Obama defends choice of Panetta to head CIA

[Elduardo]

Obama defends choice of Panetta to head CIA

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President-elect Barack Obama gave a strong defense on Tuesday of his choice to lead the CIA, Leon Panetta, in the face of criticism that Panetta lacks experience on intelligence matters.

Two senior Democrats, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, raised questions on Monday about Panetta's limited intelligence expertise after word leaked out that Panetta had been picked by Obama for CIA.

"I have the utmost respect for Leon Panetta," Obama told reporters when asked about the criticism of Panetta. "He brings extraordinary management skills, great political savvy, an impeccable record of integrity."

Panetta, 70, is a former White House chief of staff for President Bill Clinton and was a well-regarded member of Congress from California.

But news that he would be nominated to lead the CIA raised eyebrows around Washington, where officials are more accustomed to intelligence professionals at the helm of the spy agency.

Democratic officials later said that Obama spoke on Tuesday to Feinstein and Rockefeller about intelligence issues.

The president-elect had "very good conversations" with the two senators, according to an Obama aide. "They shared views about the future direction of intelligence and their desire to consult closely on these issues," said the aide, who gave no other details.

Feinstein said Vice President-elect Joe Biden also contacted her to lobby for the Panetta pick. "I look forward to speaking with Mr. Panetta about the critical issues facing the intelligence community and his plans to address them," she said.

DIFFICULT CONFIRMATION HEARING?

Biden, a veteran Democratic senator from Delaware, was quoted by the Huffington Post as saying Obama had made a mistake by not consulting Feinstein on the Panetta choice.

Obama's formal announcement on Panetta could come as early as this week. The president-elect is also expected to announce that he has selected retired Navy Adm. Dennis Blair to become the overall director of national intelligence.

When the news on Panetta's likely appointment broke on Monday, Feinstein, who will be chair of the Senate intelligence committee, issued a statement saying she had not been informed of the decision and felt the CIA would be "best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."

The comment suggested that Panetta could be in for a potentially difficult Senate confirmation hearing, since Feinstein's committee will preside over the session.

The chairman of the House of Representatives intelligence committee, Democrat Silvestre Reyes of Texas, endorsed Panetta as highly qualified and a good coalition-builder. If Obama formally names him, "I look forward to his quick confirmation," Reyes said in a statement.

In any event, Obama made clear he would not be backing down from picking Panetta.

He said Panetta, as White House chief of staff, was fully versed in international affairs and crisis management and had to evaluate intelligence on a daily basis.

Obama also spoke to concerns some Democrats have expressed about ensuring the intelligence community provides decision-makers unvarnished intelligence and does not engage in harsh interrogation measures of terrorism suspects.

He said he wanted an intelligence community that is "no longer geared toward telling the president what they think the president wants to hear, but what he needs to hear to make critical decisions to keep the American people safe."

Intelligence officials have been accused of telling the Bush administration what it wanted to hear before the Iraq war.

"You'll also see a team that is committed to breaking with some of the past practices and concerns that have, I think, tarnished the image of the agencies, as well as U.S. foreign policy," Obama said.


There was a hiccup recently with the Bill Richardson problem but overall I think there is widespread consensus that the Obama cabinet has been effectively assembled.

The pick of Leon Panetta, however, has been roundly criticized from virtually every corner - Dems, repubs, military, CIA, etc. There seems to be no dispute that Panetta is an intelligent professional that would be an asset to our government. The problem is that for this position, is it wise to have someone with no intelligence experience?

The CIA is on the front lines of the worldwide war on terrorism. This goes beyond Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm sure that Panetta could learn on the job and obviously has experience as a consumer of intelligence reports in his time as Clinton's chief of staff.

For me, I don't think there is any reason to take a chance on an unproven pick to lead the organization and it seems very risky given the threat level against us.

Seems like Obama may be pandering to the far left here, Panetta has opposed many of the Bush administration tactics in fighting the war on terror and would not likely have accepted any person who served in the CIA in the past 8 years.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think Obama understands the terror threat but I am not convinced that Panetta is the best available choice for this job at this time.

[Grendel]

I wouldn't necessarily call avoiding individuals with connections to rendition, "enhanced" interrogation, and domestic spying a sop to the far left. Concern over maintaining an intelligence structure that actively embraced all manner of strategies of dubious legality (to say the least) is not a fringe position.

[Elduardo]

I know that Obama is taking a very different approach to fighting the war on terror. His attorney general choice is aligned with Janet Reno's view that the FBI and CIA could not share intelligence which was one of the key failures that directly led to our failure to prevent the 9/11 terror attacks.

