Leon Panetta is a very talented guy.
In 1994, Panetta became Clinton's Chief of Staff. He brought discipline and maturity to a Clinton White House devastated by the Republican takeover of the Congress and Senate.
I agree that he'd make a wonderful contribution to any Dem administration. Again, Panetta is a good man. He'd make a great liaison between Congress and the White House.
What about the CIA? No!
POLITICO is right:
"In choosing Leon Panetta to head the CIA, President-elect Obama is taking one of the capital's most familiar faces and thrusting him into a starkly unfamiliar role." (Obama puts Panetta in unfamiliar waters)
We are in the middle of two wars and a much larger conflict against terrorism.
How do you fight terrorists? You need superb intelligence. You must listen to their conversations and infiltrate their cells.
Once in a while, you gotta fire a missile and take out their leaders.
Above all, you have to be totally committed to defending the homeland!
Is the CIA's work pretty? Not at all!
Is it necessary? You better believe it!
We need someone who has experience, someone who can earn the respect of the CIA staff. This is not the time for someone to train on the job.
Sorry. Panetta is not the man!
As always, we check out Krauthammer's Take:
"Look, this is somewhere between surprising and shocking.
Choosing someone with no experience in intelligence to head CIA at a time of two wars, what we saw in India just a few weeks ago, bad guys out there trying to do collect weapons of mass destruction.
The reason this happened is because Obama has caved to his left.
The reason this happened is because Obama has caved to his left.
The left will not accept anybody who served in any way in the last eight years under the Bush administration because of the enhanced interrogation, the secret prison programs, and the eavesdropping programs.
That's why, for example, Jane Harmon, who is head of the House Intelligence Committee, who would be an excellent CIA director and the first woman, was nixed because she early on had approved of the listening in on terrorists abroad.
So he chose a novice.
That's why, for example, Jane Harmon, who is head of the House Intelligence Committee, who would be an excellent CIA director and the first woman, was nixed because she early on had approved of the listening in on terrorists abroad.
So he chose a novice.
I think it's a mistake. I think he's going to get a lot of heat in the end.
He'll pass because Panetta is known and liked.
But you got a rookie as a president, a novice as head of the CIA in a time of war—not a good idea."
Here is Obama's challenge: Protect the country.
Here is Panetta's challenge: Keep the Bush-Cheney shutout going.
This is how IBD describes the Bush-Cheney record:
"It was Bush who authorized the National Security Agency to engage in rapid-response surveillance of phone calls and computer communications between known terrorist contacts and individuals within the U.S. in cases when obtaining a warrant would have taken too long.
And it was Bush who allowed foreign locals to be used to apply tough interrogation methods against terrorist detainees, so as to extract information about possible future attacks.
The result of this aggressive and creative approach has been what few thought likely in the immediate aftermath of 9/11:
a perfect record in protecting the homeland, which has now stretched to well beyond seven years."
We have not been attacked in 2800 days. Let's hope that the Obama administration can keep that streak going!
P.S. For a good summary, see O'Reilly's latest talking points:
