CIA slapfight

What's the most important story today? Inter-party squabbles over who told what when over Barack Obama's choice to lead the CIA, Leon Panetta. You see the media got word that Panetta, a former Clinton White House Chief of Staff and the OMB director, was the pick for CIA head and blared it all over the place. This of course ruffled the feathers of outgoing Senate Intel Chair Rockefeller and Diane Feinstein because Obama didn't tell them before the media got wind and broke the story. So the nomination might be in jeopardy. Because Washington is a place run by adults.

The surprise selection of Panetta, a former California congressman and chief of staff to President Clinton, would give Obama a CIA director with loyalty to the White House and an experienced managerial hand to steer the administration away from potential intelligence scandals.
...
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who this week begins her tenure as the first female head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she was not consulted on the choice and indicated she might oppose it.

"I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director," Feinstein said. "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."

A senior aide to Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the outgoing chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the senator "would have concerns" about a Panetta nomination.

Of note, the people that were unequivocally agreeable to Feinstein and Rockefeller, to whom which raised no concerns: Tom Ridge, Michael Chertoff, Condi Rice, Don Rumsfeld, Michael Hayden, and Feinstein also backed Porter Goss and Michael Mukasey. Of note is their claim that they want a career intel professional in charge, which is interesting since that's never really seemed to be a concern before. But more interesting is trying to find a career CIA man who isn't entangled in the CIA's policies of torture and rendition, policies which Feinstein and Rockefeller didn't actually oppose and, despite some tough talk, completely buckled when it came time to actually do anything.

Panetta? He's unequivocally against torture, rendition and all that shit decent people find objectionable. He's also run a giant Government bureaucracy and helped steer a President through national security and foreign policy waters. So of course he's unqualified and raises concerns. But I guess Barry made a mistake, he didn't hand hold the children enough before the press leaked something and now they're mad that Obama didn't make the horrible, torture riddled choice they wanted him to make. Barry, hand out the "Pobody's Nerfect" cookies, look sheepish, and pretend to care about what two people (whose stewardship of the Intel Committee has been abysmal) think about your choices.