Panetta, the CIA and the Villagers (Update - Obama Statement)

By Cernig

The brewing resistance to Obama's appointee Leon Panetta as head of the CIA among senior Democratic leaders and CIA brass appears to have some ugly motivations. There's some good commentary out there on what the naysayers are carefully not saying.

Josh Marshall has an email from a career intelligence professional:

I think there is a lot more here than is being said. I believe that Feinstein did not want someone like Panetta who has a large and independent power base and network. If you get a career guy they are a lot easier to isolate and move around. Panetta has been around for a long time and has his own network. I actually think that it is a good choice. He knows how intelligence needs to be presented to the President - that is the critical issue here.

...I think the Panetta selection is another indication of the change coming. I was concerned that the selection of Jones as National Security Advisor and Blair as DNI underscored the great concern that I have about the militarization of intelligence. The selection of Panetta, with a much wider and deeper power base than either of them, makes me hopeful in this regard. Panetta is a skilled operator, he knows how to get things done. He knows how to get a budget approved and to make the wheels of government work. He will be a force - both in the Administration and on the Hill -- much larger than any career guy could be. This is good. It gives the CIA the opportunity to re-create itself within the current structure.

That second quoted paragraph matches my first reaction to the Panetta pick. He was a military spook way back in the long ago but isn't so deeply immersed in the culture that he's blinkered by it. He's by all accounts a great administrator and a savvy foreign policy thinker. Panetta shoulkd be able to send an important message - that it's time to put political interference in intelligence product behind everyone and go back to being professionals. What's not to like there?

Bob Fertik has the answer:

So what is it about? Simple: fear of accountability for torture.

Thanks to Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin and honest Pentagon brass, we know a lot about torture by the regular military. But we know very little about torture by the CIA because of the coverup by Jay Rockefeller and the corrupt CIA brass.

The CIA brass desperately want to keep everything secret because they tortured people to death, which is a war crime under U.S. and international law, and is punishable by death. JRock and DiFi want to protect the CIA brass, either out of blind professional loyalty or because they approved the torture and share in the guilt.

Leon Panetta would come in "clean" and therefore cannot be blackmailed by those who committed or approved torture. He could fire people, even refer them for prosecution. This terrifies the insiders.

That's what this is all about.

And he quotes Ryland at DKos, saying he "nails it".

In this case, being a Bush-Enabler just might turn out to be an indictable offense. It's been clear for a while that members of the Democratic congressional leadership may share culpability for illegal acts committed by the Bush Administration.

And, really, we know enough about the Obama transition to recognize that the lack of consultation with Lady Feinstein wasn't an oversight. Her heart must have skipped a beat when she heard about Panetta. Government officials who were aware of illegal acts, who may have even expressed consent, are in deep doo-doo if somebody outside of the intelligence community, outside of the closed loop of those who know better, takes the helm of the CIA. And Feinstein must be wondering just why Obama didn't discuss the Panetta nomination with her. Well, he probably didn't discuss it with Cheney either.

Steve Benen writes: "Feinstein and Rockefeller notwithstanding, the Panetta selection, which won't be official until later this week, has drawn a fair amount of praise from credible voices," for pretty much the reasons I was pleased by the pick.

I still don't think that Panetta means there will be some special commission or prosecutor appointed to investigate who approved or enabled torture - I see Panetta's role as purely being to say to the CIA "that era's over, back to your jobs". But I can see why Feinstein might be nervous enough to try to sink his appointment. Even if there's little chance of her ever sharing a dock with Bush and Cheney, having someone at the CIA who doesn't agree with the Bush administration on torture and can find out just how much she knew (and agreed to) will severely undermine her power base.

Update: Obama's made a statement.

OBAMA:  Well, as you noted, I haven't made a formal announcement about my intelligence team.  That may be him calling now --  finding out where it's at.  I have the utmost respect for Leon Panetta.  I think that he's one of the finest public servants that we've had.  He brings extraordinary management skills, great political savvy, an impeccable record of integrity.  as chief of staff, he's somebody  who to the president he's somebody who was fully versed in  international affairs, crisis management, and had to evaluate intelligence consistently on a day-to-day basis.

Having said all that, I have not made an announcement.  When we make the announcement, I  think what people will see is that we are putting together a top notch intelligence team that is not only going to assure that I get the best possible intelligence -- unvarnished -- that...the intelligence community is no  longer geared toward telling the president what they think the president wants to hear...but instead are going to be delivering the information that the president needs to make critical decisions to keep the American people safe.  I think what you're also going to see is a team that is committed to breaking with some of the past practices and concerns that have, I think, tarnished the image of the agencies and intelligence agencies and U.S. foreign policy.  

Last point I will make on this is that there are outstanding intelligence professionals in the CIA, DNI and others and I have the utmost regard for the work that they've done and we are committed to making sure that this is a team effort that's not looking backwards but is looking forward to figure out how we're going to serve the American people best.

So yes, that pretty much confirms Fertik's post.

Update 2: Obama's statement and Biden's apology for cutting Senators out of the loop between them seem to have done the trick. AP: Obama's CIA pick unlikely to face Senate challenge.

Comments

[Enlightened Layperson]

Well, up till now I thought that it was impossible for Panetta to be confirmed, the only question was whether he would be rejected by an absolute majority or filibustered by the Republicans. But in light of the latest statement by Obama, it sounds has though he will simply be withdrawn. What a shame!

[Steve Hynd]

Check the linked news story at "Upate 2".

[Enlightened Layperson]

I sure hope you (and the article) are right.