Say Anything Blog

Sure.  Why not.

What’s the worst that could happen?

Given his background, Mr. Panetta is a somewhat unusual choice to lead the C.I.A., an agency that has been unwelcoming to previous directors perceived as outsiders, such as Stansfield M. Turner and John M. Deutch. But his selection points up the difficulty Mr. Obama had in finding a C.I.A. director with no connection to controversial counterterrorism programs of the Bush era. . . .

Aides have said Mr. Obama had originally hoped to select a C.I.A. head with extensive field experience, especially in combating terrorist networks. But his first choice for the job, John O. Brennan, had to withdraw his name amidst criticism over his role in the formation of the C.I.A’s detention and interrogation program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Members of Mr. Obama’s transition also raised concerns about other candidates, even some Democratic lawmakers with intelligence experience. Representative Jane Harman of California, formerly the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, had hoped to get the job, but she was ruled out as a candidate in part because of her early support for some Bush administration programs like the domestic eavesdropping program.

Just so we’ve got this straight, Obama was so desperate to find someone not tainted by “torture” (aka: effective interrogation techniques that work) that he had to find someone who has never worked in intelligence before.

And this at a time when we need to prevent the future necessity of wars like those in Afghanistan in Iraq by having better human intelligence.

Ace notes:

I don’t see a damn thing in this Wiki bio indicating any relevant experience for the job. Except for being a lifelong partisan hack who can be trusted to hide the stuff that might be embarrassing for Obama.

Like, say, proof of Iran’s nuke experiments—embarrassing, because if that gets out publicly, it would cause an outcry and calls for Obama to address the issue

By the way, remember when the left rose a stink about Bush having appointed Michael Brown head of FEMA despite having a thin resume in the disaster response field?  I think that criticism was apt.  Bush shouldn’t have appointed Brown because Brown clearly didn’t know what he was doing.

But now imagine another Michael Brown, except this time he’s in charge of the federal agency that’s supposed to stop terrorists from setting off a suitcase nuke in Los Angeles.

Feeling safe?

On, and this guy opposed the troop surge that worked out beautifully in Iraq.

Another instance of bad judgment on behalf of Obama to go along with Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Blagojevich, Rezko and Bill Richardson?

Time will tell, I guess.