Tuesday, January 06, 2009
The argument for Leon Panetta
If both Dianne Feinstein and Bill O'Reilly are unhappy with Barack Obama's choice to run the CIA, Leon Panetta, that is a signal to look into it more deeply. In a round-up grading Barack Obama's senior appointments, Wizbang blogger HughS made this argument, which strikes me as more likely to be true than any other I have read or heard in the last day:
Panetta at CIA: A+ (This was a head scratcher at first, but then the light came on: he's going to let the CIA continue to do its thing. Panetta's just there to make sure Obama doesn't get impeached...)
Agreed.
Look, the Democrats would go nuts if Obama picked anybody from the tainted and hated Bush era, even an Agency careerist, to run the CIA. There is too much emotion around rendition, secret prisons, and coercive interrogation for anybody who has served since September 11 to past muster on the left. But neither is Panetta the next Stansfield Turner, who was sent in by Jimmy Carter to emasculate the Directorate of Operations. Panetta may not know intelligence, but he was Bill Clinton's chief of staff. Leon Panetta knows how to play defense in Washington better than anybody, and that is what he is there to do. My prediction, and it is only a prediction, is that Panetta will let the CIA do what it needs to do within reasonable boundaries and protect Barack Obama (first) and the Agency (second) if there is blowback.
Of course, your results may vary.
9 Comments:
By 
JPMcT, at
Tue Jan 06, 11:01:00 PM:
If Panetts is not going to tun it - and, of course, he can't - I wonder who the man behind the curtain is going to be.
Somewhere in this Machiavellian melange, the continued safety of our families will be the responsibility of someone. I wonder who?
By Joe Katzman, at
Tue Jan 06, 11:38:00 PM:
Problem with the thesis: Panetta's tenure as White House Chief of Staff was distinguished by the lowest amount of access the CIA has had to the President in recent history.
The defense argument smacks of very wishful thinking. Past history suggests that the interpretation of "he will politicize the CIA further, while extending the reach of political correctness" is every bit as plausible.
which is dangerous in an intelligence war. And especially dangerous if "doing its thing" is currently producing a lot of failures and very poor work. The CIA's recent record of "analysis" in Pakistan being a most excellent and unfortunate example.
By 
, at
Wed Jan 07, 01:40:00 AM:
So, many people are defending Panetta for his intelligence, honesty and track record as Clinton's chief of Staff.
Do I remember clearly that it was the Clinton DOJ that came up with the rule that intelligence cannot be shared among the intelligence agencies and the FBI even on counter-terrorism issues? That bin Laden and terrorists were considered a law enforcement issue? That the Clinton administration twice refused to take custody of bin Laden for political reasons?
If there is a pony in that pile of Clinton administration expertise, then I am failing to see it.
By Gary Rosen, at
Wed Jan 07, 03:24:00 AM:
Far more disturbing than the fact that Panetta was chosen for DCI is the reason he was chosen. BO had originally considered CIA veteran John Brennan. But Brennan withdrew his name from consideration because "liberal blogs" (according to a NYT story) raised a storm that he had not sufficiently protested Bush's "torture" policies.
http://tinyurl.com/5pgw67
This is the exact reason I left the Democratic party after 35 years. It is not only disturbig but frightening to me that the Michael Moore wing of the Democrats has *any* influence over national security, let alone enough to influence the choice for DCI.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Jan 07, 06:08:00 AM:
Joe, there is nothing in your comment to disagree with. Gary, I agree. I was sort of taking it as a given that we could not get anybody who was in any way tainted by the GWOT era, for precisely the reasons you describe. It is all too emotion. So, given that, is Panetta a bad pick? I hope not, but I am not saying that we do not all have to be worried that the CIA's already diminished capabilities (has it ever recovered from the Church hearings and Carter and Clinton administrations?) will not be degraded further. We shall see.
By , at
Wed Jan 07, 10:13:00 AM:
TW's take is a great explanation for "Why Panetta?" Obama & Co couldn't go to Feinstein first to say "we're picking Panetta so you can't use the confirmation hearings to create a media circus about the Bush CIA years." Which is why she's so pissed ... she's been denied her week on national TV.
In this context, Panetta may not be so bad a pick.
Link
By , at
Wed Jan 07, 11:12:00 AM:
Panetta is exactly the wrong guy to have at CIA if Pelosi and her ilk want show trials on Bush policies such as rendition and warrentless wiretapping, which happened during the Clinton years as well, under far less restraint than under Bush.
Further, it's naive ot expect an outsider to change the CIA's organizational culture. Like any entrenched bureaucracy, it will stonewall and obfuscate and compartmentalize itself against outside interference. It can only be changed from within, which means that Obama, or whichever President is really serious about cleaning out that nest of vipers, will have to recruit allies already inside. Obama giving up on Brennan without a fight proves he's not interested in that, unless he's very naive. I don't believe he is, but like everything Obama I find his goals and motivations a mystery.
The only way Panetta makes sense is TH's take - Panetta is there to give Obama cover. If a CIA scandal blows up there's still plenty of room under the bus, and lots of time for us to discover that "this is not the Leon Panetta I knew."
By , at
Wed Jan 07, 04:30:00 PM:
Initially, I called this appointment "weird". After reflection, I've decided it's instead hugely pragmatic. If the CIA is now politicized, as any Bushie would tell you with enthusiasm, then you need an accomplished and pragmatic politician in charge to make sure they don't do to Obama what they did repeatedly to Bush. Another way to look at it is to ask why Bush didn't appoint a politically savvy, highly connected politician with proven loyalty to the Presidency, come what may. From this perspective, Obama couldn't have chosen better and Jones/Gates probably breathed a huge sigh of relief at the announcement.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Jan 07, 06:08:00 PM:
The buzz in my limited circle of intel people is more pessimistic... that he is there because he 1) isn't an insider and has absolutely no loyalty to anyone in the intel agency and 2) will be loyal to Obama. This means that he can be relied upon to gut the Agency and its children however he sees fit.
If it's done right, maybe this could streamline the Agency and clean out some of the post-Church garbage. (this includes personnel, who by now are in positions of 'leadership')
If it's done wrong, it'll just cripple the poor girl and make us even more reliant on the military than we already are for intelligence collection and operations.
