Broom the CIA

Greetings Al, et al,

I think this Panetta appointment is very exciting. and Al, I think you are dead on about this one. Here's a thought: bring in retired 4 star General Wes Clark, beloved by the progressives, to help Panetta with the CIA.

Clark obviously knows about the end use of intelligence, and how important it is for it to be accurate. And I think his appointment would provide political cover on both the progressive left as well as from the military establishment. I'm sure they would much prefer to have him fighting battles in someone elses yard.

Ken in California

But apparently Sen. Wyden was not only briefed but CONSULTED! The more I read about this, the more this reads as a message to Feinstein. Apparently, she's been pushing for a neocon that was Hayden's right hand for the job.

Also: Sen Roberts (R-KS) is supporting Panetta. Actually, suprisingly, conservatives and liberals have come out to state their support while Rockefeller (the outgoing) and Feinstein(the incoming) Chair of Intelligence had their hissy fits. Fittingly, these statements of support have come across the political spectrum.

KLo at NRO has an interview with a former spook saying the place needs a through airing and Obama needs someone good in a knife fight:

Partisan political conflict during the Bush years allowed CIA dysfunction to thrive and grow. The CIA may have difficulty running basic espionage operations, but when its way of life is at stake, it fights like a retrovirus regardless of the commander-in-chief’s political party. The CIA’s sophisticated system of press leaks has been a textbook covert-action operation, in which journalists are given leaked information in exchange for articles which support the CIA’s agenda. CIA-stoked controversies over terrorist interrogations, wiretapping, the Libby case, and Iraqi WMD kept President Bush off balance, and at times even threatened to put his people in jail.

Former CIA director Porter Goss attempted some minor reform, but without White House support he was quickly expelled by CIA bureaucrats. Obama’s choice of a loyalist shows he understands the threat he faces from a dysfunctional CIA. That the CIA served President Bush poorly doesn’t make it the Democrats’ ally.

This is a fight Obama can win. Feinsteins original statement that Panetta was inexperienced was so stupid and the sheer mendacity discouraging in a democrat that she deserves to be slapped down. But she's out there now having been spanked online saying this is the presidents choice, if he keeps around some good spooks at no. 2 (which Ambinder indicates he would) Feinstein won't have a problem with this.

The next four years are going to be FUN.

The first hissy fit of 2009 was definitly entertaining, lol.

I would love to hear what you think about this Wyden wrinkle Al.

Diane Feinstein is married to a war profiteerer and she is a torture apologist.  I am thrilled at the choice of Panetta (knowing very little about the man).  I just know that if Bond and the WIMPOCRATS are whining then the choice must be an INSPIRED ONE.

Rhoda - I really don't know whether it was an intended slight or not. Ambinder states flatly that the news - leaked to Andrea Mitchell of NBC and also the NY Times first - did not come from the Obama camp. He suggests it might have come from someone wanting to derail the nomination.

Perhaps there was a plan to make the courtesy call to Feinstein one of the last ones (knowing that she'd been pushing for an insider at the post). 

My other instinct is that Feinstein is not doing her own bidding here, that some other person or persons is behind it, and she's merely the public face of it. But I don't know. We've reached out to all our sources in the intelligence community and will let y'all know the moment we know more.

My Twitter account was hacked (along with those of a lot of other people) last Sunday and I've been without notifications for the last few days.

I come back and see that The Field made its financial goal-yay!-and there are so many new posts by Al!

All of them are classic Al--wonderful!

I can't believe how much I learn here!

I'm not going to the Inauguration, but my Mom (if things are still OK at home w/Dad) and my sister are going; and my award-winning poet daughter is having an international poetry slam on Sunday the 18th.

I'm gonna sit in front of C-Span all day...ALL DAY.

Thanks, Al!

Thanks Fieldhands!

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

I saw her on Rachel Maddow's show last night talking about this and as much as I would want to believe she is nothing but an above average gossip hound, she seemed to have a good understanding of the various positions of the players on this story.  For the most part, during the election and subsequently, she has had good intelligence - I would imagine in large part because of all of her connections (and experience lol!).  Perhaps put her to work in the CIA, huh? 

When Feinstein is outside her comfort zone, this is generally a good thing.

Thanks for the reply, Al! I look forward to  your posts. Either way, I'm glad day two of this has gone far smoother for Panetta. I'm worried that McConnel and Bohner, having been neutralized on the stimulus by Obama's adoption of low income and middle class tax cuts, will make Panetta and Holder the fight they use to wipe the shine off the new president. Similar to how the confirmation process wipped the shine of Clinton and allowed the Republican message machine to gain a foothold.

I would actually look forward to you blogging the confirmation hearings - it seems that will be were we see if the Right has recovered from it's Nov. 4th drubbing and reorganzied to run a message against Obama and the democratic congress.

