Bob Graham's Candid Take on Panetta
I've had a soft spot for former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) ever since his spirited opposition to the war in Iraq while chairing the intelligence committee in 2002. (My mother also taught at Bob Graham Education Center, but from what I hear he hardly ever visited.)
And courtesy of Ben Smith, we see that Graham is also sanguine about Leon Panetta's nomination to head the CIA. If anyone understands the need to place a dedicated critic of Bush detainee policy at CIA, it's Graham -- so his endorsement is good news.
But Graham also offers a candid theory on what underlies Feinstein's and Rockefeller's ruffled feathers. "I don't think it's a policy disagreement - I think it's a matter of comity," he told Smith. "It was a matter of how the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee and a fellow Californian should be informed."
I'm not convinced that this is merely a bruised ego; Feinstein and Rockefeller's preferred choice to lead CIA has questionable ties to a past extraordinary rendition. It may be that Obama's hunt for a CIA chief with no ties to previous misdeeds essentially forced him to pick an outsider like Panetta, but I'm interested to see if other senators believe a nominee with hard intel experience is essential here.
Biden was quoted over at Huffpo saying that the Transition Committee made a mistake in not contacting Feinstein and Rockefeller. Sounds like he's already trying to smooth ruffled feathers. Even if it was leaked and Obama can't be faulted, the fact that underlings were contacted about Panetta is probably at issue as well. Of course the folks that were contacted seemed to have worked with Panetta in the past.
January 6, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's disturbing, is Feinstein's public rebuke of Obama. I can't remember her calling out Bush, for any reason.
Part of her ire may be political. Last February Panetta likened Hillary's pollster, Mark Penn to Karl Rove and Diane really, really hearts Hillary.
Panetta provides the perfect counter weight to Hillary at State. Obama's national security meetings should be interesting.
January 6, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. I could give a shit about DiFi's wounded feelings. If she's all that hurt, she's free to resign the committee chair and go brood in private.
Republicans NEVER do this shit to their Presidents.
January 6, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither can I. I can, however, remember DiFi supporting Bush choices. I think Biden is trying to provide a way for Feinstein to save face.
January 6, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
She really doesn't have much choice. With pretty much all the other Dems gushing about Panetta, she has no choice but to take it.
This is exactly the kind of hardball political tactics Emmanuel is known for. Feinstein needed to be taken down a peg, and appointing a CIA director that she can't control is just the way to do it. Panetta is Obama's man, not Feinstein's. This is Rahm's way of letting her know who the big dog is.
January 6, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're right. This wasn't an "oversight". It was an "on purpose".
And given how she has enabled Bush over the last four years, it couldn't have happened to a more deserving Democrat, frankly.
January 6, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Between Obama and Emmanuel there's enough political brains to light up Las Vegas. You bet your sweet ass this was no oversight.
There's a new sheriff in town.
January 6, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
i wish democrats were half as good at fighting republicans as they are at fighting their own. after years of worthless sternly worded letters about critical issues, now people like feinstein want to cry out publicly because their feelings are hurt?!?
January 6, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is Dianne Feinstein to publically rebuke, Obama?
I tell you she has some nerve. Unbelievable. Wasn't she Hill's caputo after the primaries? The one who brokered the 'concession' at her home? She needs to sit down and be quiet. I know she is probably still bristling about Obama being President, as she thinks Hill had earned it, but he hadn't. Even though Hill's main qualifications were FirstLady who had tea and crumpets with heads of state as she never had Security clearance for anything else.
I am sick and tired of how people disrespect people of color when they earn positions of power and authority.
Feinstein never said a darn word about Bush's torture policy. She can't stand up for the Constitution but she thinks she can rebuke Obama?
Give. me. a. break.
From the tone of this, Obama knew better than to reach out to her. He probably knew she would leak the info. and create political ruckus prior to the announcement. There are a lot of dirty hands in the Senate in terms of complicity with Bush's policies and Feinstein is likely one of them.
I hope she gets her comeuppance for this.
She is a bitter old biddy that neeeds to resign and go home.
January 6, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
WORD
January 6, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
there are a lot of people out there that are going to have to get used to deferring to a "brown person" in ways they aren't used to and aren't going to like with obama in office; it's going to be a very interesting to observe what various players in politics and the media are able to get away with over the next 4 (hopefully 8) years.
January 6, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
One does wonder whether Feinstein and Rockefeller were kept better informed about stuff that some might call war crimes than they've let on--they've always been pretty coy about the extent of their knowledge, citing, of course, national security.
I'm not crazy about conspiracy theories, but, theories go, does cast an interesting light on why the thought of an outsider with anti-war, anti-torture credentials and an independent powerbase fills them with anxiety and why they want someone more beholden to them who's potentially already implicated in whatever they were told about.
January 6, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feinstein and Rockefeller showed their flawed judgment in 2002 when they supported the Iraq War Resolution and gave Bush the "go ahead". I am quite glad they are both being given a warning from Obama.
This keeps up and I'll be supporting the revocation of the Constitutional Amendment limiting presidents to two terms. Obama may need a bit more time to clean house in the Party and in Congress.
January 6, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
OT: I cannot believe Coleman had that press conference to just say F.U. to Franken and Minnesota voters.
January 6, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I admire Bob Graham, and his endorsement of Panetta closes the deal for me.
Graham makes a great point here:
January 6, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's absolutely not about bruised egos, even though Jay and DiFi have two of the unjustifiably biggest in the Senate.
Nor is it comspiracy-theorizing to figure that Jay and DiFi are up to their ugly turkey necks in illegal torture and wiretapping.
The more they splutter against Panetta in the face of his strong and widespread approval from the rest of the Senate, the more they expose themselves and the more they make others eager to distance themselves.
I wouldn't mind at all cutting a deal with the repugs: treason trials for Smirky, Darth, AND Jay and DiFi.
Bipartisanship!
January 6, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the kind of reaching across the aisle that I can believe in!
January 6, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a feeling that the Obama team was going to notify Rockefeller and Feinstein before they announced but it was leaked by someone (not the Obama team) to the press.
What's done is done. Both Obama and Biden have rectified the situation and now Feinstein is now open to Panetta.
January 6, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink