- ‹ previous
- 1820 of 8827
- next ›
CIA Insider: Panetta's A Good Pick for CIA Chief
The front page of The Washington Post screams, "Obama Is Under Fire Over Panetta Selection." The article notes that "current and former intelligence officials expressed sharp resentment over Obama's choice of Leon E. Panetta as CIA director." CQPolitics.com blogger and national security journalist Jeff Stein, quoting a former CIA operations veteran, reports that the rank-and-file reaction to Panetta at the CIA has been "overwhelmingly negative." Stein notes that many CIA field people aren't keen on bringing an intelligence establishment outsider into the CIA and would rather have someone who knows the nitty-gritty of spy work running the place--though Stein does report that "a number of former top CIA officials" have told him that Panetta could be a good choice, given that he can be expected to have the standing within the Obama administration to bring effective leadership to the agency.
I asked a former top CIA official who had served not too long ago to share his/her view of the Panetta pick. S/he would only do so if not identified. I know it's often unsatisfying to read a long quote from an unnamed source. But his/her perspective is interesting enough to merit presenting the full response. Let me add that this person is savvy in both the ways of Langley and Washington:
I was expecting to be surprised...and I was. It seems to me to be a reasonably good one pick given the cards they had dealt themselves. The Obama transition folks massively mishandled the [onetime contender for CIA chief] John Brennan situation. When they caved to a little outside pressure [which resulted from Brennan's previous association with the CIA's so-called enhanced interrogation procedures] and forced him to remove himself from consideration -- they ended up ruling out a whole class of potential candidates. (i.e. anyone who had served in a position of any significance in intelligence in the past 8 years). So then what could they do?
It would have been bad to pick someone straight off the Hill for the job...which would have signaled overt politicization of the position. As you undoubtedly know, several current and recently former Members of Congress were lobbying hard for the job -- an instant disqualification in my mind.
It also would not have been ideal to pick another retired military guy...given that [retired Admiral Dennis] Blair is going to be [Director of National Intelligence]....it is not good to have all the top intel positions held by retired military (I know that is what we have now -- with McConnell & Hayden -- but it is not ideal).
So...they got a creative and found someone who is respected around town....who generally knows how intelligence works (having seen the product as Clinton's Chief of Staff)...who has run something bigger than a congressional office (OMB)...who is familiar with some of the current issues (having been on the Iraq Study Group) and who (from what I hear) is a pretty good "people-person" who should be able to win over the hearts and minds of the Agency workforce.
Panetta will be well-advised to keep in place some of the top current career officials...a process which apparently is in train. Hopefully he will not come in with a whole cadre of outsiders to help him run the place. That didn't work well for Stansfield Turner, John Deutch, or, most colorfully, for Porter Goss.
Clearly, Team Obama shot themselves in the foot with the premature leak of their intention to nominate...pissing of DiFi and Rocky [Democratic Senators Diane Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller]. Unnecessary self-inflicted wound.
I don't buy for a minute that Panetta's selection signals anything in particular -- you see some pundits saying it shows he is going to preside over slashing budgets....or will be happily subservient to Blair etc. Seems to me they picked him because he was plausible, time was running out, and there were no actors who play CIA operatives on TV willing to take the job.
I asked this source if Panetta could expect to confront a campaign of leaks from POed CIA people before or after he arrives at CIA HQ. S/he replied:
Nah...You'll see a little sniping here and there from a few knuckleheads....but if Panetta comes in and tries to win over the workforce...it won't be that hard to do. Treat the people well...respect what they do....don't try to punish people for trying to honestly serve the previous administration and he'll be fine.
On the other hand, if he shows up with a dozen political operatives hell-bent on squaring the place away and "fixing" a dysfunctional agency....he'll be back on the walnut farm before the mid-term elections.
I'm not sure that a covert campaign will not be waged to prevent Panetta's confirmation. And one shoe that has not yet dropped belongs to the Senate Republicans. Are they eager to go after Panetta? After all, don't they have to go after at least one of Obama's appointments to prove to their grassroots loyalists that they still have some bite? The Panetta appointment right now is balanced on a fine line between sure thing and big fight.
Good to know that the Clintons are in charge of things in Washington. I thought they were retired and on the losing side of an election. There seems to be a large disconnect between the message sent by voters and what really happen in government next. No surprise to those of us who realize that the state is an independent beast, with a life of its own and elections serving only as a kind of legitimization tool. Not sure Obama's voters had anticipated Gates, and all those Clinton's diehards.
JCR:
Agreed, however the state is not one independent beast, but several. And the one that strives to be the most independent is the CIA.
Am about half way through the book, JFK And The Unspeakable: Why He Died And Why It Matters. It puts this appointment in a whole different light. Given the last eight years, one can only assume that the CIA is every bit as autocratic as ever.