There is no denying that Bush's terror policies have prevented our country from being attacked for the past 7 years. These policies may have caused us criticism from certain areas of the world but there is no question that numerous serious terror plots have been disrupted through aggressive intelligence gathering methods.

Specifically, I am confused as to what you mean by "domestic spying". The calls listened to were calls between US and overseas countries and intelligence collected from them has directly led to the disruption of terror plots such as the plot to destroy the Brooklyn bridge.

Even Obama himself voted last July to extend the surveillence program after repeatedly opposing it for months.

Point for me is Obama is taking a big chance in weakening the CIA's ability to fight terrorism.

[Grendel]

Domestic spying refers to the wiretapping of US citizens without a warrant (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html) and the fundamentally false debate that existing FISA law was inadequate for dealing with terrorist surveillance.

As for the efficacy of the program and the plot to "destroy the Brooklyn Bridge" not only was it something of a (abandoned) farce--trying to collapse it by cutting through support cables with a gas torch--but the role the NSA spying program played in foiling it, far from being "direct," is subject to no small debate (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html?ei=5090&en=f3247cd88fa84898&ex=1295154000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print):



By the administration's account, the N.S.A. eavesdropping helped lead investigators to Iyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver and friend of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is believed to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Faris spoke of toppling the Brooklyn Bridge by taking a torch to its suspension cables, but concluded that it would not work. He is now serving a 20-year sentence in a federal prison.

The law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said the program had uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks. "There were no imminent plots - not inside the United States," the former F.B.I. official said.

Some of the officials said the eavesdropping program might have helped uncover people with ties to Al Qaeda in Albany; Portland, Ore.; and Minneapolis. Some of the activities involved recruitment, training or fund-raising.

But, along with several British counterterrorism officials, some of the officials questioned assertions by the Bush administration that the program was the key to uncovering a plot to detonate fertilizer bombs in London in 2004. The F.B.I. and other law enforcement officials also expressed doubts about the importance of the program's role in another case named by administration officials as a success in the fight against terrorism, an aborted scheme to topple the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch. Some officials said that in both cases, they had already learned of the plans through prisoner interrogations or other means.

...But as in the London fertilizer bomb case, some officials with direct knowledge of the Faris case dispute that the N.S.A. information played a significant role.

Short of Obama declaring that he will not tolerate a policy of open intelligence sharing between law enforcement and the intelligence apparatus I can't say as I see a substantive "weaking" of the Agency's counter-terrorism abilities.

[Elduardo]

Since Obama supports the wiretapping it's sort of a moot point, don't you think?

Seems like there is pretty widespread agreement that the head of the CIA should be an intelligence professional, not just a good manager.

As for methods, if you listen to professionals like George Tenet and Michael Scheuer, they say that the tough interrogation methods are an important part of the strategy and to take them off the table will make us less safe.

By the way, it's important to recall that Bill Clinton ordered renditions and Panetta likely knew about it.

[Grendel]

The first point remains to be seen. I was disappointed with his decision, but that's the sort of thing that could be remedied with an executive order upon assuming office, one that mandates adherence to warrants for targets with US citizenship.

Whatever widespread agreement there is, it seems a lot of the issues with criticism of the Agency centered how it was being run. Managerial overhaul might be just what the doctor ordered. After initially opposing, Diane Feinstein is on board after meeting personally with Panetta. The intraparty grousing that met the announcement of the pick certainly appears to have had some measurable grounding in bruised sensibilities over lack of consultation and the info being leaked before courtesy meetings could be had.

[Elduardo]

I have no ideology here, I am for whatever works. Mistakes surely have been made in the fight against terrorism but you can't get away from the fact that the US has not been attacked on our soil since 9/11. That is an impressive feat and we know that there have been numerous serious plots that have been disrupted by various means.

If Obama makes significant changes in the way we handle domestic security and how we fight terrorists like Al Queda and there is a terrorist attack against us it will be devastating not only to our country but to his Presidency.

[Grendel]

Is there any actual accounting of the degree of "seriousness" of various plots along with the means that resulted in their foiling?

That information is integral to any assessment of changes the Obama administration may or may not make.

If the "Brooklyn Bridge" incident is any indication, both those aspects are in serious question.

[Elduardo]

I know a few things:

1) It's straight from the far-left playbook to diminish foiled terror plots as primitive and the perpetrators as buffons. The 9/11 troofers say that it couldn't have been done by cave-dwellers with box cutters.

2) Obama loudly opposed the NSA surveillance act but then ended up voting for it. Something changed his mind.

3) The government has periodically detailed foiled plots since 9/11/01. A google search should get you up to speed on the seriousness. I don't think that anyone should release the means by which they were foiled, only the NY Times seems to be in that business.

