« Time to Dump Reid? | Matthew Saroff's Blog | What the Panetta Nomination Means (Bigger Intelligence Picture Edition) »
What the Panetta Nomination Means (Inside Capitol Hill Baseball Edition)
First
on the inside baseball angle, it appears that some of the intel war
horses, particularly in the Senate, are upset at the choice, and how it
was made public.
Both Senators Feinstein* the new Intel Committee chairman, and Rockefeller, the outgoing chairman, have strongly expressed reservations about the appointment, based largely on their feelings that he lacks the experience to handle the CIA.
Someone, probably on the one of the two Senators' staff, stated to NPR (I heard it on Morning Edition), that Leon Panetta was the least experienced appointment to head the CIA since John McCone in 1961.
That is not true.
A quick perusal of the DCIs gives a 1976 appointment who was significantly less experienced: 4 years in Congress, UN Ambassador, and Envoy to China before his appointment, as compared to Pannetta's 16 years in Congress, his chairmanship of the House Budget Committee, with heading the OMB, and serving as Clinton's chief of staff.
That relatively inexperienced DCI? George Herbert Walker Bush, who is still viewed with the affection that 6-year-olds reserve for Santa Clause among CIA old-timers.
What is interesting is that it appears that Feinstein* and Rockefeller, were blind sided by this announcement, while relatively less senior Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), was briefed and supports the decision, and this sentiment is mirrored by House intelligence committee chairman Silvestre Reyes and Rush Holt, Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel.
Additionally, you have Senators Pat Roberts Barbara Mikulski (scroll down), and Russ Feingold, , with Evan Bayh (true to form) waffling.
We are now hearing a sort of an apology by Joe Biden, "I'm still a Senate man and I always think this way: I think it's always good to talk to the requisite members of Congress," said Biden. "I think it was just a mistake," but it's a fairly perfunctory apology.
I do not think that this is an accident. We have a transition team that has professional OCD. They have a job application form that kills more trees than Paul Bunyan, and famously tight lips, people like this don't "forget" to notify the current and former Chairmen of the Senate Intel Committee.
This is Chicago style payback for something, and it has at least tacit approval from the top (PEBO).
So, they Rockefeller and Feinstein* f^%$ed with Barack Obama over something, and now he's dropping something on them by way of lesson....It's not a piano, it's more like emptying a chamber pot on their heads.
Gee, I can't imagine what on earth they could have done to Barack Obama that would have thought that he was being messed with? I don't know, maybe something that had Keith Olbermann going special comment on him? Something like that disgraceful telco immunity bill that Rockefeller and Feinstein* pushed so hard through the Senate?
We know that Obama voted for the bill, but it was painfully clear that this was not something that he wanted to deal with at that time, it being mere weeks after he cinched the nomination, and it was equally clear that it was a phenomenally bad bill.
Barack Obama, or someone very senior in his staff, believe that Rockefeller and Feinstein pushed the bill to cover their own posteriors. They are accessories to illegal wiretaps and torture, and while Congressional immunity may protect them, they would much rather not have to find out how a judge rules.
I think that this is why you have seen the meticulously botched roll-out of Leon Panetta: It's botched enough to turn the knife, but not botched enough prevent the nomination from leaving the Senate Intelligence committee.
Anyway, that's what I think. I could be wrong, and Atrios could be right:
I'll post about what I think the bigger picture is in terms of what this means for the intelligence establishment later. (I actually find that bit more interesting. I will be posting my thoughts about this at 40 Years in the Desert later today, and re-posting it here tomorrow. I only post here once a day.)
*Full disclosure, my great grandfather, Harry Goldman, and her grandfather, Sam Goldman were brothers.
Both Senators Feinstein* the new Intel Committee chairman, and Rockefeller, the outgoing chairman, have strongly expressed reservations about the appointment, based largely on their feelings that he lacks the experience to handle the CIA.
Someone, probably on the one of the two Senators' staff, stated to NPR (I heard it on Morning Edition), that Leon Panetta was the least experienced appointment to head the CIA since John McCone in 1961.
That is not true.
A quick perusal of the DCIs gives a 1976 appointment who was significantly less experienced: 4 years in Congress, UN Ambassador, and Envoy to China before his appointment, as compared to Pannetta's 16 years in Congress, his chairmanship of the House Budget Committee, with heading the OMB, and serving as Clinton's chief of staff.
That relatively inexperienced DCI? George Herbert Walker Bush, who is still viewed with the affection that 6-year-olds reserve for Santa Clause among CIA old-timers.
