-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2009/01/feinstein-and-rockefeller-publicly.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
They better get it together fast.
The worst thing Obama can do that will emulate Carter is appoints some arrogant control freak like Zbigniew Brzezinski as National Security Advisor. Brzezinski was the main reason why Iran became a foreign policy disaster for the Carter Administration.
Also Obama has already set his main policy agenda, the Economic Stimulus package, it is not going to be the Panama Canal Treaty.
Clintonites are much heavily in the Obama Administration, and they went through the Reagan years that shed off any of the old democrat political paradigms that came about from the New Deal.
I think Rahm should had talked to Senator Feinstein before making the announcement.
Obama really runs the risk of having Jimmy Carter-like relations with a Democratic Congress if Rahm or somebody over there doesn't get on top of congressional relations now.
As for Panetta, yeah, I don't get it.
I've read that DiFi wants Jane Harmon, which is one reason why she's throwing a snit. I know Obama didn't want anybody tainted with rendition/waterboarding/bugging operations during the Bush years and was having trouble finding somebody within the CIA who wasn't tainted with Black Ops. Still, Obama had plenty of advisors from the 9/11 commission (such as Tim Roemer) who would have been better fits. Not sure how old Lee Hamilton is, but he would have been a better pick too.
He has some intelligence experience.
I would put it the other way around. The Democrats in Congress sandbagged Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton for that matter, and hopefully won't be so stupid -- or allowed to be so stupid -- as to do it a third time. Obama has so far bent over backward, it appears, to include Congresspersons in his administration, starting with Joe and then Rahm.
Jane Harmon has FAILED to serve best the interests of US!
Hamilton and Roemer are best at sitting on whitewash committees. Hamilton and Kerry served on the Iran/Contra committe, which they shut down before exposing the pols involved in that CRIMINAL activity thus allowing many of them to resurface in the Bush administration.
I have not been enamored with most of Obamas picks but I like the fact that Panetta is not an AIPAC whore and that DiFi will not have a direct line to the CIA.
Now, if we could only rid ourselves of DiFi, Hamilton, Harmon and their kind, this country will be much better off!!!
Panetta is a statement.
CHANGE was the reason we supported Obama.
Someone leaked the news that Leon Panetta would be CIA director to a few publications; I think the New York Times and NBC News had it first.
The leak didn't come from the Obama campaign.
The plan was to announce Panetta later in the week.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/20...
Feinstein and Rockefeller sense a real individual with real clout at the agency, whom they cannot control. There may have been a lack of foreisght here in not phoning Feinstein ahead of time. But it is also indisputable that many leading intelligence Democrats were deeply complicit in the Bush torture program and his illegal wire-tapping. It was just as important for the president-elect to pick someone not beholden to them either.
Some are now citing Panetta's appointment as somehow "political" rather than substantive. But it's obvious that Obama has actually found someone both capable of running a bureaucracy as complex as the CIA, of a stature to be approved by the Congress and maintain good relations, and with the good sense to know how interrogation based on torture is never right and much less effective than legal methods.
It remains an inspired choice. And the critics help show why.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily...
Much like the FISA revision and telecom immunity.
There is a huge difference in being mean spirited and hateful about public servants and being critical of their policies and decisions as framed in the Constitution. What better time to make our feelings known than before he takes the oath of office.
Even so, I suspect it is indicative of the arrogance and ego that I've said is going to be the gigantic story in the future connected with Obama.
In this case, I'm happy about it, but John's point is well taken. Throwing the finger to Mrs Feinstein is not going to be as easily handled as throwing it to the entire GLBT community.
John says, "At some point they're going to need to start wooing Democrats as well." DiFi a Democrat? That is a very broad and loose interpretation of Democrat if you ask me. As John points out, she inevitably has some absolutely bizarre rationalization to support loathsome Republican positions. I'm sick of it and if it doesn't defeat our purpose of change, she absolutely deserves the finger, in my opinion.
Couldn't both Obama's leaving her out of the loop and her outrage be because of her husband's deep and perhaps unsavory connection with weapons money?
As several have commented, to me Panetta connotes character (and perhaps constitutional fealty as well). Now that is a change I heartily endorse! We all need to get behind it with full and hearty support.
