Now We're Screwed On The Intelligence Front

As I mentioned weeks ago re: the disastrous pick of Eric Holder for AG, and the Bama's silence on whether he wants to prosecute CIA people for keeping us save, the word was that no one wanted to be CIA chief because they knew they were going to have their hand tied and didn't want to be blamed for any SNAFUS as a result.

(You know, those buttwipes crying that we should be playing AC/DC music to prisoners because it is torture).

In any event, it seems that Leon Panetta has been chosen.

I mean if you're getting someone for the DOJ, you want a lawyer. For Head of the Joint Chiefs, a military man.

So rather than get someone with a background in intelligence, he gets someone who's simply a bureaucrat.

I'm sure a lot of top notch intel people will be retiring as well. God help us.

UPDATE: Seems even the Congressional Dems are somewhat dismayed at his awful intel picks:

The search for Obama's new CIA chief had been stalled since November, when John Brennan, Obama's transition intelligence adviser, abruptly withdrew his name from consideration. Brennan said his potential nomination had sparked outrage among civil rights and human rights groups, who argued that he had not been outspoken enough in his condemnation of President George W. Bush's policies.

And despite an internal list of former and current CIA officials who had impressive administrative credentials, all either worked in intelligence during the Bush administration's development of controversial policies on interrogation and torture or earlier, during the months leading up to the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Neither Panetta nor Blair are tainted by associations with Bush administration policies, in large part because they both come from outside the intelligence world. Blair was posted at the CIA for about a year.

Panetta could face tough questions at his nomination hearing about his background in intelligence. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who will chair the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Monday she was surprised by the pick, and neither was informed nor consulted.

"I know nothing about this, other than what I've read," she said. "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."

A former senior CIA official who advises Obama defended the surprise choice of Panetta, who has no direct intelligence experience beyond a two-year stint in the mid-1960s as a U.S. Army lieutenant. The official said Panetta had been a consumer of CIA intelligence when he was at the White House. He said he was selected for his administrative, management and political skills which will allow him both to control and advocate for the agency.

He said Panetta will rely on the expertise of CIA officers to balance his lack of personal intelligence experience.

Veterans of the CIA were caught off guard by the selection.

"I'm at a loss," said Robert Grenier, a former director of the CIA's counterterrorism center and 27-year veteran of the agency who now is managing director of Kroll, a security consulting company.

The lack of intelligence experience puts Panetta at "a tremendous disadvantage," Grenier told The Associated Press in an interview.

Posted by Cigar Mike at January 5, 2009 03:34 PM

Comments

Posted by: Mambi at January 5, 2009 04:41 PM

Posted by: theCardinal at January 6, 2009 10:37 AM

Posted by: Firefly at January 6, 2009 02:25 PM