Feinstein, Rockefeller, Schumer, Lieberman -- I'd like to see them all primaried. A bunch more too. Or better still, investigated!

While I am extremely proud of O for this selection, am I crazy, but I worry about the risk of this.  He is flying right into the heart of darkness here.  The heart.  And as has been said, the CIA may not be able to gather enough intelligence to keep us safe but they seem to be real good at keeping their own agency away from true scrutiny and accountability.  These people don't play.

Our country has experienced some really dark times -- political assasinations, wars, other catastrophes that have never been fully explained and we seem to move on without acknowledging the danger and cost of real  and profound change to our system.

My prayers and deepest aspirations are with this new administation.  He has and we have, a lot to do and not a little of it will be all kinds of risky...

Diane and JR are just the centurions posted at the gate. The head and heart of the beast are deep inside many of our institutions.

Robert Baer is a former field agent for the CIA who wrote several excellent books detailing his experiences during his tenure there.  He now writes for Time magazine and penned the following opinion on the nomination of Panetta:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1869824,00.html

Sounds like you and he are in agreement, Al.

Somebody is sure pushing Feinstein, Rockefeller, and Bond...and the press as well.  I was listening to Tom Gjelten this morning on NPR and he said that "it would be fair to say that not since John Kennedy appointed John McCone has there been a less experienced nominee for DCI." (paraphrase)

What a crock.  I immediately wrote in to NPR:

No, it would not be fair to say that. George H.W. Bush, when nominated for DCI had no agency or intel experience. He had been a Member of Congress (not on the intel committee), an ambassador (to the UN and to China), and an oilman. As an ambassador, he would have had some dealings with intel to be sure, but no more than Panetta had as White House Chief of Staff, Iraq Study Group (the Baker Commission) member, and even as an Army intelligence officer in the 1960s. Mr. Gjeltens comment was obviously incorrect on its face. Does he do any research before he reports? Do your editors?

And I thought Andrea Mitchell looked completely out of her depth last night on Maddow.  The cross-currents and rip tides of spin she is in the middle of right now must be pretty strong.

The last people on earth Obama should consult are those who are complicit in the crimes, even if, like Feinstein and Rockefeller, they are Democrats.  Or maybe especially if they are Democrats.  You are right, Al:  the testing challenge is from the Old Guard.

Elie,

If you are crazy, you aren't the only one. I know the CIA desperately needs cleaning up, but I'd be lying if I said that I don't quiver a little inside when I think about Obama trying to take this on.

The bottom line is, though, that the job needs doing, and this is one of the reasons we hired him. It's not going to be a boring four years, that is for sure.

I came across this account by Leon Panetta of Dick Morris' role in the Clinton White House:

"I always had the feeling that the president wanted to listen to the dark side, even though he clearly knew in his guts where the issues were and what he wanted to do. He always wanted to listen to the Morris voice to kind of say, what are the thoughts of the most extreme kind of manipulative operation that could go on in politics? I want to hear that voice. I want to hear what he's thinking."

Glad to have someone in this position who understands how it is that good intentions get corrupted, and hopefully, how to avoid a detour to the "dark side." The history of the CIA is all too steeped in "the most extreme kind of manipulative operations."

Sam Donaldson calls into a local rightwing radio station here (what other types are there that engage in political conversation?) and his take is that Panetta will not be approved by the Senate.   He noted that Carter picked one of Kennedy's speech writers (Severenson?) and he was shot down.

The cynicism of our culture is so deep.  Why would Panetta automatically be discounted?  Probably because he doesn't have that 'killer instinct'--the instinct to kick any independent nationalist movement in the face that dares to put their people's interest in front of the profits of US corporations.

Yes, US foriegn policy needs deep house cleaning, and I hope that the deep members of the CIA don't get any ideas about thwarting democracy in here in the US.

We might have to have a little talk with decrepit Democrats like Finestein and Rockafella--but I suspect that Obama will pull out the grass roots mobiization card only on critical policy matters.

A note from a California constituent of both Leon Panetta's and Diane Feinstein's. Feinstein has long seen Panetta as a threat to her in-state political ambitions, though I don't remember ever seeing or hearing that he did anything to support that belief. I covered Panetta as a public radio reporter before and after he left the Clinton admin. There was some local pressure for him to run for governor (a position Feinstein has long coveted) but he never rose to the bait, saying he didn't have a statewide base. It doesn't surprise me that Feinstein would resist anything having to do with Panetta.

..the job needs doing.

Perhaps there is more safety with audacity - and also more illumination -- a test shot to see who reacts and how they react. Like turning on the light in a roach infested kitchen - what/who moves/reacts and where do they run?