Rush Holt has a better record of judgment on intelligence and national security issues than does Dianne Feinstein, so naturally nobody regards his views as “serious,” but he likes Leon Panetta just fine:
“Having served in Congress in the wake of Watergate and the domestic surveillance abuses that surfaced during the 1970s, Mr. Panetta understands how a democratic government should operate. He also demonstrated skill in running the Office of Management and Budget and as Chief of Staff under President Clinton. We need the CIA to collect reliable, actionable intelligence in ways that respect American values and honor the Constitution. Mr. Panetta’s background and reputation indicate he would serve the intelligence community, the President, and the country well.”
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009...
"It's going to take a candidate who is good enough to build a world of ideas that encompasses both liberal and conservative views," Mr. Panetta told me.
The context of that quote was regarding dissension among "left-leaning groups" of many stripes that their concerns were not being heard by the DNC, the DLC and the Kerry camp.
So to Hell with that bitch.
This was a coregraphed take-down.
It's Obama's first fight to change the CIA and intelligence apartatus that has failed us and Feinstein is on the other side of this fight.
It was a democratic congress that sold Clinton down the river; and they're playing that game again.
Hopefully, Feinstein will emerge from this with egg on her face after the mendacity of saying a former cheif of staff who not only deals with intelligence but makes the decisions, dude who ran Bosnia for Clinton in the WH is not prepared.
When shit like this happens in intelligence and a breakdown occurs you need an outsider loyal to the adminstration to make change: Obama's got a guy in Panetta who'll make sure he's not stabbed in the back.
Finally: he choose someone 100% against torture. This was a big fat kiss to the base and should make us support him more in getting this deal done.
we really need a program to unseat DINOs like DiFi and Rocky and replace them with decent people. interestingly, David Boren, former chair of that committee, is on Obama's transition team.
Bush-Enablers Feinstein and Rockefeller are running scared
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/6/1655...
It's win-win for Di-fi. Scum. Bush (who let the worst attack from outside on US soil happen...) tries to use "but, SINCE then, nothing..." as argument how well he is doing, and they lie and pretend it is the illegal crap like wiretaps, secret prisons, torture that is making the US safe.
So along comes reality, that even with torture there is the same chance of another attack happening, but like a shaman with a magic ornament that keeps away rain, whatever, people want to believe it.
SO the slick ones go on record now opposing (and probably would ANY change) the selection, and if something later happens, why...my gawd, DiFI KNEW they shouldn't have picked HIM!! See what happened?
No attack in the next four years, and nobody will remember she was against him. Can't lose.
http://www.panettainstitute.org/institute/leon_...
DiFi and Rocky V are part of the problem.. Leon will be part of the solution.
(Along with dismantling the torture/rendition mentality...taking a closer look at CIA budget is a pretty good idea also.
The general indication that an Obama administration may actually DO SOMETHING about illegal spying, torture, rendition, secret laws, GIamtanamo etc. etc. warms my heart.
http://thesebastards.blogspot.com/
Which is why he picked Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State.
I have been wondering what her qualifications were.
check out Glen G's article...especially the vid.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/...
She voted for Telecom Immunity, AG Mukasey, and racist and homophobic Mississippi Judge Leslie Southwick for the powerful New Orleans-based United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
...but she's agains Panetta?
Here in California we think of Dianne Feinstein as Joe Lieberman in a dress. She is a Democrat in name only and sometimes doesn't even seem to claim the name. I think it signals that the old guard at the CIA is changing, and the old guard of being pretend Democrats is changing. My greatest hope is that she resigns to run for Governor and loses. I will never vote for her again, even if it means leaving a box unchecked. She is what is wrong with the senate and to be so compromised, so myopic, knowing the progressive political background she came from (well, at least, the progressive political opportunity background she came from, not that she took advantage of it) -- it is really shameful. Go to YouTube and try to find video of her introducing Condi for her Secretary of State confirmation, but have a barf bag nearby first. She is worthless and Obama is right to dismiss her opinion. What this whole incident says is she would not have cooperated and there was no way he was going to appoint a compromised candidate.
Times have changed.
Panetta is a SUPERB choice, and Obama has the political capital to take her on. Yes, she has her bruised ego and her position to sustain her, but she won't have public opinion on her side.
