Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Panetta Pick For CIA Post A Puzzler

Even the SF Chronicle is puzzled.

The reported selection of Panetta, 70, who was White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton and previously director of the Office of Management and Budget, caused a flurry of head-scratching among former intelligence operatives and policy analysts Monday, mainly because Panetta has no real experience in either intelligence or foreign policy, the bread-and-butter of the spy agency.


Apparently, Obama wants to politicize an agency that has no business being politicized, either that or he owes some serious favors.

It's important to note that Panetta is a SF Bay native, imprinted with the prevailing ideology of the region. But as we read further, we can see that not all elected officials from the area are impressed with this appointment:

"I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who will chair the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in the 111th Congress. "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."


I have always had a certain level of respect for Sen. Feinstein, not for her policies or positions on the issues, but for the way she has conducted herself. She is a lady and conducts herself in a highly professional manner, while many leftists have been uncouth and downright unprofessional, in their disagreements with the current Administration.

But now I can find another reason to respect her, as she appears to understand the importance of having in this position, someone that knows and understands intelligence as a discipline. If only she will follow through with this apprehension she has already communicated. There is no room for politics here, not in this area, not at this point in time of our existence as a nation. Talk is cheap, actions are golden.

Here's the thing, the best person to run anything specialized is someone that has worked in the field. Ideally, you want an engineer (maybe with an MBA) to run a huge engineering firm. If you are electing a county sheriff, you would prefer the candidate you support to have law enforcement experience. It's not hard to understand, is it?

What we are seeing here is the need for Obama to appease his leftist base, especially after antagonizing them by keeping Gates in the Defense Department. Their collective mouths dropped on that one, I am quite sure.

But this isn't the only reason he wants Panetta in this position. One major secondary gain he gets with this nominee is Obama's future ability to micromanage the agency. Picking someone that knows intelligence would not be as easy for Obama to control. The concern in this is, the agency's upper echelon may not keep the proposed director completely in the loop. This will make it difficult for Obama to have adequate oversight.

No one need say that Panetta shouldn't be part of the government, return favor or not. Return favors have always been part of the selection process, and they always will be. He is qualified to run something, just not something as important as this.

But here's a thought that the President-Elect should ponder in his musings. Richardson is history, why not give Panetta the Commerce job? His resume will support this appointment. Then, take another hard look at who needs paid back with the necessary credentials. Long story short, problem solved.

This will benefit his Administration in at least a couple of ways.

1. He will have a working knowledge of how things are and what is the reality of the situation, thus giving Obama the necessary knowledge to make his decisions. He doesn't need a political ass-kisser telling him what he wants to hear.

2. This saves the potential for embarassment later. If the upper echelon were to keep Panetta out of the know, there is a real risk of something blowing up with Panetta getting the blame for it. From a political perspective, this will also damage Obama's judgment. (Something, many of us questioned during the campaign.)

It's not too late to reverse this. If Obama faces opposition from enough of his own party, he will need to rethink it anyway. He may not have a choice and this isn't the way he wants to start off his term. But, he can minimize the damage by reshuffling this around. I do believe more people will respect him when he admits his error and corrects it. Even people that don't support him will be forced to give him credit, for a certain measure of humility (even if, it's only privately).

If he does not back away from this on his own, I hope Sen. Feinstein stands her ground. And I hope others join her. It's too critical of an area.



Addendum:
AC at Fore Left has some thoughts on this.

8 comments:

Greg said...

What's the need for a change at all at CIA? Ugh. We all knew Obama would suck. We knew he'd put us at risk. I'm still shocked to see it happening.

LA Sunset said...

Greg, I really think this one may fall flat. If Feinstein can stick to her guns and not respond to arm-twisting, she can derail this one. But not if she succumbs to moonbat pressure.

L'Amerloque said...

Hi !

After an extended hospitalization (since 6 Dec) Amerloque is back at home and would like to take this opportunity to wish a Happy New Year to everyone here !

This appointment is catastrophic, if rumours among the spooks here are to be believed. (sigh)

Best,
L'Amerloque

LA Sunset said...

Hi Amerloque,

When you dropped off the scene, I figured you had been ill again. I am sorry to hear that, but am glad that you are home and doing better.

Happy New Year to you and the Amerloque family.

Yes, this is a bad choice for such a sensitive area. Panetta's skills as an administrator are not the issue, as I am sure he can run a department that does not require the kind of background necessary to be successful at this level. But this is the CIA we are talking about, not the Department of Labor. Screw up in the Labor Department and the damage can be fixed much easier than screwing up in the world of international espionage.

Anonymous said...

I think you give Feinstein too much credit. She wasn't upset that Obama plans to nominate Panetta ... she was upset because he failed to notify her first and seek her advice.

Bottom line, he'll be approved by the senate, botch up the CIA, the US will be attacked once again, and it'll all be Bush's fault.

Bah.

LA Sunset said...

//I think you give Feinstein too much credit.//

Maybe so. But she is now credited with saying, "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."

She said it, now it's time to put words into action.

Z said...

Man, for us in California, Feinstein is a bonus but never QUITE compensates for the nincompoop Barbara Boxer..more's the pity. I'll never forget watching a CSPAN presentation years ago where she and her team were making some plea with big boards with illustrations, etc.
SO many misspelled words I was cringing.
Feinstein's at least honorable and I suspect this nomination won't fly any farther than a lead balloon. I hope.

Debonair Dude thinks this is a Hillary Payoff...he could be the winner of the 'how does this fill the tit for tat' award.

L'Amerloque...Prompt retablissement....bonne chance.

I'm with Greg ...why are we still shocked? Americans are such optimists, aren't we? Except Mustang! Mustang, it's getting scary, isn't it.

Anonymous said...

Welcome Back Amerloque and best of Health to you and your family in this New year 2009.

Please take care of yourself.