Panetta is a fine choice even if not a Feinstein one.He’ll have little trouble in the Senate.

She knows nothzink!

This appointment is one of the bright spots in Obama’s appointment list. OLC is another. Leon will organize CIA into a more efficient intelligence gathering department. He was very successful at the Office of Budget and Management. Leon will work well with Clinton at State as well…an excellext chemistry here. Diane is a Toad in a dress and wants power for her defense department buds (contracts). CIA can start ans stop wars covertly. This is a move towards peace. Leon is good and smart and has an Institute in Monterey Ca for public policy…he know a great deal about public policy.

Thanks for sharing, Spence!

better check her intelligence sources.
and her intelligence, while she’s at it.

that’s some funny chit, Di!

Perhaps Feinstein can recommend Mukasey.

Ptooey.

-G

Sounds like she’s miffed that she wasn’t consulted on the choice. And as for her point about having intelligence professionals in charge, that hasn’t exactly worked out so well. But then she’s probably in favor of putting Wall Street financial “experts” in charge of the economic bailouts. You know, let the people causing the problems fix them.

DiFi is a DINO. Of course she wouldn’t like Panetta.

(He might not be the best choice, but he’s a reasonable choice.)

On a previous thread I noted my ambivalence on this nomination. It’s experience versus the need for an outside voice.

I also noted that this is probably pique on DiFi’s part. She would have liked to have been consulted. She may be stupid but she has a lot of ego.

Doesn’t matter; she’s not going to succeed in blocking it.

My guess is that she has a strong vested interest in covering up what happened during the Bush days, because she signed off on it.

About the Institute:
Leon Panetta, Institute Director
Leon Edward Panetta has had a long and distinguished career in public service, ranging from his tour of duty in the U.S. Army to his service as the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States.
He has a training program for public policy. The CIA is all about how and what we do in relation to our fellow nations among other things.

“Not an auspicious sign for Panetta’s confirmation hearings” or an inauspicious beginning to DiFinks Chairmanship. Time for her retire anyway. She’s done enough damage to California and the Nation.

Serious transition fuckup to have DiFi read it in the newspaper, though.

Who is in charge of Hill liaison? How did this get missed? I mean, everybody talks about how Team Obama ensured they had the votes to confirm Holder, but then they didn’t even tell DiFi about this, let alone consult with her?

Disregarding the merits of either the nominee or the Chair, this is a bad start.

bigbrother @ 3: a move towards peace! now that’s music.

I like all of this including DiFi’s pique as the new Chairman.

I think Panetta HAS related experience and much more. Most of all I like his values. And that (it appears) he is not tainted by any conflict of interest about torture or surveillance.

JoeBuck @ 9: YUPpers! DiFi wants a ”professional” who is equally as complicit as the rest of the Committee.

Dugg right here!

Great reporting, Spencer.

Teddy: we may find out that it was her mistake that she ’missed’ being informed … just sayin.’

OT: Al Franken live on CNN! Being gracious!!

huh?

Monterey Institute of Buffoonery. Panetta regularly brings in clowns like Bill O’reilly for our edification.

Feinstein is a true Dino, given that she is unhappy with Panetta is not surprising, but her fears are not well founded. Panetta is no friend of the left.

You don’t really have a basis for saying that she read about it in the papers, do you? If so, please furnish it.
I tend to doubt that this is a fuck-up, in any way. More like a well-deserved bit -slap.

TeddyPartridge @ 17: I don’t see how we can be sure it was the transition team’s fault that DiFi was not told. It may have been some other kind of error, maybe it was hers. I don’t think we know. We only have the impression her e-mail gives.

Bitch-slapping the new Intel Chair is something I put in the fuckup category.

And her statement that she knows nothing other than what she’s read is pretty clear: no one told her before she read about it publicly. It’s not in any actual “papers” so that part of my statement is inaccurate. But because I know she doesn’t use a computer and requires her staff to print things out for her to read, I’m on safe ground saying she read about it “in the papers” — meaning off of pieces of paper printed out from newspaper websites.

How is it DiFi’s fault she wasn’t told about it before it got onto newspaper websites?

I wouldn’t take much of anything DiFi says to …errr…what were those things…. symbols of trust and and prudence..oh yeh… the bank

I wouldn’t advertise my lack of connections with the new administration, difi! sheesh.

Lefty, in hosting Billo perhaps Mr. Panetta is providing nice targets for shoes?

Senator Feinstein will not be happy reviewing the CIA’s involvement in the worst of the Bush illegal actions before a CIA director, Panetta, who was not involved, and has no stake in keeping these matters, including Feinstein’s own involvement, under cover. The lid is starting to come off, and those who didn’t understand that we are a nation of laws (including Feinstein, Harmon, Pelosi, and other Democrats) will have to bear the verdict,

bingo.

Paul Begala on CNN is saying transition team is very efficient and keeps their secrets … there is a ”natural tension between leg and exec branches even when it is the same party.” Could it not be that DiFi as a new Chairman mistakenly thought she would be consulted on or informed of the decision and that’s not true?

Rumor that I heard second-hand, but from a reliable source, supports Teddy.

On the earlier FDL thread at the end there was news that Panetta is one of DiFi’s rivals for the CA governorship. ”No love lost.”

Teddy, what I’m trying to say is that the incoming administrations failure secure Feinstein’s pre-approval is not a fuck-up, but is quite deliberate. Nor is challenging her a mistake. She is busy getting up a committee to forward long lists of names to the Obama camp. These are names of people that she wants them to grant jobs.

