Also, I checked, he's not a Yalie so we will suffer fewer Skull and Bones conspiracy theories on the internet. That alone is worth it. I did not check if he ever attended a Bilderberg conference--if he did, well, you can't have everything. :-)

More seriously, I don't post about it much here because there's little interest, but the whole CIA situation has been a big interest of mine for quite some time now, and destor, you don't know how much I agree with the gist of your post. I don't know if Panetta is the right choice, but a savvy politico (and neither an insider nor an innocent,) is what we need there right now. The person should be good at office politics as well as politics politics if you get my drift.

Destor,

I've tried to keep this quiet because there will, no doubt, be a guilt by association -- but I follow your posts with relish. (Even if I happen to disagree.)

You,however, scored big time with me with this one!

Those people who don't really follow the news have no clue how different the two women Senators from California really are. FNC, in particular, likes to play up the connection Feinstein has with SF, but the truth is that she tends to the right of center on many things.

Thanks for helping to educate the board here!

What the "intelligence community" really doesn't want is someone who questions the past eight years of the CIA serving neoconservative ideology rather doing its job. And what would that responsibility be? Providing honest, meticulous, documented intelligence so that the President and his national security people can make responsible decisions.

The morons who went along with torture and supporting bogus claims of "solid intelligence" of WMDs in Iraq should be made to pay by having their careers come to a screeching halt.

There are honorable people in Langley who objected to the agency prostituting itself to neoconservatives in such an ugly, unconstitutional manner, but if the stories that are emerging are true, they have been forced to remain silent on pain of having their careers destroyed.

Obama understands that he needs a CIA that is rigorous, honest and as objective as it can be. We need to make foreign policy decisions that are based on reality, not ideology. That is likely why he picked Panetta. Message sent.

Absolutely right on, Destor. Rock solid righteous.

Somewhere back in the mists of time (ok, June) I wrote some nonsense about "complicity," and how hard it was gonna be - when you looked across the board - for Obama to punish, prosecute or even publicly air the guilt of so many parties. Not just because they were in his own party, but because he'd NEED them for his forward agenda.

While a focus on any one arena of malpractice leads one to want a complete cleaning of that one stall, a view across the entire stable reveals his difficulty. There's the wars... constitution-shredding associated with the WOT... foreign policy from Darfur to Georgia... the financial sector flop... housing scandals... oil & energy corruption... the 2000 and 2004 elections... taxation & tax avoidance... campaign finance... lobbyists... silencing scientists... CO2 and environmental law... big pharma & insurance company deals... offshoring... NAFTA... Immigration... etc.

So, granted, he CAN'T clean 'em all up AND make forward progress, if he gets all the guilty. But his recent proposed appointments, at the least, show where he wants to make some headway I think.

And any agency, and especially one with tasks like this, that so obviously doesn't want their laundry to be aired... and has politicians instantly suggesting its a wrong-headed decision... well, for me, that's a sign that it's a prime place in need of a good clean-out. I'd say Feinstein has stepped in it fairly directly, and if so... well... she can't be complaining if later on things get mucky. Cheers dude.

If Josh's take on it is correct then Panetta is a great pick. The CIA is an intelligence agency, not a clandestine military organization.

I don't like the idea of keeping Hayden at all and Kappes doesn't seem right either - which is what Feinstein and Rockefeller apparently wanted.

I don't know diddly/squat about Panetta (as far as intelligence goes) - but I do know Feinstein and Rockefeller should STFU. Their selections totally suck!

Perhaps Feinstein & Co wanted someone they could direct and Panetta isn't so much that guy. Steve Clemon's response is to mock him. hah hah.

One of the usual T_heads on Olberman suggested that Di wanted Jane Harmon.....But later on Maddow, Andrea Mitchell said "their" choice was Stephen Kappes who is currently #2 under Hayden.

So interesting that the hons are pitching a public hissy fit and shall we see who chimes in? Gloria Borger on CNN was singing in harmony. It's not about effin' protocol, they REALLY wanted their way and somehow believe they are entitled.

I muse the worst; that intel is such a hot property and the hottest of all to some people would be Iran's nuclear capabilities, etc. Some would like it to be as hot as possible.

Reassuring that Obama is ensuring that his pick is HIS man. No filters. No agendas. No cooking allowed?

AFAIC, Dianne Feinstein can piss off. After all the crap over the past eight years involving the intelligence community - illegal wiretapping, torture, rendition, etc. - THIS is what she chooses to throw a hissy fit over? Can someone please tell me the last thing she did that a progressive could applaud?

Senators Jay Rockefeller and Diane Feinstein failed us, failed to defend the Constitution of the United States, gave in to fear and bullying.

When you were consulted, dear Senators, you did not stand up for our most cherished values. Please. Stand aside.

I totally agree that Panetta is a great choice to lead the CIA. But going over Feinstein's head without even a head's up to the incoming chairperson? Come on. That does not bode well for treating Congress as a co-equal branch of government. Granted the Senate leadership is pretty pathetic what with trying to stop Burris from assuming his seat on very flimsy grounds. I doubt she would have publicly questioned Obama's choice had she merely been advised it was happening in advance as it seems to be is common practice - even when GWB was running ramshod over the Republican Congress. What troubles me is the lack of consultation, not the pick itself.

Feinstein and Rockefeller have never impressed in their roles on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Therefore, Panetta's likely an excellent choice.

It's funny how Feinstein felt that the president could appoint who he wanted (when the president was Bush) but is now objecting to Panetta.

Too bad, Dianne. To paraphrase Rev. Wright, I do believe the chickens are coming home to roost.

Let's put out the welcome mat, shall we?

Nice post, destor.

One of the reasons that Pres-elect Obama waited (among many others) is that he wanted to get a real sense of who and what the Intel community is about, TODAY. Having been briefed every day now for weeks, by Adm. McConnell would have made it apparent that "these professionals," The Three Mikes were not the people to keep on their Intel and Justice jobs.
The Intel Committee got rolled last summer by the White House, McConnell and Mukasey during the most recent revision/gutting of the FISA bill. Rockefeller got lots of campaign contributions from the Telecoms, and Christopher Bond manipulated everyone by fear mongering.
I hate to hearken back, and think about all my useless phone calls to Congress during that time. But I am so willing to forgive our new president his vote for that bill, if he will just stick to his constitutional guns from the Oval Office. Something tells me he is serious about this principle of untainted appointees.

Judging from the response here Destor, I'd say Obama would be well-advised to get DiFi & JayRock to oppose any nomination he feels is really in trouble.

Destor,

I don't think Feinstein or Rockefeller's objections actually have anything to do with the whole "experience" thing as has been said publicly. I think the real issue is twofold: first, it's likely that Feinstein and/or Rockefeller simply dislike Panetta personally and second, they are offended by the obama team's foolish end run around them prior to announcing his nomination.

Panetta has never been a candidate for "Mr. Popularity" on Capitol Hill even when and perhaps especially when he was a member of Congress. I suspect Feinstein's animus toward him particularly is rooted in their past relationship as members of Congress. As one of Clinton's Chief's of Staff I feel quite sure Panetta, of necessity, ruffled many a congressional feather adding to his reputation as a jerk that people up there dislike.

He may be the perfect guy for the job. He may not. I haven't the slightest idea. He certainly is a bright and experienced political player. But I suspect his qualifications have little or nothing to do with this particular political flap.