Why I Respect My (Democratic) Senior Senator
If you want to know why I respect my state’s senior Senator, Dianne Feinstein, while regularly disagreeing with her on any number of issues, just take a gander at this headline: Feinstein slams Obama CIA head pick. This responsible Democrat has taken issue with the president-elect of her own party for tapping a political hack to head the CIA.
Feinstein, the incoming chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a statement:
I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA Director. I know nothing about this, other than what I’ve read. . . . My position has consistently been that I believe the Agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time.
Shouldn’t the president-elect have consulted with the leading Senate Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee before selecting someone to head the CIA?
Unlike her junior colleague, the former San Francisco Mayor does not walk in lockstep with her party’s leadership and understands that Republicans are political adversaries, not mortal enemies. She often works with Republicans on key issues, even when her party leadership favors obstruction. And as this statement shows, takes issue with her party when she thinks its leaders have proposed bad policies or otherwise blundered.
H/t: Jennifer Rubin who offers a great critique of the Panetta appointment.
Apology for the slow blogging. Had hoped to be back up to speed today, but had to run a number of errands, plus I have two nieces and two nephews celebrating birthdays, requiring trips to toy stores and jewelry shops (the step-PatriotNieceWest just had her ears pierced . . . .).
UPDATE:Â Might Feinstein oppose his nomination in committee and on the Senate floor?
30 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
On the one hand, it’s a plus that he didn’t pick a hack CIA bureaucrat (*cough* Tennant *cough*), but on the other, it’s a minus he didn’t pick someone with at least some background in Intelligence.
Best theory I’ve heard so far is that anybody with enough intelligence experience to actually understand the CIA is, ipso facto, “tainted” in the eyes of the extreme left, and Obama didn’t dare risk cheesing them off again.
IMHO: The CIA should be disbanded. It’s bureaucratic and useless. It should be replaced with a leaner agency with a more focused mission. Collecting economic and political data on other countries (i.e. the CIA World Factbook) is a function that can easily be outsourced.
Comment by V the K — January 5, 2009 @ 7:40 pm - January 5, 2009
More Clinton re-treads == More HOPE! More CHANGE! Yes, Messiah, YES, give us MORE! (/sarc)
V - agree 100%.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 5, 2009 @ 8:29 pm - January 5, 2009
Indeed, if reports are true, The One also didn’t bother to notify Jay Rockefeller, the outgoing chair of the SSCI, who, as we may remember, loudly and famously whined about Bush’s alleged use (and misuse) of intelligence prior to the Iraq invasion.
Gee, at the rate His Majesty is stepping on his political crank, his “honeymoon” with Congress is going to be nasty, brutish, and very, very short.
Comment by MarkJ — January 5, 2009 @ 9:31 pm - January 5, 2009
I voted for Hillary in the primaries. Did she win? Did I miss something? Why is she picking the cabinet if she lost? Doesn’t Obama have ANY friends?
Comment by Ashpenaz — January 5, 2009 @ 11:06 pm - January 5, 2009
Yeah, but we already found out what kind of radicals they are.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 6, 2009 @ 1:08 am - January 6, 2009
Leon Panetta is not a hack or partisan Clintonite. Since leaving government 10 years ago, he founded an institute that features dialogues between folks of opposing viewpoints who are regarded as some of the finest political minds around. These respectful dialogues are in stark contrast to the posts here which often sound like adolescents playing on the same team, trying to one up each other in their glee to denigrate and demean members of the opposing team.
Comment by elotrolado — January 6, 2009 @ 2:24 am - January 6, 2009
Panetta’s only “intelligence” experience is creating disinformation about Bills bimbo eruptions. Evidently the ability to lie bare-faced to the media is all that Hopeychangey and his supporters feel is necessary in a DCI.
This tells us all a lot about their character.
Comment by DaveP. — January 6, 2009 @ 6:03 am - January 6, 2009
And eletrolado shows his respect for dialogue by insulting and smearing everyone on the forum. Nicely done.
Comment by V the K — January 6, 2009 @ 6:35 am - January 6, 2009
Upshot of the above: Leon Panetta is in fact unqualified, a hack and a partisan Clintonite.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 6, 2009 @ 7:07 am - January 6, 2009
(Which is farther than I was prepared to go earlier. I only called him a “Clinton retread”, there. elotrolado’s defensive over-reaction pointed to the truth.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 6, 2009 @ 7:11 am - January 6, 2009
Actually Panetta hid a great many of the Clinton’s crimes. We still dont know who, aside from Jamie Gorelick, was involved in erecting the wall between CIA and FBI to protect the Clinton’s illegal foreign contribution racket. Was he involved in Hillary’s illegal use of FBI files against her political adversaries? Whose idea was it that Sandy Berger should steal and destroy Americans’ national security documents to protect the Clinton administration?
If Panetta was involved in these, he has exactly the kind of qualifications Democrats seek: abusing intelligence services for political means.
Comment by American Elephant — January 6, 2009 @ 8:37 am - January 6, 2009
[...] conservative blogger Gay Patriot has nothing but praise for the California [...]
Pingback by How Intelligent a Choice? - The Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com — January 6, 2009 @ 9:19 am - January 6, 2009
V the K is right about Obama´s friends. Most of them are in Chicago or Springfield. As for the U.S. legislature, 142 days on the job isn´t enough time to build relationships and when he was on the job he often showed up late. If he were in private industry, his job performance would have been cause for termination not a promotion to CEO.
