Leon Panetta, a former congressman with no intelligence experience, has been tapped to run the CIA in the Obama Administration.
It is hard to know what is worse: the rampant Washington insiderdom or the shocking lack of experience. Panetta did not even serve on the Intelligence Committee in his years in the House. His only connection to the intelligence world is that he reviewed the CIA budget when he was President Clinton’s budget director in the 1990s. That link is so feeble it is odd that Obama insiders even trot it out; but they do, it is right there in the New York Times story.
Other leading Democratic contenders were shut out because they, like Rep. Jane Harman, voiced some support for Bush-era interrogation techniques that provided key intelligence that thwarted attacks against America and her allies.
The key question: Why not simply keep on the current CIA director? Hayden is experienced and trusted by case officers in the field. And, since he came on after waterboarding terrorists had stopped, he has no connection to the practice so deplored by the Daily Kos crowd.
Obama needs to explain why an inexperienced former congressman and lobbyist will be a better CIA director than the guy doing the job now.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
PJM Home
Disinformation : 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror
Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror
Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror
The Myth of Market Share: Why Market Share Is the Fool’s Gold of Business
21 Comments
1. dan:incompetence at CIA would be convenient for certain purposes….
Jan 5, 2009 - 2:12 pm 2. keithacita:green jobs means hiring green people i.e those without experience.
Jan 5, 2009 - 3:37 pm 3. David Thomson:I am disturbed by the argument that Leon Panetta should be selected because he is “not controversial.” His lack of experience is supposedly a plus. Are we going to exclude viable candidates due to the fact that they engaged in morally gray activities on behalf of our nation? If so, we are serious danger.
Jan 5, 2009 - 4:36 pm 4. Kathleen:Seems to me that Obama is determined to pick up where GW was in 2000. A domestic president, ignoring any threat from without. Granted we are facing problems within, but to ignore the now proven threats from without, well it’s crazy. On the other hand, it’s exactly what GW did.
Jan 5, 2009 - 7:09 pm 5. Tom Holsinger:Leon Panetta is an excellent manager and a better hatchetman. His job is to keep the CIA from wrecking the Obama administration the way it did the Bush administration. I expect he will succeed at this.
California Democrats oppose him precisely because he is competent. This means he can do the job, won’t fail, and so doesn’t need their support to stay in office despite his failure. They don’t have a piece of him.
Plus he knows where lots of Democratic bodies are buried, not least those which California Democrats wish would stay buried. This means he can call in political favors when he acts against CIA factions which get out of line. Panetta is a first class political operator, and an excellent choice as Director of the CIA.
Jan 5, 2009 - 7:18 pm 6. frege:But deep down in his heart, he probably doesn’t feel the proper amount of moral outrage that KSM was waterboarded for 30 seconds. That’s why the Huffington Post types can’t accept him. Based on Obama’s track record, how quickly following a major terrorist event do you expect these ones will be thrown under the bus (if they haven’t already with Gates and Clinton)? Obama doesn’t want to be the first one-term black president.
If they think rendition is the same thing as torture and has to be banned, then they may be thrown under the bus sooner than we think. Who knows, maybe the MSM will soon be explaining the facts about what we’ve been doing with enemy combatants rather than parroting AQ and Al Jazeera propaganda.
Jan 5, 2009 - 8:10 pm 7. Insufficiently Sensitive:Tom Holsinger’s point is excellent, if true.
But I shudder that the Director of our CIA should be chosen for his expert partisan hachetry against Americans, rather than as one who would be devoted to gathering intelligence on behalf of all Americans.
But granted, after the CIA’s unelected political skulduggery against the elected Executive, some serious housecleaning needs done. Unfortunately, said skulduggery was rampantly on behalf of the party from whom the new Director is now chosen. Small chance that the guilty parties will be weeded out: more likely, their critical colleagues will be.
Jan 5, 2009 - 8:45 pm 8. NS:Tom Holsinger,
some of the folks at NR agree with your view about how Panetta would stop the CIA from working against the President as they did against Bush.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2EyNmZhM2ZkODFmMjNlNDYyNjRmZjYwMmIxYjY3OTM=
But at the same time its a joke that some one who has had zero experience in intel is the head of DCI. One of my friends who is an Obama crazy guy thinks that this means the DNI is going to be more important than DCI. So, Blair is supposedly going to have more influence than Panetta.
Jan 5, 2009 - 9:11 pm 9. William Keller:An “excellent choice as Director of the CIA”?? Really?!?! Just what was the record of the Clinton administration regarding terrorism? That alone should scare the hell out of you when you see Panetta in charge of the CIA. I want the head of the CIA to look over the previous night’s KIA report for terrorists world wide before he/she even takes their morning leak! You really think Panetta will even give it a glance? This pick should give everyone pause in how seriously Obama will take the terrorist threat. It is obviously very low on his priority list. We will pay the price just as we did under Clinton. Oh, wait, the whole Clinton team is back - how silly of me.
Jan 5, 2009 - 9:40 pm 10. DavidN:<>
This is one of those things that no one, other than the wingnuts on the far left, understands. The current director worked for Cheney (none of them think that Bush is anything other than a potted plant) and since Cheney is evil personified, Haydon must go. That simple.
<>
He’s a Democratic operative, so he’ll do what he’s told, and he’ll do as good a job as he can. So I gather, he’s supposedly qualified because he’s inexperienced. Hell, I’m inexperienced, why don’t they appoint me? Let Panetta be Secretary of Commerce, he could do that pretty well.