What is interesting is that it appears that Feinstein* and Rockefeller, were blind sided by this announcement, while relatively less senior Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), was briefed and supports the decision, and this sentiment is mirrored by House intelligence committee chairman Silvestre Reyes and Rush Holt, Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel.
Additionally, you have Senators Pat Roberts Barbara Mikulski (scroll down), and Russ Feingold, , with Evan Bayh (true to form) waffling.
We are now hearing a sort of an apology by Joe Biden, "I'm still a Senate man and I always think this way: I think it's always good to talk to the requisite members of Congress," said Biden. "I think it was just a mistake," but it's a fairly perfunctory apology.
I do not think that this is an accident. We have a transition team that has professional OCD. They have a job application form that kills more trees than Paul Bunyan, and famously tight lips, people like this don't "forget" to notify the current and former Chairmen of the Senate Intel Committee.
This is Chicago style payback for something, and it has at least tacit approval from the top (PEBO).
So, they Rockefeller and Feinstein* f^%$ed with Barack Obama over something, and now he's dropping something on them by way of lesson....It's not a piano, it's more like emptying a chamber pot on their heads.
Gee, I can't imagine what on earth they could have done to Barack Obama that would have thought that he was being messed with? I don't know, maybe something that had Keith Olbermann going special comment on him? Something like that disgraceful telco immunity bill that Rockefeller and Feinstein* pushed so hard through the Senate?
We know that Obama voted for the bill, but it was painfully clear that this was not something that he wanted to deal with at that time, it being mere weeks after he cinched the nomination, and it was equally clear that it was a phenomenally bad bill.
Barack Obama, or someone very senior in his staff, believe that Rockefeller and Feinstein pushed the bill to cover their own posteriors. They are accessories to illegal wiretaps and torture, and while Congressional immunity may protect them, they would much rather not have to find out how a judge rules.
I think that this is why you have seen the meticulously botched roll-out of Leon Panetta: It's botched enough to turn the knife, but not botched enough prevent the nomination from leaving the Senate Intelligence committee.
Anyway, that's what I think. I could be wrong, and Atrios could be right:
It's about the club, insider knowledge and privilege, and, yes, crimes, criminals, and their enablers.
Gotta keep it in the family, otherwise who knows what might happen?
I'll post about what I think the bigger picture is in terms of what this means for the intelligence establishment later. (I actually find that bit more interesting. I will be posting my thoughts about this at 40 Years in the Desert later today, and re-posting it here tomorrow. I only post here once a day.)
*Full disclosure, my great grandfather, Harry Goldman, and her grandfather, Sam Goldman were brothers.
Advertisement





Good analysis of behind the scenes politics.
I think that besides the untimelyness and poorly written Telcom Immunity bill, is the fact that Feinstein was the broker for HRC when she failed to concede that Obama had won the nomination. It was at Feinstein's house that supposedly Obama met with HRC for the first time subsequent to his winning the most delegates.
It was Feinstein who supposedly was nasty to Obama while claiming to hold out the olive branch for him and HRc to patch over the wounds.
Feinstein has been stabbing Obama in the back for quite sometime.
I agree with you that this is Chicago style 'payback' and further, that Feinstein can expect more from where this came from.
January 6, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Highly Rec'd! I've been thinking along the same lines myself- this is FISA related- look at the players. I have to wonder though, could this have something, anything to do with that FISA report that is supposed to come out in June (or is it July)? Are DiFi and Rockefeller pooping stones over something that could be revealed in that report (to the Congress, President, Dept. of Justice et al- if not the American people due to it being "classified" info). Could the American public find out if it goes to court?
I'm big on theories in a general sense, no idea if this is true, but it makes me think "hmmmmmmm".
January 6, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I kind of hope that I'm wrong, because If I'm right, it makes the Senate look like the cast of Gossip Girl.
January 6, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes this is FISA related. I really have no doubts.
But social/political pressure will come to bear and the dems will fall in line.
There are going to be a few dems who will be embarrassed but the embarrassment will be nothing compared to the criminal investigations of those who were responsible.
This president lied to the American People on many occasions and it is on tape forever.
And there are whistleblowers who are currently being punished with at least the threat of retribution for trying to tell the truth.
CSPAN is going to be a lot of fun to watch over the next couple of years.
January 7, 2009 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
George H. W. Bush had ties to the CIA going back to '50s. His oil company Zapata off shore provided CIA cover for the Bay of Pigs invasion; the company employed Cuban expatriates at the request of the CIA and provided commercial support to the invasion; and provided ships named Barbara, Houston, and Zapata in support of the invasion.
