes, maybe more. Cloture on the motion to proceed (aka a vote against filibustering, in essence) got 80, with 15 "no" votes, but that may have been a reflection more of people wanting to get on with it. The five who didn't vote on cloture include Obama, who said he's on board with the bill, and he's now expected to attend the vote tomorrow. The earlier Senate bill that was slightly more Republican-friendly got 68 votes in February, so this will get more than that, at least.

Obama's vote has created some very unhappy campers on the left, Starks notes.

His positional shifts on this matter -- he was adamant in his opposition this version of the FISA bill once upon a time -- have driven some on the left absolutely bonkers.  Last I checked last week, a group of his supporters opposed to immunity was the biggest group in the www.my.barackobama.com house, his very own website.

Bush administration officials have signaled their opposition to all three amendments pending to the bill, Stark writes.

Each would modify or cut out a provision of the bill that would effectively wipe out lawsuits against companies being sued for assisting President Bush's warrantless surveillance program.

"I do believe at this point in time to give this retroactive immunity kind of makes a mockery of the fact that we're supposed to be a government of laws, not people," said Sen. Barbara Boxer , D-Calif.

The leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee, however, argued against the amendments.

"Private companies who cooperated with the government in good faith, as the facts before the congressional intelligence committees demonstrate they did, should not be held accountable for the president's bad policy decisions," said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV , D-W.Va.

Liberals, meanwhile, announced the formation of Accountability Now, http://www.actblue.com/page/accountabilitynow, whose goal will be to defeat members of congress who voted for the bill.

Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald writes that the fight against telecom immunity is not over, and that members of Congress who opposed it will be targeted in the elections.

(T)he campaign we have been conducting is intended to be only the first step -- not the last -- in taking a stand against the endless erosion of core constitutional protections and the rapidly expanding Lawless Surveillance State. We have created a new organization, Accountability Now, to conduct the ongoing battle to target and remove from power those who enable these abuses; to force these issues into our political discourse; and to prevent the Washington Establishment from continuing to trample on basic constitutional protections with impunity.