Feinstein Furious Over Panetta Pick

Newsmax.com ^ | 1/5/09 | Newsmax.com

[FastCoyote]

“But weirdness like the Richardson flameout, and this lame pick - after the well managed campaign - whooda thunk it?”

Whooda thunk it indeed! Just anyone with a brain cell. I mean, it started with our boy genius vice president, smokin Joe Biden.

[nathanbedford]

Well, this is an interesting turn of events. Posters so far have not dwelt on the motives Obama might have found persuasive in appointing a political hack out of the Clinton administration with no intelligence experience. It smacks of the older Russian practice of putting a political commissar at the side of every field grade officer to guarantee political correctness. It also served to remind the generals and colonels that they could either sacrifice their troops or they themselves would be sacrificed-a reminder which often stirred Russian commanders to commit their troops to suicidal attacks.

The CIA for years has been a sick child of our national administrations. Its blunders have been dramatic and catastrophic. To name a few: it missed Saddam's attack on Kuwait; it botched the presence of WMDs in Iraq; it missed the Russian invasion of Georgia; it missed 9/11. To compound its blunders, it has harbored a virtual fifth column which has acted on the very cusp of treason in leaking information to media such as the New York Times in an effort to unhorse George Bush and stop the Iraq war.

It is perfectly plausible to believe the Barak Obama is more concerned about bringing the CIA to heal at the side of its new political masters by installing commissar Panetta there to put the fear of God in the apparatchiks.

By way of full disclosure, I had been a poster stridently arguing before the election that Obama's whole record points to the danger of making a Manchurian Marxist the most powerful man in the world. Since the election, I confess that I have been surprised by the relative conservatism of his appointments. These appointments suggest that our fears expressed during the campaign were misplaced. On the other hand, these foreign affairs appointments might simply mean that Obama is aware of his immaturity and ignorance in this arena and is willing to hand off the problems to establishment figures. It might also mean that Obama intends to work his socialist agenda not through foreign affairs (i.e. the treaty making powers) but through the economy and the restructuring of the capitalist system. To achieve that, he might simply want to put foreign affairs on ice for a while.

The appointment, equally, might be part of a larger pattern developing around Barak Obama, at least in foreign affairs, in which he is installing appointees who will give him some insulation in the event of failure of policy. Certainly Gates at defense, a Republican holdover, provides Obama with cover in the event of a failure at defense. Similarly, Hillary as a megastar in her own right can draw a lot of the blame for failures of diplomacy. To a lesser degree, Panetta would serve the same function in the event of a failure of intelligence.

Panetta's appointment could also signal an intention to utterly politicize the CIA and shape it as an instrument of a leftist policy. Panetta's whole career, most recently his work and looking into the fairness doctrine, demonstrate that he is a willing apparatchik for any leftist policy goal. Give in Obama's shadowy but clearly extreme a leftist history, one is entitled to ask what it is that Obama has in mind for the agency.

Whatever his motivations, Obama has clearly failed to select someone who can get on with the job of restructuring and professionalizing a very, very sick but vital leg of our national survival. The appointment is not frivolous but political, and the question is why?

[mware]

Geeze I don't know what everyone is so upset about, After all Panetta was able to shuffle Clinton and his harem of women to various hotels around DC, Maryland, and Delaware with hardly anyone paying attention except Republicans.

[randita]

The appointment is not frivolous but political, and the question is why?

I wonder how many people Obama asked before having to settle on Panetta.

[subterfuge]

". . . the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."

This is the first and most likely the last thing I agree with her on.

Notice she doesn't mention anything about what might be good for America.

[kenth]

The choice is that of the President, or in this case president-elect 0. The senate’s involvement comes after the pick.

The senate is one of the biggest problems facing this country. They constantly overstep their boundaries, all due to the 17th amendment. 0’s picks may be awful, but they are his to make.

[proudpapa]

Rumor has it, Obama was impressed that Panetta had read a Tom Clancy novel.

[svcw]

Ok, that made me laugh out loud....thanks.

[r9etb]

This is the first and most likely the last thing I agree with her on.

Considering the flack the Dems tossed at Bush for the supposed shortcomings of his intelligence team, she cannot, as a matter of politics, acquiesce to somebody who is so patently unqualified for the post. The R's -- even those of the current crop -- would bash the D's to death with it.

That said, Obama's choice of Panetta for CIA apparently makes absolutely no sense -- Panetta's background is primarily civil rights and budget-related, with a smattering of environmental causes. About the only thing I can think of is that Obama wants Panetta to address the CIA's alleged civil rights abuses.

Other than that, the only other excuse I can imagine is that Panetta is a sacrificial rabbit whose withdrawal will be used to usher in Obama's real choice for the position.

[dfwgator]

You know, it’s really sad that the Rats are going to be tougher on Obama than the GOP will ever be.

[r9etb]

Newsmax writes: “... issued a sharp statement Monday that was a thinly veiled criticism of the pick.” Newsmax is no better than the MSM.

Damn... I hadn't noticed that. Time to downgrade my estimate of the story's veracity.