Comment by Roberto — January 6, 2009 @ 9:37 am - January 6, 2009
Just goes to show you that incompetence breeds incompetence. If this had been a Republican president, the MSM would be in a total hissy-fit.
You know, sort of when Harriet Miers was nominated.
Bias? What liberal media bias?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 6, 2009 @ 11:43 am - January 6, 2009
#11 - AE, don’t expect the harsh type of grilling from the Senate Intelligence Committee during confirmation hearings. Those are only reserved for GOP nominees.
FYI Dan - I too am pleased with DiFi’s position (a rare occurrence between myself and liberals). I’ve noticed that when it comes to security issues, she breaks with the conventional ostrich-head-in-the-sand mentality as embraced by her party colleagues.
Likewise, I recall when she sponsored Condi Rice’s Senate confirmation hearings as the nominee’s senator and how she scowled at Barbara Boxer’s inflammatory remarks to the Cabinet apointee. I got the impression at the time that she though Babs was way out of line - which again is a normal occurrence with the senior senator from California.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 6, 2009 @ 12:07 pm - January 6, 2009
Don’t worry Peter, I don’t. Nor do I expect anything but a lovefest from the media.
Comment by American Elephant — January 6, 2009 @ 2:07 pm - January 6, 2009
MSNBC is calling all these mistakes some “drama” surrounding Obama.
Let’s see, Blago, corrupt governor and friend of Barrack, Richardson, not vetted properly, Richardson corrpt pay for play almost Sec of Commerce, Dem Senate not seating the black appointee from Ill, Panetta nominated for CIA while not consulting with the senior Senator from Cali INTEL COMM HEAD, no comment on the battle in Gaza…Barrack needs time to get up to speed on the middle east. 6 days of incompetent bumbling by the “flawless” transition team of the CHOSEN ONE. Maybe if he hadn’t taken an extended vacation in Hawaii in a 30 million dollar home, played golf, he could have made some better decisions. Hum, think so? MSM? crickets………….
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 6, 2009 @ 4:22 pm - January 6, 2009
MSNBC just advertised………”where were you when Barack Obama became President?”! nice balanced
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 6, 2009 @ 4:25 pm - January 6, 2009
#18 - My response: throwing up in my toilet.
B. Hussein Obama is not my president, thank you very much.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 6, 2009 @ 4:28 pm - January 6, 2009
#18: Watching the Republican Party nominate John McCain.
Comment by DaveP. — January 6, 2009 @ 4:46 pm - January 6, 2009
ah he’s my President I just can’t stand the double standard in the media. It is amazing any Republican wins an election when you have 95% of the media against them. When you do win, you have to endure, lawsuits, recounts, and anal exams about your personal life. While crooked immoral Dems go skipping away to DC.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 6, 2009 @ 5:14 pm - January 6, 2009
Good one.
Comment by V the K — January 6, 2009 @ 5:15 pm - January 6, 2009
#22 - I agree. Touche, DaveP.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 6, 2009 @ 5:19 pm - January 6, 2009
What’s the big deal. Leon gradgiated the 5th grade and can probably cypher.
That’s all it takes to be a double naught spy.
Comment by Neo — January 6, 2009 @ 7:51 pm - January 6, 2009
I agree that it was a big mistake for Obama to nominate Panetta for CIA chief. There are plenty of experts (Democrats, Republicans, nonpartisan) in the intelligence area with many years of experience, who would be well-qualified for the post. I would have preferred someone whose name I never heard of.
Comment by Pat — January 7, 2009 @ 7:29 am - January 7, 2009
Obamas two main reasons stated for appointing Panetta were, he’s a good manager, and he’s political savy. These will be the people heading the efforts to continue to protect American women and children from mad terrorist bombers. Why arent’ I more confident?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 7, 2009 @ 10:49 am - January 7, 2009
Obamas two main reasons stated for appointing Panetta were, he’s a good manager, and he’s political savy.
Those are good skills, and that may be good enough for some other departments or agencies, but not for things like intelligence and defense. We need someone who is well experienced in intelligence, and not afraid to tell the politically savvy to stick it, when they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Comment by Pat — January 7, 2009 @ 3:51 pm - January 7, 2009
Okay, let’s see if I have this correct:
1. The president-elect has no foreign policy experience.
2. The Secretary of State-designate has no foreign policy experience, except for photo-ops as first lady (including lying about being “under fire in Bosnia”).
3. The Director of Homeland Security-designate only knows about immigration enforcement, and her home state of Arizona is still awash with illegal immigrants.
4. The Attorney General-designate not only has no special knowledge about terrorism, but he orchestrated the pardon of the FALN terrorists under Clinton.
And now the CIA-designate has only had experience in domestic policy, notably as head of the Senate Budget Committee, OMB director, and Chief of Staff to the Clintons.
We are SO screwed.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 7, 2009 @ 6:31 pm - January 7, 2009
28. don’t forget. He’s recommended by Sandy burgler
Comment by The Livewire — January 7, 2009 @ 8:44 pm - January 7, 2009
#28 Damn Peter H. when you put it that way I got chills.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 7, 2009 @ 10:24 pm - January 7, 2009