No, simply my conjecture.
Not only his appointment, but the manner in which he seemed to get accepted by the institution so matteroffactly and calmly, slightly odd for a man who was always a political animal with no overt connections to any aspect of espionage or intelligence.
Kinda like how Pappa Bush became head of the CIA, another man with ostensibly no intelligence experience before he headed America’s spy agency.
I can sorta see how Bush became DCI, however -- it's all down to Gerald Ford. Bush and Ford had served together in the House, and Ford actually short-listed him as a VP candidate prior to picking Rockefeller. They both served in the Navy, on carriers, during WWII. Bush had international experience (e.g., "ambassador" to China). The DCI job at the time required a savvy political hand, which Bush definitely had, and he could work with Ford on that basis.
Panetta's selection is far more puzzling, but perhaps understandable if one accounts for Obama's psychology. I suspect that Obama primarily wanted a reliable party apparatchick in that position who would serve him personally. "Apparatchick" certainly does describe Panetta's role in the Clinton administration.
It doesn't seem to be turning out that way, though ... which again raises my initial question of what's making Panetta loyal to the CIA.
I guess it will bear watching, to see if something more obvious begins to develop....
Pappy Bush accepted the Directorship of the CIA at a time when it had been laid low by the Church Commission and assorted other Democrat malefactions. It was radioactive and a career dead end that few if any others would consider. He did his patriotic duty and did it well.