Tsn’t there any way to get rid of DIFI?
I’m sure CA could do much better.

Thanks for the tip. But do you mean supports him in saying that Feinstein was not informed, or that not informing her was a mistake?

On the earlier FDL thread at the end there was news that Panetta is one of DiFi’s rivals for the CA governorship. ”No love lost.”

Except isn’t she like about 180 years old? Just kidding she’s a spry 75.

I think that she was hoping to see her friend and colleague Jane Harman get the job — except, as the original NYT article this morning pointed out, Harman is tainted because she backed warrantless wiretapping.

A bit late for Whiny Di to get uppity about Not Being Informed, isn’t it? She found that sad state of affairs just peachy when she could blame Bush. Now that she’s supposed to be a politician again, doing the bidding of California’s voters, she’s not so happy being an ignorant tool.

My guess is that her uppitiness has more to do having crossed swords and policies with Leon in the past, and less to do with how well he might perform now. The Village, where past is present, and getting even is good for Democrats only when practiced within the family, like incest and vendetta.

DiFi would serve America better by going home and letting someone competent represent the state of California.

Harman ought to be tainted for not being effective, not just for being wrong.

I agree with that too, I hope it’s accurate. Personally, I’m more concerned about the dangers posed by our intelligence agencies than I am about Al Qaeda.

Just because she wasn’t informed of who the choice was doesn’t mean she wasn’t consulted. I can’t imagine her suggesting, or readily agreeing to, anyone who puts the Constitution before other interests.

That Feinstein wasn’t informed of the pick before it happened. I just filed a piece on this, but didn’t really want to include that kind of gossipy unconfirmed stuff. That’s for comment threads!

Also, everyone: Rush Holt is pro-Panetta, FYI.

Feinstein is a loyal Bushie.

So naturally she will be upset.

Judging by the lawlessness on the Hill and the absolute lack of compunction by the Democrats to prosecute the Bushies for war crimes, it is probably safe to bet that big kahunas like Sen Feinstein are complicit in the Bush admin’s war crimes.

Feinstein sucks!!

Shame on her and her war profiteering husband!!!

Remember how she `tarred and feathered’ Bubba for lying about getting jiggy in the WH???

Pls, do your self a favor, contrast her sharply worded motion to censure Clinton with her absolute SILENCE over the Bushies lies leading up to the deposing of Saddam Hussein.

What she wrote lies below ….

Much of it could be easily re-used as a template for a motion to censure Bush….

WHEREAS — William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate employee in the White House, which was shameless, reckless and indefensible;

WHEREAS — William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, deliberately misled and deceived the American people and officials in all branches of the United States Government;

WHEREAS — William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, gave false or misleading testimony and his actions have had the effect of impeding discovery of evidence in judicial proceedings;

WHEREAS — William Jefferson Clinton’s conduct in this matter is unacceptable for a President of the United States, does demean the Office of the President as well as the President himself, and creates disrespect for the laws of the land;

WHEREAS — President Clinton fully deserves censure for engaging in such behavior;

WHEREAS — future generations of Americans must know that such behavior is not only unacceptable but also bears grave consequences, including loss of integrity, trust and respect;

WHEREAS — William Jefferson Clinton remains subject to criminal actions in a court of law like any other citizen;

WHEREAS — William Jefferson Clinton’s conduct in this matter has brought shame and dishonor to himself and to the Office of the President; and

WHEREAS — William Jefferson Clinton through his conduct in this matter has violated the trust of the American people;

Now therefore, be it resolved that: The United States Senate does hereby censure William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, and condemns his conduct in the strongest terms.

Now be it further resolved that: The United States Senate recognizes the historic gravity of this bipartisan resolution, and trusts and urges that future Congresses will recognize the importance of allowing this bipartisan statement of censure and condemnation to remain intact for all time; and

Be it further resolved that: The Senate now move on to other matters of significance to our people, to reconcile differences between and within the branches of Government, and to work together — across party lines — for the benefit of the American people.

Panetta will have access to the documents that DiFi was in on the authorization of torture and wiretapping from the get go. He will have records. He is not implicated, so he will b able to use the information as he sees fit.

She does not need or want this.

She knows that Obama is firing a warning shot. Becoming Cheney’s fellow traveler on torture and wiretapping was a big mistake. The pact with the devil is being redeemed.

So sad, too bad.

On the earlier FDL thread at the end there was news that Panetta is one of DiFi’s rivals for the CA governorship. ”No love lost.”

If he’s in for 4 years (or more), then she might end up happier (with him NOT competing for the governor’s seat). They should talk to clarify what each is doing.

Tsn’t there any way to get rid of DIFI?
I’m sure CA could do much better.

If she runs for governor in a couple of years and wins, then she probably gets to appoint a senate replacement for the remaining 2 years. With luck that replacement will be someone a bit more Liberal. California would win win!

I believe that you are 100% correct. I cannot wait until the next election and she is gone. We must end her career here in California

I think question becomes do we want a director with great experience who we feel we can trust to do the job expected of the CIA director while dealing with the danger of perception? Or do we want someone we know will act accordingly and not create a situation (through torture or perception of torture) where will will have a higher likelihood of being attacked here and abroad? In the end, I would prefer the latter. (as I wrote here)

Fuck Difi

“My position has consistently been that I believe the Agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time.”

Dear Senator, How are the people best served?

Ever watch the Twilight Zone?