The congressional antipathy to Leon Panetta’s ascension to CIA director that I reported on yesterday makes the lede of the New York Times’ Panetta day story. In addition to incoming Senate intelligence committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, the Times’ Mark Mazzetti and Carl Hulse report that outgoing chairman Jay Rockefeller is also a Panetta skeptic. (As my friend Tim Starks at CQ did yesterday afternoon.)
Two things about that. First, according to her statement, Feinstein had her feathers ruffled by Panetta in part because she wasn’t informed about the pick. But of course she wasn’t informed. Hulse and Mazzetti broke news; Obama didn’t announce anything. We can’t really know whether Feinstein would have been informed if Obama had been able to keep to his own timetable, but it stands to reason. But Obama can tamp that concern by credibly saying he would have informed her ahead of an official announcement.
Still — and this is the second thing — Feinstein, like Rockefeller, think that the CIA director should be an intelligence professional. (I’m not criticizing them for that, as that’s my personal preference as well.) Feinstein, at least, had made her preference clear. That objection is something Obama and Panetta are going to have to overcome: unlike the no-one-told-me argument, it’s a substantive point with policy implications.
And there Obama has someone who knows what it’s like to face Hill objections when seeking to become CIA director: his adviser Tony Lake, who withdrew his nomination in 1997 after Republicans turned it into a referendum on Bill Clinton’s foreign policy. If there’s anyone who knows the importance of getting the Senate intelligence committee aligned with a nominee ahead of confirmation hearings, it’s Lake. Obama could do worse than dispatching Lake to talk to Feinstein.
Crossposted to The Streak.
Update: Ron Wyden says he was consulted on Panetta. I’m not sure why my buddy DK thinks this means Feinstein and Rocke were intentionally snubbed, though. That would be really counterproductive.
Login Here




2 Comments
Spotlight


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
http://yglesias.thinkprogress……ent-989552
John says
Looking at previous directors -
John Deutch – no previous intelligence experience
Jim Woolsey – no previous intelligence experience (a diplomat)
William Webster – no previous intelligence experience (head of the FBI)
William Casey – had worked in OSS during WWII, but no intelligence experience since then
Stansfield Turner – an admiral, but no specific intelligence experience
George H. W. Bush – no intelligence experience
James Schlesinger – no previous specifically intelligence-related experience (he had been an analyst for Rand, and so forth)
William Raborn – another admiral with no intelligence experience
John McCone – no specific intelligence experience that I can see (was head of the Atomic Energy Commission)
bloomberg has a story up with several people praising the pick of Panetta including former CIA head George Tenet. If they aren’t careful DiFi and Rockefeller are going to be on the outside looking in on this one. Especially when they didn’t make a stink over Porter Goss or many of Bush’s other appointments. John Cole has a post up about that too. I don’t know how much they want to push back on this pick against a president elect with such high approval ratings. It might make people start looking at them funny style not BO