Patterico's Pontifications

1/5/2009

Obama Names Leon Panetta as CIA Director

Filed under: General — DRJ @ 4:52 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Barack Obama today named former Congressman and Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta as his CIA Director:

“A former senior CIA official who advises Obama defended the surprise choice of Panetta, who has no direct intelligence experience beyond a two-year stint in the mid-1960s as a U.S. Army lieutenant. The official said Panetta had been a consumer of CIA intelligence when he was at the White House. He said he was selected for his administrative, management and political skills which will allow him both to control and advocate for the agency.

He said Panetta will rely on the expertise of CIA officers to balance his lack of personal intelligence experience.”

Obama is also expected to name retired Adm. Dennis Blair to be director of national intelligence. The AP describes both Panetta and Blair as “short on direct experience in intelligence gathering” and called this a signal Obama intends to make “a clean break from Bush administration policies.”

A clean sweep would be a good idea if American intelligence policies had not worked since 9/11 but they have. Further, the most objectionable tactic, waterboarding, was rarely used and has already been discarded. Can America really afford to sweep out qualified candidates and useful policies simply because, at some point, they were connected to the Bush Administration?

Apparently so.

I hope Joe Biden was wrong when he warned “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy” and “Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.” With novices in charge of U.S. intelligence, it may be much harder for the Obama Administration to respond.

UPDATE: More here on Admiral Blair:

“US officials say that this past April [1999], as militia terror escalated, a top US officer was dispatched to give a message to Jakarta. Adm. Dennis Blair, the US Commander in Chief of the Pacific, leader of all US military forces in the Pacific region, was sent to meet with General Wiranto, the Indonesian armed forces commander, on April 8. Blair’s mission, as one senior US official told me, was to tell Wiranto that the time had come to shut the militia operation down. The gravity of the meeting was heightened by the fact that two days before, the militias had committed a horrific machete massacre at the Catholic church in Liquiça, Timor. YAYASAN HAK, a Timorese human rights group, estimated that many dozens of civilians were murdered. Some of the victims’ flesh was reportedly stuck to the walls of the church and a pastor’s house. But Admiral Blair, fully briefed on Liquiça, quickly made clear at the meeting with Wiranto that he was there to reassure the TNI chief. According to a classified cable on the meeting, circulating at Pacific Command headquarters in Hawaii, Blair, rather than telling Wiranto to shut the militias down, instead offered him a series of promises of new US assistance.”

Excerpt from the 1999 The Nation article U.S. Complicity in Timor.

H/T Dana aka The politically incorrect Dana.

— DRJ

34 Responses to “Obama Names Leon Panetta as CIA Director”

  1. PE Obama and his minions had best make nice with the cabal that exists within the intelligence community, or they will eat their lunch, just as they did the Bush/Cheney crew.

    The National Command Authority has lost control of the intelligence apparatus of the country, and it is only a matter of time until we suffer for it, again.

    And then, there is the Dept. of Homeland Security.

    AD (3e59b2)

  2. Even my Obama pals are scratching their heads over this one. It really makes no sense? Is this so Hillary can have an unfettered conduit between Langley and Foggy Bottom?

    And of course Caligula sent his horse to the Senate. Minnesota just sent the back half. I gag a little every time I think of it.

    Joe (dcebbd)

  3. If you look at the NSA as the Republican intelligence organization and the CIA as the Democrat one, it makes perfect sense. Not quite as good as hiring Howard Dean to “Yeaargh!” our enemies into coughing up intel, but close.

    Joel Rosenberg (677e59)

  4. Leon Panacea??? We are going out white flag the French!!!

    PCD (7fe637)

  5. The novice part doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the fact that Panetta is more of a political operative. Nothing wrong with that but it isn’t confidence inspiring for DCI.

    Chris (ce5d67)

  6. I’m still waiting for President(snicker)Elect Juggy to name Bill Clinton Secretary of the Presidency.

    nk (d08690)

  7. Well here’s more about which to worry: apparently Mr Panetta’s boss as Director of National Intelligence is a guy with experience, but who ain’t quite so good at following orders.

    The politically incorrect Dana (556f76)

  8. What could go wrong?

    Obama is ushering in an era of world peace according to his supporters so it’s not exactly like we’ll need the CIA anymore or anything. If there are any trouble spots in the world, Obama will just sit down and talk to the parties involved, with no preconditions, and the problems will be solved.

    I see no issues here.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  9. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Panetta; the vote I cast for him in 1992 was one of the few times I’ve ever cast a vote for someone as opposed to voting against their opponent.

    But Adm. Blair is worrisome, if the politically incorrect Dana’s link in #7 is borne out.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  10. It sounds like a repeat of Bill Clinton’s relationship with DCI Woolsey–Clinton refused to ever meet with him. When the small aircraft crashed into the White House, the joke was, “Woolsey still trying to get a meeting with the president?”

    I would say, his worst appointment, but then you have Tim Geithner, who as head of the NYC Federal Reserve did “absolutely nothin’, say it again,” to stop the Wall Street meltdown.

    Patricia (89cb84)

  11. I’ve updated the post with more on Adm. Blair from The politically incorrect Dana’s link.

    DRJ (345e40)

  12. There are two additional items to this. One is that Diane Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was not told by Obama of the appointment and read it in the papers. She has said she may not vote for him.

    Second, there is an opinion around that Obama was smart enough to put his own guy at DCI, a mistake that cost Bush dearly. When he tried to rectify the mistake with Porter Goss, he backed down from the CIA and fired him. Inexplicable.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  13. The way I read it, Obama doesn’t really expect Panetta to run intelligence. He just needed to stick someone loyal in that spot because the left is all crazy about CIA people that might once have said something not horrible about water boarding.