From the perspective of self preservation, I think it's a shrewd appointment.
Anything that shakes up the CIA cannot be all bad. What they, and we, need is not an intelligence technician, but leadership with a social conscience. It seems that has been missing ever since it was created as a spook operation for the executive branch. One can only hope that some outsider can do so.
You guys have way to much hope for the CIA. It is scary. What's the point of opposing the Bush administration and supporting the concept of a CIA? What's the point of denouncing Dick Cheneyas as the most dangerous VP ever and supporting the concept of the CIA? Has the CIA ever served noble purposes? Has the CIA ever made you proud? The whole point of the organization is for government people to have ways to bypass law, still be legal and have expenses paid by taxpayers and inflation... Just shutdown that shameful organization and the world will be better off. This culture of spying, of manipulation of facts and human beings, of perpetual deceit does not belong to a free world. The CIA is the sign of a dictatorship.
The CIA is the top one Gov. Ageny we do not need among others. Since it was started, I can think of only bad or wrong assessments they make on a seemingly daily basis. Hopefully Leon, who is a good Administrator, will be able to make the drastic changes needed.
Yeah Harvey, it's all the Jews' fault.
In case it doesn't come across in writing, that was sarcastic.
The Clinton cheap shots are so old by now. To JCR, Panetta stepped down from his post in the Clinton administration in 1993 probably disillusioned and unhappy with some of what was going on in the oval office. Earlier on in his career he was a Republican and worked in the Nixon administration - leaving not only that post but the entire party. My point is this is a man who is hardly anyone's "diehard". And to Harvey, Panetta is Italian, if you haven't noticed. Catholic Italian. These comments are pathetic. Thanks for the story though...
The general opinion is certainly that Panetta belongs to the Clinton's circle. See that he never endorsed Obama and nobody ever thought he would or could. When Hillary's campaign flatered, everyone turned to Panetta to know the opinion of the core of the Clinton's regime. What did they get? A violent attack on Mark Penn. I 100% maintain that the Clintons are really in charge of this administration. Obama is their puppet and voters, especially the liberals and progressives, should start feeling betrayed. And they do.
The cheap shots are over mainly because the Clintons got the next best thing they could get.
Once you get to the position of President's Chief of State, you are consiglierie for ever.
As for the zionist question, Panetta is absolutely in favor of the US getting involved over there and, therefore, will support Israel's attitudes and policies as US administrationS have always done; independent of what American voters may wish.
Diane Feinstein,
I will not be voting for you again. Not only have you gone along with Bush on nearly everything, but now your acting stupid about the Panetta pick. You've been in Washington too long.
Sincerely,
Another one of your lost voters
[which resulted from Brennan's previous association with the CIA's so-called enhanced interrogation procedures]
Are these brackets the authors thoughts or the sources? Either way it's diversionary at best, but probably intentionally false.
The opposition to Brennan did not stem from his "association" with torture, but from his active and public support of torture policies. As a result, the choice of Panetta was certainly born of a need to find someone who didn't support torture as a government policy. Unfortunately, this is a near impossibility from within the CIA.
To allow that statement to remain unchallenged is beneath the reputation of Mother Jones.
JCR,
Interesting comments but not really showing a firm grasp of reality or education.
First off, I am a progresive and not feeling one scintilla of remorse or betrayal. You are allowed to only say how you feel, not how others feel, with any accuracy.
No matter how hard, how long or how much money it takes, we need to HEAVILY invest in public transportation. Imagine if we had started doing that back in the 70's when I started advocating it. It's cost effective, less polluting and can be run on electricity generated by wind and solar power (two other things I was advocating in the 70's). Houston just spend billions to widen I-10 instead of building a light rail system. Think what could have been built with that money . . .
Matthew wrote: "not really showing a firm grasp of reality or education."
I guess that's your way to say you disagree. Fascinating how political opinions come down to education, grasp or reality... As if two educated people had to agree. Looks like that if I had been educated by the right people or the right ideology, I would have a good grasp of reality and would agree with you. Hopefully my kids won't have to go to a school you like.
As far as liberal progressives started feeling betrayed... they should. Look, conservatives voted Reagan and Bush to get smaller government and they got massive increase in government and still support those criminals. By the same token, I am betting that most of the liberal progressive crowd will support OBush (sorry, I meant Obama) whatever he does. Just because they don't want Republican back. Now, on the topic of the CIA, that means that they will accept from an Obama administration what they were refusing from a Bush administration. Beautiful! Once again, the state grows and elections are irrelevant.
As far as I am concerned, I would be ashamed of having cast a vote for Obama looking at the people he chose for his national security team, and that Panetta is no exception.
Matthew, once again, let me apologize for my lack of education that makes me have those opinions.