breaking: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/05/leon-panetta-tapped-head-cia-sources-say/ Leon Panetta Tapped to Head CIA, Sources Say Leon Panetta, who was chief of staff under former President Bill Clinton, is Barack Obama's pick to head the CIA, sources confirm to FOX News. FOXNews.com Monday, January 05, 2009 Bill Clinton's former chief of staff has been tapped to head the CIA in President-elect Barack Obama's administration, FOX News has learned. Two Democratic sources close to the transition process said Monday that Leon Panetta, who also previously led the White House Office of Management and Budget, is Obama's pick to replace Michael Hayden at the CIA. One Democratic official also confirmed that retired Adm. Dennis Blair is Obama's choice for national intelligence director. That announcement is not unexpected. The 34-year old Navy veteran was chief of the U.S. Pacific Command during the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Blair is also a China expert, and he was an associate director for military support at the CIA. Panetta is a surprise pick since he has no experience in the intelligence world. However, as chief of staff he had considerable access to intelligence information and knows how the community operates. Panetta was a longtime congressman from California who also served on the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that released a report at the end of 2006 with dozens of recommendations for reversing course in the Iraq war. He is just the latest Clinton-era official to be invited into Obama's administration. Obama's pick for chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, also worked in the Clinton White House as a senior adviser to the president. A number of other nominees to key positions worked in the Clinton administration. Panetta currently directs with his wife Sylvia the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy, based at California State University, Monterey Bay a university he helped establish on the site of the former U.S. Army base, Fort Ord.
I hope they meant he is a 34-year veteran, not a 34 year-old. Or maybe he's a 34-year vet of Old Navy?
Not that I know anything about how to run the CIA, but Panetta? Huh? Smells of a massive re-org, after which someone with more experience in the problems at hand takes over. Hatchett man kind of thing. But still: weird. Seems like he threw the haters a bone here, after they get through chewing Richardson.
The intelligence community is so broken right now that I think a member of that community would have a hard time. I like the fact that Obama's going outside with someone who is so clearly against some of the recent abuses. We need to bring our intelligence analysis back to reality and our intelligence gathering back into conformance with the Constitution.
I think he's 70. And I think I'd prefer someone with experience in the community. But hey, we'll see.. this affects my industry/job, so hopefully he doesn't come in and make crazy cuts. (I wouldn't expect it since a lot of cuts were already made in the summer in anticipation of the election)
Leon Panetta, the new head of the CIA, on torture: "Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don't. There is no middle ground. We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that." http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/panetta_on_torture.php An excellent choice.
My understanding is that for the past several years CIA has been chaffing at having to be under the Director of National Intelligence. Until the DNI was created, the CIA thought of themselves as and acted as if they were the Unofficial Directorate of National Intelligence. They don't like having to think of themselves as equal to all the other intelligence agencies and not their boss. There have been a number of small leaks and quotes from “unnamed CIA sources” that appear to be designed to make the DNI office look bad. So hopefully Panetta is tasked with reigning in the CIA cowboys, who have to get used to the fact that they aren't cocks of the walk anymore. If that is his job description, I think he might be pretty good at it.
what was his position on extraordinary rendition during the clinton years? and, btw, i don't think the debate is really about whether one is for or against torture. the debate, at least amongst those who are not just posturing for political purposes, is about whether certain techniques (such as waterboarding) constitute torture, and whether those techniques are effective.
As usual, when you pen something more than a cryptic two word intro to a thread, you make yourself look ridiculous. The debate is whether you favor torture or not. Those certain techniques, including waterboarding, are by definition torture. We prosecuted the Japanese after WWII for waterboarding. We borrowed these techniques from the most oppressive of countries. They are outlawed under those quaint international agreements and are a cancer to the Republic, destroying our good will around the world, endangering our soldiers, and corrupting those Americans we ask to deliver the torture. Similarly, there is no argument about whether they work or not. The facts are that they do not. You would know both these things if you had paid attention to any of many threads on the issue.
The choice ends the perception that the CIA endorses torture, objective #1 met. Objective #2 is to address the perception that the CIA is failing it's mandate to collect and analyze information on threats to the US. Whether they are or not will never be public information but adding a leader strong in organizational and management skills can't hurt. But I don't think anyone expects Panetta to handle the nuts and bolts processes of intelligence. That should be and probably will be the responsibility of his immediate subordinates who should be experienced intelligence professionals. Like any good CEO he will direct the big picture strategies and evaluate those responsible for implementing them. It could be a very good choice; like having civilian oversight of the military. Certainly generals have more hands on expertise but they might get too caught up in exercising their capabilities rather than see their capabilities as only a component in a larger picture.
true, but the DNI has worked at bringing the intel agencies together, and in the last year or 2, seems to have made pretty big strides. I don't think it's as bad as it probably was 5 years ago in regards to what you mentioned
hum.... A deliberate end around to the incoming and outgoing ranking chair (Feinstein and Rockefeller) on the Senate Intel committee who could not, or would not try to stop the criminal administration on torture and rendition? Between Panetta (and Blair as NID), I think it's a great signal that things will change at Langley. And Feinstein has already started to come around.