Jan 6, 2009 - 12:41 am 11. Sullihan:Leon Panetta is an adult mired in a political party dominated by children. Why did he leave the Clinton Administration at the end of the first term? I think he knew that the undisciplined President was going to wreck the Administration. And when he left did Bill Clinton offer him anything other than a “fond fare thee well”? No, nothing. Bill and Hill’s attitude was the same as 8 year olds who think they have convinced the babysitter to quit.
And for what or for whom, pray tell, did Leon ever lobby for?
Jan 6, 2009 - 1:06 am 12. John:Rest assured there’s a motive to this appointment. Obama and company are not dumb. We may never know.
Jan 6, 2009 - 1:31 am 13. David Thomson:“His job is to keep the CIA from wrecking the Obama administration the way it did the Bush administration.”
Has it really come down to this? Please reread the above sentence. It should cause you to weep. Wasn’t the job of the CIA director to defend our country? Since when did it become their main duty to protect the reigning administration? Tom Holsinger has inadvertently provided the best reason why the CIA should be dramatically revamped—if not disbanded. This major spy organization has apparently become the General Motors of government.
Jan 6, 2009 - 2:28 am 14. Odds & Ends | Pundit Review:[...] is a lurch left and rated it an F. Micheal Leeden disagrees, he thinks it’s a smart move. Richard Miniter says, “It is hard to know what is worse: the rampant Washington insiderdom or the shocking lack of [...]
Jan 6, 2009 - 8:37 am 15. Jbl:Hayden SHOULD stay…an effective leader should not be thrown away simply because of politics, and it’s clear Obama is appointing Panetta because he is afraid of keeping “another Bushie” and further alienating his “base.” He’s putting political considerations before American safety and security.
Which just points out something no one will want to hear: Bush did not mind pissing off his base, if it came down to doing what he thought was right. Whether he WAS right is debatable, but the man had balls and the courage of his convictions.
Does Obama HAVE convictions? Or courage?
I look at him, and I look at what’s going on in the Middle East and I think…please, don’t let him look like such a lightweight over there!
Jan 6, 2009 - 8:44 am 16. Tom Holsinger:Sullihan, you asked: “Why did he leave the Clinton Administration at the end of the first term?”
I had said, “Plus he knows where lots of Democratic bodies are buried …”
Do the math.
Jan 6, 2009 - 12:46 pm 17. Ritchie Emmons:When I saw that Panetta was going to be head of the CIA, I had to google him to see if there was something in his professional life that I didn’t know about that qualified him to be DCI. I didn’t see it.
However, should we care?
The CIA has been a horrific segment of our government for a long time now. Possibly doing more harm than good. It missed the Berlin Wall, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, 9/11. More over, it is likely that several damaging leaks over the past few years have come from the CIA. Most of the top CIA employees are from (this is for you David Thompson) “elite” Ivy League schools and suffer from a liberal groupthink that I find naive and dangerous.
I will accept that there are some great CIA victories that we will never hear about. But they’ve been really wrong about the really big events. And they have actively/intentionally damaged this country to pursue their own political agenda specifically at the expense of the President. Disgraceful.
Is Panetta not qualified. Likely. Can he make things worse at the CIA. Doubtful.
Jan 6, 2009 - 9:33 pm 18. David Thomson:“Most of the top CIA employees are from (this is for you David Thompson) “elite” Ivy League schools and suffer from a liberal groupthink that I find naive and dangerous.”
The typical CIA employee is probably a politically correct and intellectually inferior individual. Unfortunately, few Americans are aware of the shabby liberal arts education provided by Harvard, Yale, and our other “elite” universities. It is only their hard science graduates who deserve unhesitating respect. The others like the brain dead Caroline Kennedy should be treated like idiots until proven otherwise. As matter of fact, she may very well represent the majority of Harvard’s soft science graduates.
Jan 7, 2009 - 9:09 am 19. Ritchie Emmons:Sorry David. I misspelled your last name there. Apologies.
Jan 7, 2009 - 5:58 pm 20. Evan:I think that this ignorance card people are playing with Panetta is valid within the public radar. His purpose as a director, however, will probably be to oversee operations without having any corruptible incentives. This seemed to be trademarks of former and current Bush administration cabinet members like Rumsfeld and Cheney.
Evan
Jan 9, 2009 - 10:51 am 21. Rubicon:http://www.beyondrace.com
I see Panetta’s role at CIA to weed out any “Bush-type” plants. The CIA failed us miserably in the past. Whether that was due to political correctness, stupidity, globalist aspirations, or whatever, they did not do the job they were hired to do. Add to this the myriad other failures within the entire government, and what we have are people running the show who have agenda’s that have nothing at all to do with the preservation & protection of America. From a DHS that has failed to properly secure the porous southern border where drug cartels are now threatening to spill their violent activities over into our southwestern states, to an FEC that was forewarned of financial scams as long ago as 1999 & who did nothing, the system has become a cabal of corrupted operatives seeking their own place at the international table when America is divided up to eat. Whether this is an organized effort or the orchestrated efforts of a select few who have bamboozled the stupid & greedy within our government & within special interest groups, really no longer matters. What matters is, most of these folks are looking out for only themselves & have no concept of duty, honor, country. Panetta is simply another political attack dog placed at CIA to cover Obama’s back & root out any who appear conservative they think the Bush people may have planted there. Wanna bet the very first anonymous leak to the press by someone at CIA will causes such a stir & that heads will roll for such despicable actions? During Bush’s terms, leaks from CIA & almost every other federal agency were commonplace & the media who published anything, even w/o any proof at all, justified their dealings with anonymous sources as the “public need to know.” But if this happens during an Obama or Democrat administration, such anonymous sources will be branded traitors & rooted out with prosecution the order of the day for supposedly traitorous activities. Panetta is simply another use-fool idiot.
Jan 23, 2009 - 4:54 pm