NOT GAY
Welcome to the wackadoodle world of Team Obama. But we should not question what he is doing . Obama is soooo smart and he knows so much more than the rest of us. He works in mysterious ways.
drum roll please....
(and yes...a black guy with a black wife and black children..
who defeated Clinton and the GOP..IS in fact smarter than the rest of us..(certainly you)
But as my grandpa said when he took me fishing.."Ya gotta keep trolling kid."
As Glenn Greenwald much more intelligently puts it, "Few things could reflect better on Panetta's selection than the fact that Feinstein and Rockefeller -- two of the most Bush-enabling Senators -- are unhappy with it."
This is the best news coming out of BO since the nomination.
Intelligence is a really dirty business. I think cleaning sewer pipes daily is less revolting. It takes someone who is apolitical with a strong stomach to get the task needed to be done, whether it is bugging friendly countries gov't officials phones, paying off addicted prostitutes with drugs, dealing with drug dealers, and dealing with other really slimey people.
I think what is important is that Obama picks someone he trusts, and will listen to. What got Clinton in trouble was picking Admiral Woolsey, who had a stellar record for Intelligence, Arm Control and National Security Issues, (okay this was before he drank the nectar from the Neo-Con chalice and was squawking about invading Iraq) However, Clinton didn't listen to him.. So it makes the role of DCIA kind of pointless, and waste of the CIA bureaucracy, when the President won't read their reports, (or for President Reagan, watch them, The CIA made films for reading phobic Reagan)
I am guessing that the selection of Panetta is more the work of Rahm Emmanuel than of Obama. Emmanuel worked for Panetta in the White House, and most likely trust him. Given that Pannetta clean the Republicans' clocks during the Gov't shutdown in 1995... besides Pannetta will be good to fight for the CIA's budget, given he was House Budget Chairman..
I don't think it is a great choice, but it isn't a bad choice, given Panetta has some of the political skills to help the CIA, as long as he leaves operations control with the intelligence officers, and makes CIA a happy place after the Goss debacle, Panetta can't do much damage.
Obama was elected on "Change"....
This throwdown..and it is a throwdown directed against DiFi and Rocky V..
If Di and Jay want to Obstruct? Cool..
I get confused.....for awhile I have read posts here and elsewhere..
about how Obama has sold out...
Yet,; he shuts out 2 high ranking Dems..who have been demonstrated to have enabled Cheney/Bush..and this is a bad thing?
We do not have to woo Dems who turned the other way to allow torture/rendition/illegal wires...
I can understand GOP'ers scratching their heads over Obama's election.
I can understand Clinton supporters scratching their heads over his election...but if folks still fail to realize the same vision/plan/execution that took place then is not taking place now? I can understand that also.
This is new territory for all of us...
...and I am grateful it is happening in my lifetime..
"This ain't no Party.
This ain't no disco.
This ain't no foolin' around."
1. Sen. Feinstein has known for some time that she would become the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee and
2. she has stated (perhaps to the transition team as well?) that she thinks someone from inside the Agency should be named as its new head. However,
3. Mr. Obama apparently had no intention of appointing anyone from inside the CIA to be its head and therefore,
4. Mr. Obama, already knowing Sen. Feinstein's preferences, asks Sen. Wyden, also on the Intelligence Committee, for his input.
5. The selection of Mr. Panetta to head the CIA is leaked before the originally planned announcement, but apparently NOT by the transition team. Another attempt to build up credibility by some "un-named" source?
6. So there was no attempt to "insult", gratuitously or otherwise, Sen. Feinstein.
But that still leaves the question: Why is Sen. Feinstein acting as she is? Did she expect Mr. Obama to consult with her about his nominee? Has Mr. Obama consulted with the other Chairs about his nominees for all the other positions he has announced selections for? If he hasn't done so for them, why should Sen. Feinstein expect him to act differently for her?
Or, more likely, is the answer simply that she and Sen. Rockefeller are worried about the appointment of a person completely untouched by the Agency mind-set and FISA and torture and Lord knows what else? Someone who just might not worry too much about the skeletons that will be disinterred when he takes over and cleans up the mess left behind by the Director appointed by GWB and confirmed by, among others, Senators Feinstein and Rockefeller?
If that's the case, they're probably not worrying alone.