Another Senator Skeptical on Panetta
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) isn't on the intelligence committee, but he's known as a dogged manager of the health of government agencies -- the man may just fire off miffed letters to inspectors general in his sleep. (And as the New York Times pointed out, his SCHIP stance makes him "one of the Democrats' favorite Republicans.")
So it was interesting to hear Grassley tell reporters on a conference call today that he gets where Dianne Feinstein is coming from on the Leon Panetta nomination. Grassley questioned whether Panetta's management skills would be hindered by his lack of internal knowledge of the CIA. Here's Grassley:
I can say that, as an individual and serving in the Congress with Leon Panetta, I know him to be a qualified person. But you could be a qualified neurosurgeon and you might not be a very good farmer. And I suppose you could be a qualified manager, as Leon Panetta was in OMB or as a congressman, but that doesn't necessarily put him in -- in a good position to be director of the CIA.So I don't serve on the Intelligence Committee. So I'm going to have to listen to what my colleagues are saying. But there's a former congressman by the name of Goss that went in there in the first Bush administration. So that, you know, it's -- his bad management of that tended to make me think in terms of what Senator Feinstein has said that only professional intelligence officers ought to be running the CIA.
Gosh, this is a nice bit of muddying the waters..."the first Bush administration" almost sounds like Bush I, instead of the current administration which has demonstrated, beyond any shred of doubt, how monumentally inept it is.
Is it surprising that someone appointed by this administration turned out to be so bad?
And the logic is, um, questionable, at best. Some administration (the first one) appointed a non-intelligence professional to head CIA, and well, look how THAT turned out, so this must not be done in the future.
Screw you DiFi. You lost on this one. Quit having your buddies out there trying to bring this nomination down.
January 7, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Numerous non-spies have headed the CIA down through the years, including one G.H.W. Bush, who apparently got decent enough reviews in Congress, since they named the CIA's building after him. And considering Goss was a former spy, and was sold as such, this "intelligence professional" line is rather transparently bullshit. It's all about Panetta's record opposing torture and lawlessness, period.
January 7, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I liked maddow's take on this last night. Obama bypassed, oops, the people who were supposed to be overseeing the intelligence agencies to prevent the outrageous crimes that occurred. He has appointed someone to clean up this travesty who is opposed to torture and war crimes. What's not to like about panetta? Oh, maybe feinstein and rockefella are worried now because they were informed of the war crimes and torture and did nothing, but, but they were only following orders, right? Where did we hear that before?
January 7, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll second the motion. Porter Goss was absolutely touted as a former member of the Central Intelligence Agency, experienced in intelligence oversight as a member of Congress, and was sold as the 'perfect fit.'
The fact that he turned out to be an idiot, a divisive figure when he returned to the agency and brought with him or elevated such luminaries as those who have since been indicted and convicted for criminal misconduct speaks volumes about the politicization of the agency.
Leon Panetta is EXACTLY what the agency needs: an experienced, connected outsider with substantial management and fiscal skills. He's a very bright choice, and quite possibly the best single pick made so far by the transition team. You need not be an expert in the 'trade craft' to manage the agency. In these times, his lack of a specific intelligence background is likely a strength, on balance, and not a weakness.
January 7, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You gotta love how the media never blinked at Bush heading agencies with the likes of Brownie and corporate insiders who had a vested interest in making sure the agencies they controlled DIDN'T actually do their jobs.
Yet its all about Panetta and Gupta and OMGCANYOUBELIEVEHEPICKEDXXXANDOHNOREPUBLICANSDONTLIKEITOMGOMGOMG!!!
January 7, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
As more of these useless gasbags complain about Panetta, the more I like the pick.
Insitutions will always fight change, it's just what they do. CIA, Senate Intel Cmte., Media, etc. They have a vested interest in not upending the status quo, in which all are implicated.
January 7, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elana, continued good reporting on this.
In case you missed it last might, Olbermann gave TPM credit for the Wyden and Feinstein follow up quotes on the Panetta squabble.
January 7, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
These people just don't get it (or like DiFi, are up to their necks in complicity themselves.) When you choose someone to run an incompetent, corrupt, borderline criminal out-of-control agency, you'd BETTER DAMN WELL tap an outsider if you're serious about reform.
January 7, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure I would characterize the CIA quite so harshly, but yeah, I was thinking about this last night and came to pretty much the same conclusion. More than anything this says that Obama means to make big changes in the way CIA operates and you need an outsider to do that. Also, with all the headless nails BushCo has pounded in there, he'll need a good manager to deal with them. Panetta will have a career spook as his No. 2, so what's the big deal?
January 7, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boo hoo
January 7, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Echoing LuxVeritas and others, where the hell was all this worry when the dumbest, most ideologically blinkered president in history was choosing staggeringly unqualified people to run critical national security agencies? Where was all this concern trolling when they were vetting Gonzo and Brownie? My recollection is that there was a modicum of harrumphing over Gonzo, no scrutiny whatsoever of Brown and a lot of talk about how the President was entitled to the team he picked.
January 7, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Silly person, only Republican Presidents are entitled to the team they pick. But I'm betting you knew that. ;)
January 7, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
These guys are getting to be pretty hilarious. You have Specter agonizing that Holder might be another Gonzo, but he had precious little to say when the original was being confirmed. You also have Cantor saying he's REALLY WORRIED that Obama's stimulus plan might add to the deficit.
I think the needle on my hypocrisy meter is busted.
January 7, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's all? Mine exploded and nearly burned my house down. ;)
January 7, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. The John Yoo/John Bolton op-ed yesterday pretty much takes the cake when it comes to hypocrisy and concern-trolling.
January 7, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er, not to knock Grassley, but Goss was a former CIA officer (before he was a congressman.) So basically, Goss did have an intelligence background and was a terrible manager, so contrary to what Grassley says, his appalling record provides no evidence that appointing a really good manager with no intelligence background would be a bad idea.
FAIL.
January 7, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feinstien is an old pro. Her ties are wide and deep.
Obama is still a neophyte. He hit the ground running...and tripped.
Panetta will be a mushroom at the CIA.
The CIA is not some feel-good sinecure. It is serious business.
January 7, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed it is. That's exactly why it needs a tough, well-connected bureaucrat, who is NOT a member of the crooked club, to run it.
Feinstein is a pro all right. In the world's oldest profession.
January 7, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden can say it was a mistake that Feinstein and Rockefeller weren't notified, but I'll bet he had his fingers crossed. That move had Rahm Emanuel written all over it. Besides, you can't be in the Senate for over thirty years and "forget" to tell a fellow Senator--and committee chair, no less--about a potential appointee.
This was a wake-up call for DiFi to let her know who's calling the shots. I'd love to hear the actual conversations held between her and Biden, Obama and Panetta before she got on board. I imagine was a little more animated than "We made a mistake".
January 7, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink