Leon Panetta, a former congressman with no intelligence experience, has been tapped to run the CIA ^[1] 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.

UPDATE: A senior intelligence official tells me: Hayden takes pride in what CIA has accomplished since he has been there.  Morale is higher than it has been in years, there is a clear focus on the mission, and there have been some notable successes.  Playing offense against terrorists and countering weapons proliferation are among those successes.  Those efforts have saved lives and helped keep the country safe.”

“Mike Hayden has done a lot of good over there at the CIA.  If in fact that is the decision that has been made, Mike will leave the place in far better shape than he found it.  That’s for sure.”