Yesterday, I posted a piece noting that Leon Panetta, Barack Obama's choice as CIA director, could draw opposition from CIA insiders and vets because he has been a fierce foe of waterboarding (a torture tactic used by the CIA), has advocated greater congressional oversight of CIA covert operations, and in the 1990s, as President Clinton's budget chief, pushed for cuts in the CIA's budget. Yet the first important blasts came from Democrats. Both Senator Dianne Feinstein, the incoming chair of the Senate intelligence committee, and Senator Jay Rockefeller, the outgoing chair of the committee, huffed that Panetta was no intelligence professional.
Their knee-jerk response--which seemed to contain a resentful dose of no-one-in-the-Obama-camp-asked-me-about-this--could give cover to those who object to Panetta on policy grounds and to CIA people who don't want an outsider taking control of a troubled agency that screwed the pooch on 9/11 and Iraq WMDs. Remember Curveball?
My CQ blogger colleague Jeff Stein raises a good point:
If the "intelligence professionals" take a deep breath, they may find that Obama's choice is the best thing that could happen to the CIA, at least in one regard: the former White House budget director, chief of staff, congressman, onetime Republican (a Nixon appointee) and longtime Washington power broker is hardly likely to play second fiddle to a mere general or admiral occupying the [Director of National Intelligence] chair.
One way to look at the not-yet-announced appointment is that Obama is putting his own man at the top of a very sensitive agency, one that could make or break his presidency, in the same way that JFK installed his brother Bobby at the Justice Department.
Still, this appointment could become the nomination battle of the Obama transition. The GOPers have to fight about something, right--if only to prove to their base that they are not on life-support? And they could slam Panetta for his 1990s attempt to cut the intelligence budget--and, by extension, assail the Clinton administration for having not done enough to thwart the perps-to-be of 9/11. The CIA community could join in, with a leak campaign that would undermine Panetta.
I'm assuming that Obama, his aides, and Panetta have thought this through and see the possible storm ahead. But this could get ugly.
It is indeed possible to view the Panetta appointment as Obama selecting a political loyalist to run a sensitive agency, but I think it shows a dash of daring to place at the helm of the CIA a long-established Washington player, known for his competence, who might be willing to try to whip the spies into shape and protect them from White House meddling. It's a tough job to be a presidential appointee running an agency that sometimes has to tell the president his assumptions are wrong. ("Sorry, Mr. President, massive bombing of North Vietnam is not going to win the war.") Panetta might have the standing to do so. But he'll have to get through the confirmation process first.
Coupled with Obama's decision to name Dawn Johnsen, an academic critic of torture, head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (the office that said yay to waterboarding and unlimited presidential authority in wartime), the Panetta selection shows that there might be real change in Washington, even if Bob Gates is staying on at the Pentagon and Larry Summers is back. These are both significant picks that send a significant signal: time to clean up the mess left behind by Bush.
Feel free to follow me--see what I'm posting and where I am appearing--on Twitter.com by clicking here.
![[RSS]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
![[ARCHIVES]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/archives_icon.png){kind=icon}
Comments
""How Ugly Could a Panetta Confirmation Battle Get?""
not as ugly as what the israelis have been doing to gaza.
http://tinyurl.com/a4ujc5
Posted by: as_if!
| January 6, 2009 1:17 PM
Two weeks to go.
Two days are too many.
The Blagojevich / Burris problem comes right out off the White House and the scandel over the firing of US Attorneys. Remember who wasn't fired and who did exactly what was needed to cover up the Valerie Plame incident? Here we have a prosecution without an indictment carried out in the press and Fitz has given the senate a giant wedgie.
Reid doesn't need another Democratic Senator from Illinois. If he had 99 Dems and one Gop senator he would be hard pressed to pass a bill.
And the Gaza war also comes from the white house. Cheney denies our support. Why Cheney? I Bush can't have a settlement in his legacy then he will muck it up so no one can.
How many more people will die in the next two weeks? Too many.
How many days left? Too many.
Posted by: geof01
| January 6, 2009 1:18 PM
Leon is only upset by waterboarding when WE do it. As long as they are sent to Egypt first he is just fine with it.
Posted by: Dbltap
| January 6, 2009 3:51 PM
GHW Bush headed the CIA without ever having been a pro. Why is this case any different?
I wish the Israelis were not being so nice to Hamas and its supporters. after 6,000 missiles its time to kick ass and bury the bastards.
What did the USA do in 1962 when the Cubans tried getting some issiles? Did they smile tolerantly and say that the Cubans will never really harm anyone with those cute Soviet missiles? Seems to me the USA took action of the sort that threatened WWIII.
Americans are very tolerant of Israeli Jews being murdered by anyone anywhere at all. Its just some boyish highjinks by those lovely Hamas guys. They don't mean anything by it. They are just having fun firing missiles off.
Yes, Israel declines to support any Hamas led nation. Hamas' charter declares that Israel must be destroyed. In light of that intention, zero tolerance is far too tolerant.
Posted by: kalpal
| January 6, 2009 4:31 PM
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."
Thomas Mann (1875 - 1955)
Posted by: capt
| January 6, 2009 5:52 PM
After pointing out that the official announcement has yet to be made, here's what Obama said about Panetta:
...He brings extraordinary management skills, great political savvy, an impeccable record of integrity. As chief of staff to the president he is somebody who obviously was fully versed in international affairs crisis management, and had to evaluate intelligence consistently on a day-to-day basis.
Having said all that, I have not made an announcement. When we make the announcement, I think what people will see is that we are putting together a top-notch intelligence team that is not only going to ensure that I get the best possible intelligence--unvarnished--that the intelligence community is no longer geared towards telling the president what they think the president wants to hear, but instead are going to be delivering the information the president needs to make critical decisions to keep the American people safe.
I think what you're also going to see is a team that is committed to breaking with some of the past practices and concerns that have, I think, tarnished the reputation of the agencies, the intelligence agencies as well as U.S. foreign policy....
(kos)
Posted by: capt
| January 6, 2009 5:54 PM
Longest 2.5 months of my f'n life.
-T
Posted by: Hajji
| January 7, 2009 10:44 AM
Post A Comment