The Time article above has a more benign interpretation of the CIA as the wronged party in the last eight years.  I think that it is way more complicated than that but maybe a bit of innocense doesnt hurt the effort..

Like you say, it will be interesting and probably also a bit scary at times....

yes to Mukacsy but no the Panetta. come on Feinstein who are you trying to kid?

Obama has made great appointments this week - both Panetta at CIA and the four at the Department of Justice. I am very proud of him and thoroughly disgusted with DiFi and Rockefeller.  With Feinstein, part of me wonders if she is holding on to her strong pro-Hillary views and this may be affecting her responses.  Then again, she may (rightly) see this as a rebuke of her approach to intelligence and security these last 8 years (as maybe more).

Obama seems to be ready to focus with a surgical strategy to get to the core of the multiple challenges this country faces. In this present dangerous world, Intel is one of the arteries that must flow with clarity and vigor. Selecting Panetta, a man with intelligence, character, political acumen, and constitutional loyalty, to define what needs to be done is brilliant.

As always, Al, thanks for your insights.

mcjoan noted on the front page of DK that Obama was asked about Panetta during the press scrum today:

"When we make the announcement, I think what people will see is that we are putting together a top-notch intelligence team that is not only going to ensure that I get the best possible intelligence--unvarnished--that the intelligence community is no longer geared towards telling the president what they think the president wants to hear, but instead are going to be delivering the information the president needs to make critical decisions to keep the American people safe.

I think what you're also going to see is a team that is committed to breaking with some of the past practices and concerns that have, I think, tarnished the reputation of the agencies, the intelligence agencies as well as U.S. foreign policy...."

More and more I think Brennan's name was floated purely as a head fake, to try and get a few guards to drop. Based on how shrill the reaction to Panetta has been I'd say that worked out pretty well.

And no, Elie, you're not alone. I have a feeling the stab of fear I had to stifle watching his Denver speech - him alone on stage, out in the open (even though he really wasn't) - is just gonna hit me even harder, and daily, if this becomes a true war between the White House and Langley.

More and more I think Brennan's name was floated purely as a head fake, to try and get a few guards to drop. Based on how shrill the reaction to Panetta has been I'd say that worked out pretty well.

I suspected at the time that this might be the case. It was a little too pat that he suddenly "gave in to the netroots" when he is perfectly capable of ignoring them and has done so. For instance, on FISA.

Ah, yes. How many blogger diaries and comments did we read condemning the president-elect over some press report (that would turn out to be false) that he was going to appoint someone to a post, only to have him appoint someone else in the end?

1. I totally agree about the broom and feel that an experienced former chief of staff like Panetta is an inspired choice - it's the kind of move that makes me admire Obama.

2. The "no drama" thing is over - an administration has far less control over - well - just "stuff" than a campaign does. There will be plenty of drama, just as we've seen over the Richardson disaster and all its nasty finger-pointing fallout and this silly Feinstein snit - she comes away looking bad on this, I think.

That said, Obama and Biden just did what they had to: they apologized to a senior senator. Maybe that's the next iteration of no drama...

One further point - how incompetent is Harry Reid, pulling the schoolhouse - er - Senate door stunt against a perfectly qualified (and legal) African-American appointee. What an utter embarassment to Democrats.

Chicken Littles thrive on unsourced reports, especially those in Republican leaning media sources. How many times have I seen certain bloggers freaking out over something that was reported in the Wall Street Journal with no sources and that is later proved to be false.

Another pet peeve of mine is people who say that they keep being surprised by Obama, but they do not seem to take the time to study and learn how he thinks and how he works. If they did so, they would not be surprised. I cannot say that I have been truly surprised by anything he has done in the last year. He is surprisingly consistent once you understand his approach.

How many times I've missed him over the years.

DiFi also chairs the Senate rules committee and just this evening she declared that Burris should be seated. (lol) Guess her feelings got hurt.  

You don't have to believe that the CIA is the root of all evil to recognize that the extraordinary prerogatives and operational autonomy of that agency, during much if its history, make it mandatory for any president who wants to control fully the government's foreign operations to have a loyal, highly intelligent, widely respected, independent figure as CIA director.  An agency whose culture is one of secrecy should be headed by someone whose stature allows him to call out any effort to keep the facts from him, and who knows the president and other senior people well enough to get the White House on the phone whenever he wants. The CIA's misdeeds have been exaggerated by those who accept any claim of American fingerprints on various coups or regime changes.  But what Panetta's stature can help do is to deter operations that CIA insiders know the president wouldn't like, because they know he will have instant access to Obama.  Panetta cannot be played.  The great peril of Bush's interposition of a "Director of National Intelligence" between the White House and the CIA is that it introduced another degree of separation between the president and the agency.  By putting someone with supreme credibility and presidential access in charge at the CIA, Obama solves that problem.  Al is right:  This is a brilliant appointment.

