Leon Panetta & the DCI

[H2O Man]

The report that Leon Panetta will serve as the Director of the CIA in the Obama administration is getting a lot of attention in Washington, DC, and in the national news media. It is interesting to view this within the larger context of the controversies involving who gets to take positions of power in our country, either by elections or appointments. Considering that the current White House occupant was appointed in the face of having lost the 2000 presidential election, current events should come as little surprise. Will the Senate seat Roland Burris? Who will NY Governor Patterson appoint? And how far will the machine go to deny Al Franken the victory that he has won?

In Panetta’s case, I am reminded of when newly elected President Jimmy Carter attempted to appoint Ted Sorensen to serve as the CIA’s director in 1977. A full story of those events can be found in Sorensen’s 2008 book, "Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History." (See chapter 33, "My 1977 Nomination for Director of Central Intelligence") This came at a time shortly after the disgraced Nixon administration had been removed from power, and Gerald Ford had become VP then President without having been elected to either office.

At the time, there were divisions within the democratic party. Those divisions led to Soresen’s not being able to serve as DCI. Looking back, it is disappointing to see those democrats who undercut Sorensen.

Like Sorensen, Leon Panetta has a long history of service in Washington. Also, he is being selected to serve as a manager of an agency that has experienced a troubling role in the scandals associated with a corrupt republican administration. And like Sorensen, Panetta may face some serious opposition from the democrats in Washington who should be supporting the newly elected President’s choice.

While the media focuses on Panetta’s reported lack of experience in intelligence matters (a claim that does not hold up under close examination), and the talking heads discuss their thoughts on if President Obama should have kept on the current Bush appointee, the truth lies elsewhere. There has been an effort by a faction of Washington democrats to get Obama to appoint Jane Harmen as DCI.

Harmen does have experience with intelligence matters, relating to her service in the House of Representatives. For example, she serves on the Committee on Homeland Security. In that position, she offered to do the legal research she believed would support VP Cheney’s most questionable, secret activities ( see pages 301-302 of Barton Gellman’s 2008 book "Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency"). In 2007, she submitted a resolution that proposed to set restrictions on free speech and beliefs within the United States.

Panetta has spoken out strongly against the types of practices, such as torture, that Harmen and Cheney embrace. I believe that he is a good choice for DCI at this time. It should be interesting to see if his appointment is confirmed.

[blogslut]

1. Kick

My knowledge on this is minimal. I am aware that Senator Feinstein has strong ties to defense contractors and was hoping Congressperson Harmon would be appointed new head of the CIA. I am also aware of Ms. Harmon's less than exemplary record when it comes to dealing with security issues.

Thank you for your post.

[H2O Man]

4. I also think of

her statement that she was "the best Republican in the Democratic Party" (LA Times; page 3; 3-23-98) when she was running for governor of CA. I consider her to be a "democrat" in the same mold of Joe Lieberman: a neoconservative with some liberal social policies, and a militant foreign policy that overwhelms their belief in the Constitution.

I do not discount having an awareness of intelligence issues: as we witnessed in the Plame and the neocon/AIPAC espionage scandal, there are divisions within the intelligence communities, and a Director has his/her work cut out for them.

But I have a real problem with politicians who attempt to subvert the Constitution, and the law. Jane Harmon has done both, and has been on the wrong side too many times. She was as willing to serve VP Cheney as was Scooter Libby.

[Cha]

10. I don't remember her name with fondness

through the bush years and now that this out that she was being considered I'm really glad she wasn't chosen.

Like the OP from yesterday.."Obama is sending a strong statement with Leon Panetta"(paraphrasing)

[yardwork]

21. Feinstein's opinion confirmed my positive thoughts about Panetta.

[merh]

2. Sorry friend.

Your post is far too reasonable and rational.

You need to spice things up a bit, let your emotions rule and fore sake your common sense if you want any attention.

;)

Personally, I agree with your post and thank you for it, but I'm not a cool kid so don't expect my support to mean much of nothing.

:hug:

[H2O Man]

5. Ha!

I am happy to get any responses to my posts these days!

I do, however, take advantage of other means of communicating with politicians, both in my state and in Washington, DC.

[merh]

12. I know how you feel

and like you, I step beyond DU to be heard, IRL efforts seem to have a greater impact and re less frustrating.

A belated happy holidays and joyous new year to you.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. K&R. Great post.

[H2O Man]

6. Thank you.

I consider this to be one of Obama's most important actions since winning the election.

[Hope And Change]

7. K & R!

:kick:

[H2O Man]

14. Thank you. n/t

[Tatiana]

8. I agree with this assessment. Harman would have been a dangerous choice. n/t

[H2O Man]

15. Right.

She would be a toxic choice who could only further pollute the democratic foundation of our society. She is a good example of why it is important that people at the grass roots level not be fooled into thinking that anyone and everyone who is identified as a "democrat" is on our side, and looking out for our best interests.

[Cha]

9. Thank you, Waterguy! I love

the history woven into today's news 'cause I really didn't pay that much attention back then and it's fascinating.

The things you learn on DU.

[H2O Man]

16. Thanks.

It's a topic that has long interested me. Most rational people would agree that we need intelligence agencies; likewise, that they can be used for good and/or for bad purposes. Our country has had numerous examples of both potentials. It would be great if Panetta could provide the type of management that promoted the good potential. (Ted Sorensen could have, and I think that was why his nomination met such resistance.)

[Hell Hath No Fury]

11. Always glad to read your work.

The thought of Harmon heading CIA was positively chilling. :scared:

[H2O Man]

17. Harman

would be no better a choice than Lieberman.

[grantcart]

13. If you spend enough time

you can find a post that is intelligent, well researched and well written.

What is really hard to find here is something that really answers a question like - What the hell is this pissing match all about?

It is also important to note that since the realignment of intelligence agencies the CIA no longer has the independence or the singular importance that it had when Sorenson was considered. That change makes the need to have an intelligence professional in command less relevant


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cia#2004.2C_DCI_takes_over_CIA_top-level_functions

Previously, the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) oversaw the Intelligence Community, serving as the president's principal intelligence advisor, additionally serving as head of the Central Intelligence Agency. The DCI's title now is "Director of the Central Intelligence Agency" (DCIA), serving as head of the CIA.

Currently, the Central Intelligence Agency reports to the Director of National Intelligence. Prior to the establishment of the DNI, the CIA reported to the President, with informational briefings to congressional committees. The National Security Advisor is a permanent member of the National Security Council, responsible for briefing the President with pertinent information collected by all U.S. intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration, etc. All 16 Intelligence Community agencies are under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.

[H2O Man]

18. Right.

At this point in time, they need "management." Things have changed, and will continue to change. The only question is if those changes will be positive or negative. I think that Panetta has the potential to institute positive change.

[annabanana]

19. My first inkling that this might have been a canny choice was when

Feinstein squawked.. I knew she was not a disinterested observer. Thanks for this post H2Oman

[yardwork]

20. I'm glad to hear that others think Panetta is a good choice. It seems like a good choice.