    So he puts Panetta in as figurehead and budget guy, and someone that is already there (and understands intelligence) will actually run the place.

    MayBee (5b642f)

  14. Patricia: it’s pretty hard to argue that any apointment made by President-Elect Obama to date is worse than the appointment of Gov. Richardson, who has already been forced to step aside.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  15. Panette?
    At least he will ensure that the CIA has an approved outreach plan for gay/lesbian/transgendered agents in the Mideast.

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  16. Perfect, if you had read Bob Baer’s first book, See No Evil, you wouldn’t think that is a joke. He was working in Tajikistan or Uzbekistan (it’s been awhile) and was getting close to retirement. He asked that CIA replace him with a Pastu or Dari speaker as he was spending his time (pre-9/11) interviewing Afghan refugees. They didn’t have one so they sent a sexual harassment team instead.

    The person who eventually replaced him fired his best agent, an Uzbek general, because he was an alcoholic.

    Read the book if you have a strong stomach.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  17. I have seen you write it, Dr. K:

    The pursuit of perfection is the enemy of the good.

    And I think it is true.

    Eric Blair (3e2520)

  18. It seems to me Panetta is a political pick designed to shield an Obama Administration from CIA leaks and behind-the-scenes’ criticism that damaged the Bush Administration. It’s a good appointment for Obama but that doesn’t make it good for Americans.

    DRJ (345e40)

  19. Doesn’t that bit from “Li’l Abner” come to mind? About what’s good for General Bullmoose?

    Eric Blair (3e2520)

  20. #

    It seems to me Panetta is a political pick designed to shield an Obama Administration from CIA leaks and behind-the-scenes’ criticism that damaged the Bush Administration. It’s a good appointment for Obama but that doesn’t make it good for Americans.

    Comment by DRJ — 1/5/2009 @ 10:08 pm

    DRJ is right on this one. It’s a political move to keep the CIA quiet. Panetta is a good, loyal Democrat and he should be able to keep the malcontents quiet.

    Is he right for the job? I don’t know. Was the senior Bush right for the job? He seemed to do OK.

    We shall see, but it is an unusual choice and I have a bad feeling in the back of my mind about it.

    Ag80 (a35147)

  21. Oh, and thanks for the e-mail, DRJ. I know you are busy, and I appreciate your time.

    Eric Blair (3e2520)

  22. WBF……AISTBU.

    that pretty much says it all.

    can we arrest Juggy for perjury after he takes the oath on the 20th, or do we need to wait until substantiative material harm is done to the country and it’s citizens first?

    redc1c4 (27fd3e)

  23. Let me say this as a died in the wool Republican, for once I think Obama just might be right on this choice for DCI. Leon Panetta is a first and foremost a politician, in other words a master of bullshitting. He will be great in spotting and removing the burnt out and worthless lefty functionaries that need to be purged out. The DCI is ultimately both a policymaker and executes policy made by his masters. He doesn’t have to be a spymaster, that is for the deputies. He does need to purge the rogue elements at the CIA that have undermined the Bush and prior administrations and will undermine his as well. Whether you agree or disagree with the President, he is the policymaker and he needs a team that will carryout the policies instead of trying to undermine them.

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  24. The politically incorrect Dana thanks you, oh great one! 🙂

    The grateful Dana (3e4784)

  25. daleyrocks wrote:

    What could go wrong?

    Obama is ushering in an era of world peace according to his supporters so it’s not exactly like we’ll need the CIA anymore or anything. If there are any trouble spots in the world, Obama will just sit down and talk to the parties involved, with no preconditions, and the problems will be solved.

    I see no issues here.

    Well, of course he’s right! [slapping forehead!]

    The very relieved Dana (3e4784)

  26. By naming Panetta, Obama is admitting that no one with any experience and credibility is not buying into Obama’s “Bravo Sierra” and therefore Obama can’t find a good nominee.

    PCD (7fe637)

  27. *gives two big thumbs up*

    I have nothing but good feelings about this, and believe that nothing can go wrong.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  28. Panetta’s job is to make sure the CIA cabal doesn’t sideswipe Obama like it has been Bush.

    LarryD (feb78b)

  29. I know that our esteemed host doesn’t go in very big for these things, but Patterico’s Pontifications was (again) nominated as the best large blog. You can vote here.

    Our host won’t campaign — I don’t think — but please, please, please help him to at least beat out Amanda Marcotte’s Pandagon!

    The Dana who apprecited y'all helping him annoy the Delaware Liberals! (3e4784)

  30. Comment by cubanbob — 1/5/2009 @ 11:19 pm

    Panetta’s control of the ‘rats at the CIA will be a test of Rolodex power:
    Who has the best contacts at the NYT &/or WaPo?
    Panetta, or the countless number of “anon sources”.

    AD (4f3c82)

  31. The one reassuring fact is that the CIA is essentially useless since Turner laid off the Department of Operations in the post-Church hearings era. Read Legacy of Ashes is you doubt that. It’s only function now is political intrigue.

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  32. #31

    The Church hearings and the Turner era were surely detrimental. But the failures of US intelligence community have a deeper cause. For the sorry details read Spying Blind The CIA The FBI and the Origins of 9-11, by Amy Zegart.

    Stu707 (7fb2e7)

  33. What’s the big deal. Leon gradgiated the 5th grade and can probably cypher.

    That’s all it takes to be a double naught spy.

    Neo (cba5df)

  34. Neo, that allusion is even better than my Maxwell Smart or Hong Kong Phooey thoughts.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0986 secs.