OT but as an Australian I could not help not missing this one:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2009/01/06/blair_house_myster...

The hubris, the irony - John Howard's massive electoral defeat (he even lost his own seat in Parliament) at the end of 2007 was the harbinger of 'change'.

How embarrassing that this old discredited has-been from my country and his 'Hyacinth Bucket'* wife has 'forced' the Obama family to say in a hotel for a few weeks.

BondiBeachViews

*lead character from a British comedy series about a socially pretentious wanna-be who pronounces her surname “Bouquet”.

Among the myriad groups that make up the US Intelligence Community (NSA, DIA, etc), the CIA is unique in that its job is to provide the President with the information he or she needs to do make sound foreign policy decisions. I can't think of any better training for this job than having been a White House Chief of Staff as Panetta was in the Clinton years.

The CIA is and has always been a mess, in no small part because it has generally put its own organizational survival ahead of US national interests. Elie's line about the CIA's inability to gather sufficient intelligence to keep us safe but plenty to keep itself safe is, I think, spot on.

My hope is that Panetta will focus the Agency's efforts on being the world's best newspaper, albeit with the world's smallest market--President Obama. Tell it like it is, Leon.

I had to smile as I read Maureen Dowd in the NYT tonight:

"...People complain that the 51-year-old Harvard and Columbia Law School grad and author is not a glib, professional pol who knows how to artfully market herself, and is someone who hasn’t spent her life glad-handing, backstabbing and logrolling. I say, thank God.

"...The press whines that she doesn’t have a pat answer about why she wants the job. I’ve interviewed a score of men running for president; not one had a good answer for why he wanted it.

"...I know Caroline Kennedy. She’s smart, cultivated, serious and unpretentious. The Senate, shamefully sparse on profiles in courage during Dick Cheney’s reign of terror, would be lucky to get her."

Nuf said.

Kristen Breitweiser draws from her self-proclaimed expertise on foreign intelligence-gathering and the role of CIA Director to conclude that if Panetta is confirmed we're all going to die.

She's convinced me, all right.  Convinced me that giving Kristen Breitweiser webspace is like handing a toddler a loaded revolver.  Remember her dire predictions of electoral defeat for Obama?

As Josh Marshall commented, the nature of Panetta's enemies convinces me that he is a good choice.

Can I just say that I love this blog and it's the first and some days only political news I read? And that I am so proud to be a FieldHand and to offer my support (however small) to the Fund for Authentic Journalism?  I haven't done any CL-ing in ages, and now no one around me does either; I just tell them, "Don't worry, Al says ...".  Really, your gems of wisdom would be suitable for fortune cookies if they were a bit more brief. LOL

De una Field Hand muy agradecida por para poder leer el Field

Si somos americanos, seremos buenos vecinos;
compartiremos el trigo,seremos buenos hermanos -- canción de Rolando Alarcón

That if the CIA was connected with any enitity other than the U.S. government, it would be deemed a terrorist organization, and for good reason.

Now I'm just itching to know who will be tapped for the federal Bureau of Prisons?

Thanks, Allan, for posting the links to Kristen Breitweiser. If anyone needs more proof of her lack of analytical ability and intellectual honesty, take a look at this from last January 14:

If Clinton is ahead in delegates after the 22 primaries and caucuses on February 5, Obama should stop running and join her in a national unity ticket. No divisive battles like the Reagan-Ford contest in 1976 or the Kennedy-Carter contest in 1980 -- struggles that probably doomed both Ford and Carter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/thats-the-ticket-clint...

Needless to say, she never considered that Obama might be ahead after Super Tuesday (which he was) and she never called on Clinton to step aside for the good of the party.  Politically that worked out, since the extended primary season helped Obama organize in places like NC and IN, but it surely demonstrates how KB's political analysis lacks perspective, depth and overall smarts.

I love this pick. The people crying out about the pick of Panetta like Feinstein and Rockerfeller(both Bush enablers) just reinforces to me how good a pick this is.

What did they tell Feinstein to make her back off and does it matter that the press is presenting whatever was said as a profuse apology?

To say that George HW Bush also had no prior experience at the CIA before being named as its director is an excellent point to direct at Panetta's critics, but there is a fair amount of evidence out there that suggests Bush was certainly no outsider regardless of any official status. That shouldn't be overlooked.

The attacks against Panetta seem to be more about his verifiable outsider position, rather than notions of "experience". Using the Bush example can serve to clarify the basis of these attacks, but don't forget the hidden history. 

Accidently posted here on Jan 10th.  Re-posted on 1/12.