Panetta on Torture

What a sad commentary on the nation's political health when it's considered news that a possible key government official finds torture an abomination.
.
Yes, I know, Paneta is up for CIA director. Don't we want a CIA director who opposes torture as public policy?

Considering how hard it was going to be to find an untainted spook, I think this is a good choice. He may know more about National Security issues than it would appear at first glance. Do we assume he knew most if not all as Clinton's Chief of Staff? It seems likely that he can maintain morale at the CIA, and Obama's had some direct experience with him during the transition.

personally I prefer someone with a more expansive skill set to draw on. Group think is how we got where we are and the reason the community is so tainted. When the only experience you have cones out of intelligence than you tend to look at everything from that perspective. When you're a hammer the whole world is a nail. Paneta is the whole toolbox.

Atrios posted this link:

http://www.montereyherald.com/leonpanetta/ci_8511876

Unfortunately, fear remains an appealing weapon in the modern political arsenal. In a tight battle, the temptation is to scare the hell out of the public in order to win an issue or beat an opponent. Consultants design campaigns to get voters to vote their guts and not their brains. This appeal to the lowest common denominator afflicts both the way this nation elects its leaders and ultimately the way these leaders govern.
.
Fear exacts a terrible toll on our democracy. Five years ago, America went to war in Iraq over the false fear that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
.
Even though we now know that there were intelligence officials who questioned the assertion, few leaders were willing to challenge this argument for war because they knew it might undermine public support for the president's decision to invade Iraq.

I think this makes clear that Obama indeed intends to devote significant effort in undoing the damage that Bush has done to our moral standing.
.
His OLC pick apparently sends a similar message:
.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/05/olc/index.html
.
Considering just how badly things are going around the world at the moment I was rather hoping for good news. It appears that my wish has been granted.

Good news to end the news day. Both these picks seem very promising going forward.

Ruh-roh. More drama:

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,' said Senator Feinstein, who will chair the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in the 111th Congress. " 'My position has consistently been that I believe the Agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time. [Link]

It's easier to manage a campaign than the free world.

Absolutely love the pick!!!!! We've seen what happens when we have turned to the old gray men of the intelligence service, they violate or allow other administration officials to violate every Geneva convention rule.

As for Senator Feinstein, I really don't think the Obama administration gives a hoot what she thinks. Me thinks she will be singing a different tune once someone from the Obama administration gets in her grill.

As for Senator Feinstein, I really don't think the Obama administration gives a hoot what she thinks.

Good strategy. Larry Summers should also tell her not to worry her pretty little head about it.

Diane Feinstein saying that is no different than all the similar things that Trent Lott said about GWB right before he was inaugurated.
/snark

In all seriousness, I think the Obama team is missing my personal hero of the campaign: David Plouffe. Wholly apart from policy issues, and with the full expectation that they will recover, it was Plouffe who made the trains run on time and I think they've dropped some balls during the transition that he would have kept in the air.

Screw Feinstein. I agree with Greenwald; the fact that Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller are complaining about the nomination is the best possible recommendation for Panetta that I could possibly imagine.

Doggone, seems that Greenwald and Swampy Tom had my thought before I did. Feinstein and Rockefeller wanted someone who was complicit in the crimes of the Bush administration because they went along with it, and are complicit themselves.

MS:
Welcome back - to the scene of your personal torture.

" ..Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller .. want someone with more intelligence experience..."

Someone, like those imbeciles who left no doubt in our beleaguered minds that Iraq had WMDs? Are these two talking in parables?

davemc321 Says:
".. Don't we want a CIA director who opposes torture as public policy? .."

If we do, then we will also frown upon - and censor - our allies who torture. And that puts us on a scary collision course with the most gratuitous torturer and ( de facto) the most powerful nation on earth - Israel - whose disciples (surprise!) ultimately control that public policy.

You don't want to be on the wrong side of Israel, do you? Will Feinstein let you forget it? Will Rahm Emmanuel and most of the incoming cabinet?

Will BHO?

The Feinstein Rockefeller objection is funny. Do they want somebody with more "intelligence experience", or somebody with more intelligence? Based on Pantta's quote on torture, I would go with him. Do they realize that the "intelligence experience" is the root of so many of our problems now?

Panetta, sorry general.

They want someone with more intelligence experience and more neocon world view ... like them!

Here's what Glenn "Glennzilla" Greenwald says about Dianne Feinstein:

UPDATE VI: Spencer Ackerman reports that Sen. Dianne Feinstein is upset with the selection of Panetta, petulantly complaining that she wasn't consulted in advance and that it would be best to have an "intelligence professional" in that position. CQ's Tim Starks reports that Sen. Jay Rockefeller is making very similar noises about this selection. 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.

bethva, hell hath no fury as a woman scorned. Does Rockefeller wear panties too? OK, forgive me. I am not sexist, just clumsily trying to be funny.

How 'bout McCain as CIA director? They're definitely in sync on torture.

Is Darth Vader available?

Glenn, et al. have covered why DiFi's objection should be Panetta's stamp of approval.
.
Beyond that, I must admit that I really don't understand the Bush Dogs in Congress.
.
I mean, I get Bush and Cheney. I get the Republicans in Congress. I don't agree with any of them, mind you. But I understand where they are coming from, what they want, and why they act the way they do. But the DiFis and the Rockefellers, not to mention the Reids and Pelosis, always remain a mystery to me. I don't understand their motivation. For 8 years they rolled over for the Bush White House. They handed over total control of the intelligence apparatus to Cheney and not only failed to make a peep, but cheered on Congress' diminishing oversight role. NOW they get their panties in a bunch over Panetta?

They want someone with more intelligence experience.
_
I want someone with more intelligence.

This isn't about DiFi and JayRock not liking Panetta. This is about them not being consulted.

Not consulting, or even informing, Feinstein was an unforced tactical error unrelated to the appropriate disdain for her previous positions. It's also a little unsettling to scrape and bow to Republicans in the "spirit of bipartisanship" while we ramrod our own. Lesson learned. Panetta a good choice. Next.