So he was completely a mobbed up CIA insider at the time of his 1976 appointment.
January 6, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw some talk that the retroactive immunity for telecoms might prove not to be Constitutional.
January 6, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your mouth to God's ear.
January 6, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we'll see a test case. Judge Walker seems to be getting his act together on some of this kind of stuff.
January 7, 2009 5:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew ,
Excellent post - and on the House side I believe Congresswoman Jane Harmon also has 'some explannning" to do ... Bushcheney could not have lawlessly operated the way they did without democratic legislative Enablers. First we get perjury charges brought against Fredo - get the "General " to turn state's evidence then we go after Addington Yoo & bushcheney ...And if some democrats violated our laws we go after them as well - THIS IS ABOUT OUR COUNTRY NOW - not parisan politics ...
January 7, 2009 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't buy the payback argument. If payback was the M.O., why go easy on Lieberman? Obama has nothing to gain by stiffing Feinstein. So we can spin some highly dramatic Machiavellian motive or accept the much simpler explanation that someone leaked it prematurely. I think that absent something more than idle speculation, Occam's razor demands the latter.
There's another element to this that I haven't heard anyone mention. Typically, you bring in an outsider to make major changes because insiders are too vested in the status quo. I read Panetta's appointment as indicative of Obama's intention to significantly change the way CIA operates.
January 7, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd read it in just the opposite way. Panetta, with no personal background to draw upon, will depend entirely on someone or a small circle of persons with that background. What are the odds that it will be case officers or analysts of ten to fifteen years' experience, e.g., the ones actually doing the work, instead of middle-management suckups who've worked hard to stay above and away from the core job function?
I'm not a current or former member of CIA, but it sounds like the rank and file have problems with their senior middle management that it would take an insider's awareness to fix, i.e., demoting or removing some of the worst offenders in the chain that the factory floor might actually function more efficiently.
In FAA's case, HR dictates even mostly operational issues because of its power to interpret any issue through the lens of maintaining power for management, even if the course chosen by HR damages the agency's efficiency in carrying out its job function, and operational management at the facility level would prefer to do things differently.
(For those who say this is all sour grapes, I would remind them that there used to be a screening process for air traffic controllers that would turn away even college graduates from the precursor training in Oklahoma City, if their entrance exam didn't put them in the top 5% of test-takers nationwide. More recently, HR brought in a crop of new trainees to my last facility because they had the same last digit of their Social Security number. Because the pay rules HR fought to impose reduced the bands by 30%, we stopped being a place where people of proven capability (e.g., college graduates, former military air traffic controllers) fought to get in, and started being the place where high school kids with no other experience came because of an ad they saw at MySpace.)
The people who decided that this would work have names, and they make the top of the agency scale. They should be fired. FAA doesn't need a conciliator. It needs someone to tear into the upper bureaucracy and push the idiots out of high windows. Maybe the rank and file at CIA feel the same way, and if their grievances are just, I hope Panetta's the man to encourage early retirements and transfers to positions without operational meaning.
January 7, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you are chief of staff in the WH you have a tremendous amount of responsibility. Most people from most agencies lie to you. You must read people well.
I think you will be surprised by this great man.
January 7, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
He may have all the horse sense and talent for leadership in the world.
But it truly does help if the people doing the job of the agency don't need to speak slowly to you about what's going on. Usually those kinds of bosses have a filter that interprets the concerns of the factory floor, and that filter usually looks out for the people who represent all the problems with the status quo.
I also think it would have been better to promote from within, and give the appropriate title to the deputy director, because he'll probably end up running things anyway. Panetta could have held DNI and defended CIA from Congress.
January 7, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
So. Why the emphasis and adamant insistance on Stephen Kappes being named chief and now, retaining his position as #2?
This aspect of the debate remains unexamined.
January 7, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Panetta is 70 years old and the chief of staff of the last Democratic President, with no previous experience in the agency's work.
Kappes will be boss in all but name.
January 7, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talking points are not an answer to my question.
Nor are baseless claims about who will be the boss.
January 8, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pssst: McCain lost, so it's ok to quit with the faux ageism for campaign purposes thing.
January 8, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rockefeller I doubt is worried about any reports or any culpability.
WV is going to reelect him anyway. Don't forget, WV is basically a red state that does not care about the 4th Amendment or torture. We (the royal "We", not me personally) voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and McCain in 2008.
January 7, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink