Barack Obama nominates someone to head the CIA whose major qualification is his inexperience. Even Democrats are dismayed. John Travolta's son, sadly, died. So in its crucial first half-hour this morning, the Early Show naturally devotes almost five minutes to the Travolta story while ignoring the controversy surrounding Leon Panetta's appointment. Far from revealing that even senior Dems like Senators Feinstein and Rockefeller have signalled their displeasure over the naming of Panetta, CBS' Chip Reid painted the pick as a sign of how Obama is briskly taking charge. Here was the sum total of the Early Show's discussion of the matter:
CHIP REID: He may not be Commander-in-Chief just yet. But Mr. Obama is wasting no time, on Monday picking former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta to head the CIA, and retired Admiral Dennis Blair to be director of national intelligence.
Perhaps the most damning indictment of the Panetta pick is this from the New York Times [emphasis added]:
So the president-elect passed over someone skilled in combating terror networks in favor of someone with little intelligence experience. Will Barack Obama sacrifice the security of the United States on the altar of waterboarding?Aides have said that Mr. Obama had originally hoped to select a C.I.A. director with extensive field experience, especially in combating terrorist networks. But his first choice for the job, John O. Brennan, had to withdraw his name amid criticism over his alleged role in the formation of the agency’s detention and interrogation program after the Sept. 11 attacks.
As President Clinton’s chief of staff for two and a half years, Mr. Panetta regularly attended daily intelligence briefings in the Oval Office, and he has a reputation in Washington as a skilled manager and power broker with a strong background in budget issues. But he has little direct intelligence experience, and did not serve on the House Intelligence Committee during his 16 years in Congress.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Welcome to the executive branch
January 6, 2009 - 10:19 ET by KC MulvilleObama is suddenly discovering that Washington is a not a one-man show where everyone follows his command to the letter, as the media has promised him for the last two years.
The point is that the United States government isn't a case of one person making all the decisions and expecting everyone else to obey. Like it or not, government is a collaboration of many independent powers. The executive doesn't dictate, he leads.
Obama didn't involve or even notify Dianne Feinstein, whose committee oversees the CIA. He pissed off a committee chair from his own party. If he's a good executive, he won't make that mistake again. But it does show his inexperience that he did it at all.
You touch on a point here.
January 6, 2009 - 10:32 ET by mizflame98Committee chairs are tribal chieftains. They can block the arteries of government unless they are appeased. They can call hearings and subpoena witnesses. They can bottle up proposed bills. They can be the ultimate prima donnas. These are very ambitious people who have agendas of their own.
Obama would know that if he actually bothered to do his job as a US Senator instead of spend his tenure running for President.
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
KC--Excellent points, as
January 6, 2009 - 12:01 ET by celatorKC--Excellent points, as usual.
CLINTON Rewrite
January 6, 2009 - 10:24 ET by PawpawNAnyone besides me think that this whole election was a set up. If Hillary got in or Obama got in, seems would have made no difference. This is an administration hellbent on changing the LEGACY of BILL CLINTON. All these CLINTON people can now go in, change the history of the 8 years of BJ CLINTON in foreign and domestic matters and make him GLOW! Watch and see if all the world will now have been such a safe place during CLINTON'S time in office, that nothing occurred bad except once BUSH got in. Panetta as CIA chief-heck they'd have put SANDY BURGLAR if they could have! I'm beginning to see such a pattern of people that one can only surmise that this whole election was about rewriting THE CLINTON LEGACY.
CIA is the most important cabinet pick
January 6, 2009 - 10:24 ET by Dee Bunkand this is a disgrace. The left loved to blame and put everything at the feat of the CIA for 9/11 and Obama picks someone with no experience?
This is especially scary considering the left thinks that intelligence is the only answer. They don't think we need protected borders and don't think we need to take the fight to the terrorists. They put all their chips on intelligence.
This should be big news.
You are right: this is a
January 6, 2009 - 11:49 ET by SeashellYou are right: this is a disgrace, it should be big news, and it is certainly the most important cabinet pick. I bet those in the middle east are laughing at us right now knowing we put a weenie in the White House and now have a novice for our CIA director in a time of war. They must think we are soooo stupid.
Travolta vs Panetta?
January 6, 2009 - 10:28 ET by mizflame98I don't see how you can make a comparison between the death of Travolta's son and Leon Panetta's appointment to the CIA. You're comparing apples and oranges here and I really don't begrudge any media outlet for dedicating 5 minutes to the Travolta's. They are much loved people and seem genuinely nice. They suffered a tragedy that I wold never wish on anyone.
With that said...
This is typical of the MSM lack of reporting with regards to Obama's major screw up. Just what we need while we're in the middle of the war on terror is to have an inexperienced Clinton hack run the CIA. Let's see if George Clooney is available for the Surgeon General position since he played a doctor on the show ER.
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
Ooh! George Clooney! Yes!
January 6, 2009 - 10:33 ET by sherylsimsOoh! George Clooney! Yes! After all, who better to serve in the American Idol Presidency! He's so DREE-EAMMY!!! (Uh oh... do you think he might take some of the spotlight off of the glorious leader's sex-appeal?) Hmmm... Maybe it should be that guy who plays House instead. He is really good at being a doctor... er playing one.
DON'T make me repeat repeat myself myself!
The problem with that choice...
January 6, 2009 - 10:55 ET by mizflame98Hugh Laurie has a funny personality. We need someone annoying and whiney in the Obama administration. That is why Clooney will make a perfect SG. We can pick Alec Baldwin as the head of HHS. After that voice-mail he left for his daughter, you know that he has children's health and well being at heart.
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
This is just the corrupt MSM
January 6, 2009 - 11:34 ET by R D HelmThis is just the corrupt MSM trying its best to cover up the utter incompetence of PEBO who, through lies, deceit and omissions of all descriptions, they were able to convince 65 million idiot Americans to cast their votes for.
Obama should have stuck with his original choice for CIA Director, and told the far-left kook-fringe to go pound sand.
Too bad he didn't, as now it looks even more to me as if he really isn't the one calling the shots in his yet-to-be administration.
If he were, there wouldn't be nearly as many Clinton cronies in the mix.
Something isn't quite right here.
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -Because enough is enough.
Something isn't quite right
January 6, 2009 - 11:53 ET by SeashellSomething isn't quite right here.
I agree. It's as if the Clintons have something major on Obama, and they are running the show.
You're so right, read my post above
January 6, 2009 - 18:18 ET by PawpawNThey must have had it all along. This is administration to rewrite the CLINTON LEGACY! I'm telling all of you, get wise to this. More FOBs to come!