Feinstein Furious Over Panetta Pick

Sen. Diane Feinstein is reportedly fuming that Barack Obama picked Leon Panetta as his new CIA Director and never consulted with her.

Feinstein, the incoming chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, issued a sharp statement Monday that was a thinly veiled criticism of the pick. The statement made it clear that she had expected a career intelligence professional – unlike Panetta, who has no intelligence expertise whatsoever – to be leading the CIA.

"I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA Director,’’ Feinstein said.

“I know nothing about this, other than what I've read," said Senator Feinstein, who will chair the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in the 111th Congress. "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."

Panetta could face tough questions at his nomination hearing about his background in intelligence.

A former senior CIA official who advises Obama defended the surprise choice of Panetta, whose only military and intelligence experience is a two-year stint in the mid-1960s as a U.S. Army lieutenant.

The official told the Associated Press that Panetta had been a consumer of CIA intelligence when he was at the White House.

The source said Panetta was selected for his administrative, management and political skills that will allow him both to control and advocate for the agency.

The official added that Panetta will rely on the expertise of CIA officers to balance his lack of personal intelligence experience.

"I'm at a loss," said Robert Grenier, a former director of the CIA's counterterrorism center and 27-year veteran of the agency who now is managing director of Kroll, a security consulting company.

Well, this is an interesting turn of events. Posters so far have not dwelt on the motives Obama might have found persuasive in appointing a political hack out of the Clinton administration with no intelligence experience. It smacks of the older Russian practice of putting a political commissar at the side of every field grade officer to guarantee political correctness. It also served to remind the generals and colonels that they could either sacrifice their troops or they themselves would be sacrificed-a reminder which often stirred Russian commanders to commit their troops to suicidal attacks.

The CIA for years has been a sick child of our national administrations. Its blunders have been dramatic and catastrophic. To name a few: it missed Saddam's attack on Kuwait; it botched the presence of WMDs in Iraq; it missed the Russian invasion of Georgia; it missed 9/11. To compound its blunders, it has harbored a virtual fifth column which has acted on the very cusp of treason in leaking information to media such as the New York Times in an effort to unhorse George Bush and stop the Iraq war.

It is perfectly plausible to believe the Barak Obama is more concerned about bringing the CIA to heal at the side of its new political masters by installing commissar Panetta there to put the fear of God in the apparatchiks.

By way of full disclosure, I had been a poster stridently arguing before the election that Obama's whole record points to the danger of making a Manchurian Marxist the most powerful man in the world. Since the election, I confess that I have been surprised by the relative conservatism of his appointments. These appointments suggest that our fears expressed during the campaign were misplaced. On the other hand, these foreign affairs appointments might simply mean that Obama is aware of his immaturity and ignorance in this arena and is willing to hand off the problems to establishment figures. It might also mean that Obama intends to work his socialist agenda not through foreign affairs (i.e. the treaty making powers) but through the economy and the restructuring of the capitalist system. To achieve that, he might simply want to put foreign affairs on ice for a while.

The appointment, equally, might be part of a larger pattern developing around Barak Obama, at least in foreign affairs, in which he is installing appointees who will give him some insulation in the event of failure of policy. Certainly Gates at defense, a Republican holdover, provides Obama with cover in the event of a failure at defense. Similarly, Hillary as a megastar in her own right can draw a lot of the blame for failures of diplomacy. To a lesser degree, Panetta would serve the same function in the event of a failure of intelligence.

Panetta's appointment could also signal an intention to utterly politicize the CIA and shape it as an instrument of a leftist policy. Panetta's whole career, most recently his work and looking into the fairness doctrine, demonstrate that he is a willing apparatchik for any leftist policy goal. Give in Obama's shadowy but clearly extreme a leftist history, one is entitled to ask what it is that Obama has in mind for the agency.

Whatever his motivations, Obama has clearly failed to select someone who can get on with the job of restructuring and professionalizing a very, very sick but vital leg of our national survival. The appointment is not frivolous but political, and the question is why?

This is the first and most likely the last thing I agree with her on.

Considering the flack the Dems tossed at Bush for the supposed shortcomings of his intelligence team, she cannot, as a matter of politics, acquiesce to somebody who is so patently unqualified for the post. The R's -- even those of the current crop -- would bash the D's to death with it.

That said, Obama's choice of Panetta for CIA apparently makes absolutely no sense -- Panetta's background is primarily civil rights and budget-related, with a smattering of environmental causes. About the only thing I can think of is that Obama wants Panetta to address the CIA's alleged civil rights abuses.

Other than that, the only other excuse I can imagine is that Panetta is a sacrificial rabbit whose withdrawal will be used to usher in Obama's real choice for the position.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.