God bless Panetta’s inexperience
No sooner had word leaked out that Leon Panetta was to be Obama’s choice for CIA director, than the sharp knives came out — from Democrats. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the incoming chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, let it be known that she wasn’t consulted on the selection and might oppose it. “My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time,” she insisted.
Outgoing committee chair, Sen. John Rockefeller, expressed similar misgivings.
Feinstein and Rockefeller are, of course, longtime intelligence community insiders. Feinstein has repeatedly supported legislation “enhancing” intelligence gathering powers, often at the expense of civil liberties. The same is true with Rockefeller — with the added bonus in his case that legitimate suspicions exist that he may have personally signed onto to the use of torture. Rockefeller was, of course, also an absolutely abysmal ranking member of the Intelligence Committee when the GOP was in charge, basically doing whatever the mendacious Republican committee chair, Pat Roberts, told him to do.
Panetta, on the other hand, has been an outspoken critic of the use of torture. As an outsider he is, of course, also free from the contamination of insider thinking.
Although it’s not the major point of this post, the whole idea that we need someone with extensive intelligence experience as CIA Director strikes me as absurd: the Director isn’t a field agent personally leading covert operations. To the best of my knowledge, no acting CIA Director has ever parachuted into Russia, or traveled undercover into the mountains of Pakistan.
No, the CIA Director is an administrator — the guy behind the big desk. And Leon Panetta, as a former presidential chief of staff, has no shortage of administrative experience.
The issue that’s really at play here, of course, is whether we want continuity at the CIA — as Feinstein and Rockefeller clearly do — or whether we want change. So let’s think about this for a minute. Initially, the CIA (together with others) failed to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks. Then it blew (or allowed itself to be manipulated regarding) the intelligence leading up to the Iraq War. Finally, it engaged in torture and unlawful surveillance, as a matter of agency policy, at the behest on Bush and Cheney.
I don’t know about you, but to me a little change sounds pretty damn good.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:15 am
Diane Feinstein is a pain in the butt. She pushed through the nomination of Mukasey, and he has proven to be a Yes-Man, super-sized dud. Her focus is often to vote in a way that enhances her husband’s business. I do not see her as particularly honorable. She rubberstamped much of Bush’s atrocities. It is unfortunate that she is now head of the Intelligence Committee. She will not add any luster to it. Panetta is a great choice. He is actually described as ethical, something that Feinstein lacks. What she and Rockefeller dont lack, are big egoes and over-inflated opinions of themselves.