The word "comity" often comes up in conversation with creatures of the Senate. It's defined by Merriam-Webster as "the informal and voluntary recognition by courts of one jurisdiction of the laws and judicial decisions of another" -- substitute "lawmakers" for "courts", and you get an idea of how serious members of Congress take their jurisdictions.

On this swearing-in day, when the oath-taking line brought new senators' families shoulder to shoulder with Vice President-elect Joe Biden, the incoming administration appears to have been taught a lesson in comity. Dianne Feinstein, the freshly minted chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, was not informed in advance of Leon Panetta's nomination to head the CIA, and she came out with surprising fervor to criticize the pick.

Was this merely a question of a powerful senator objecting to the lack of comity afforded her? Apparently not, as Feinstein and her intel panel predecessor Jay Rockefeller have questioned Panetta's qualifications and voiced support for the current CIA No 2, Steven Kappes. Whether or not Kappes stays on as a way to sooth skeptical senators, Panetta's confirmation hearing is bound to shed a stark light on the CIA's involvement in Bush-era interrogation tactics.

As for Panetta himself, one wonders if he'll take the advice of former GOP colleague Pat Roberts and pay an in-person call to the intelligence agencies to introduce himself. Might be good practice for the hearing room.

Just talked with Dianne Feinstein outside the Senate chamber about her qualms with the Leon Panetta nomination. The incoming Senate intelligence committee chairman said that both President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden called her after the fact to discuss the surprise choice of Panetta, who has no direct intelligence agency experience and whose nomination came as unwelcome news to Feinstein when it broke yesterday.

"I understand their thinking" in choosing Panetta, Feinstein explained, describing herself as "very respectful of the president's authority ... this is the man [Obama has chosen]."

I asked Feinstein whether her reticence about Panetta's lack of ties to the CIA would be mitigated by having Steven Kappes, her preferred choice for CIA director, stay on as the agency's No 2. "I believe very strongly" that Kappes should stay, Feinstein said, adding that Panetta's standing would be "very much enhanced" were Kappes to stay his deputy.

Feinstein seemed to acknowledge the Obama team's desire to find a CIA director who would signal an end to the abusive interrogation tactics of the Bush years. "We all want a break with the past," she told the reporters milling around her in the Senate. "I was the one who went into the conference committee" between the House and the Senate last year with an amendment that would use the Army Field Manual as the universal standard for detainee interrogations, she added.

"I understand the administration's desire to cut clean and open a new chapter and I support that. Whether those changes can be made" with Panetta at the helm, she added, remains to be seen.

* Late Grammar Update: As two eagle-eyed readers have pointed out, "reticence" suggests an unwillingness to discuss an issue, which the senator from California certainly was not. The proper term is indeed "hesitance".

In the latest development in the Obama intelligence appointments, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has put out a statement heartily approving the appointment of retired Adm. Dennis Blair to be the Director of National Intelligence -- a sharp contrast to her reaction to the nomination of Leon Panetta to be CIA Director.

The statement also has some language that could please the left, looking forward to the end of the Bush Administration's history of torture -- though Feinstein still refers to it in euphemistic terms:

"I met Admiral Blair several years ago in Hawaii, when he headed the Pacific Command, and I found him to be very knowledgeable about national security and global affairs. His experience gives him valuable insight into the many challenges facing the intelligence community and makes him a strong nominee for Director of National Intelligence.

...

"Of critical importance to me is that the next DNI deliver on President-elect Barack Obama's pledges to end the CIA coercive interrogation program, ensure the rule of law is respected, and improve our intelligence collection and analysis capabilities in order to better assess all threats."

Full statement after the jump.

Read more »

Just spoke to Sen. Ron Wyden's (D-OR) office, where a spokeswoman confirmed what was hinted at this morning: Wyden had been in contact with the Obama transition team to discuss the Leon Panetta nomination, while incoming Senate intelligence chairman Dianne Feinstein was still in the dark.

We checked in with Wyden because Bloomberg's report described him as "being consulted" on the choice -- whether he was consulted by the Obama camp or by Panetta, a former ally of Wyden's from their days in the House, remained unclear.

But now that we know Wyden had talked to the Obama transition, two questions arise:

1. Who else on Senate intel knew about it before Feinstein, whose support for AG Michael Mukasey had aroused the ire of many progressives?

2. Is this a case of the New York Times getting the news before the transition could inform Feinstein ... or a case of a powerful senator kept in the dark on purpose?