---

Overall, we don't yet know how Obama will govern. That's the biggest risk about electing him in the first place. If he governs in a pragmatic way as Bill Clinton did then there is less cause for concern. If he caters to far-left pressure and weakens the ability of the US to actively fight terrorism, and an attack occurs then Obama will take heavy accountability.

[Grendel]

2) Obama loudly opposed the NSA surveillance act but then ended up voting for it. Something changed his mind.Winning an election.

I think it was a fairly crass move just to avoid handing McCain a club to hit him on national security.

As far as dismissing the terror plots, the one that was being discussed here clearly looks, on its very face, to be primitive and buffoonish.

[Elduardo]

So if the NSA surveillence program is so offensive and wrong how would supporting it help Obama win an election?

[Searcher]

Because along with every other election the not-so-bright crowd gets to vote too.

[Elduardo]

Because along with every other election the not-so-bright crowd gets to vote too.

Really trying to stay out of the insulting/disrespectful commentary in this forum, I think many of us have done a good job of it so far.

If you're not up for it Searcher then I'd appreciate it if you'd avoid discussion in threads that I post if not the forum altogether.

[Grendel]

So if the NSA surveillence program is so offensive and wrong how would supporting it help Obama win an election?While I might not go with Search's particular framing, the fact is that there is A.) no small amount of scandal fatigue over the past year and a half or so, and B.) many people are either unable or unwilling to get beyond soundbites in their understanding of any number of issues.

If Obama opposed the NSA spying program, a good portion of the electorate wouldn't get any further than the inevitable McCain distortion that Obama is against surveilling terrorists. As we've seen in elections past, the electorate has little patience to tease apart all the things at play, especially in a debate as comparatively dry as this, when there are easily digestible, inflammatory charges like "X won't keep your family safe."

Obama saw this as an opportunity to undercut what would be a sure--and utterly misrepresented--attack on his national security position.

[Elduardo]

Pretty arrogant to say that people who disagree with the NSA surveillance are either not smart, uninformed, or suffer from scandal fatigue.

You left out the option that it's possible to prioritize reasonable national security practices over theoretical losses in freedom.

[Grendel]

I said "many people," not all. And given the amount of utterly misleading reporting about FISA, people being uninformed on this issue is less an indictment of the individual than of the coverage it received.

As for things that are being left out, though, the "theoretical losses in freedom" you mention avoids the fact that warrantless surveillance of American citizens (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?_r=1)--the crux of this issue--is a fundamental violation of those individuals' protections underneath the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.

There's nothing "theoretical" about that.

[Elduardo]

Let's not get selective on who is uninformed. I've talked to people that oppose this because they think that it applies to domestic conversations, it doesn't.

I hope Obama's methods are successful. To me, there is nothing more important for the President to do other than to keep the nation safe.

Some changes should be made, no question. US should declare war on Al Queda and linked groups. Must secure borders and control illegal immigration on all borders and ports, not just the Mexico border. Must confront teaching of radical violent islam at home and abroad. Among other things.

[Grendel]

Domestic or not, we're talking about warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens' (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0806/p99s04-duts.html) communications:


First, the law requires telecommunications companies to make their facilities available for government wiretaps, and it grants them immunity from lawsuits for complying. Under the old program, such companies participated only voluntarily – and some were sued for allegedly violating their customers' privacy.

Second, Bush has said his original surveillance program was restricted to calls and e-mails involving a suspected terrorist, but the new law has no such limit. Instead, it allows executive-branch agencies to conduct oversight-free surveillance of all international calls and e-mails, including those with Americans on the line, with the sole requirement that the intelligence-gathering is "directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." There is no requirement that either caller be a suspected terrorist, spy, or criminal.

[Elduardo]

It's fine to disagree with the law, I don't, but I can understand why some would. I don't appreciate the rhetoric that anyone who supports the war is stupid, uninformed, a desperate right-winger, etc.

The key point is that it is a law. After the story broke and all the criticism, the House and Senate passed a law to affirm the legalization of the program.

So I'm fine with a respectful debate on what tactics should be used. I have no tolerance for outlandish calls for prosecution for war crimes by the Bush administration or anything like that.

I was also happy to see Bush make some important points in his final press conference the other day. For all the complaining out of Europe about Gitmo, none of those countries has agreed to take any of the prisoners. They don't know what to do with them either. Also important for Bush to remind us of the post-9/11 climate and criticism for "not connecting the dots". Now he's being criticized for connecting them.

[Grendel]

Once again, no one said "anyone who supports the law."

You asked why Obama would choose to support it, I cited several reasons.

The FISA situation really wouldn't be a part of any suggested investigation of "war crimes," anyway.

Whether it's become law or not is immaterial; the fact of the matter is that by circumventing the court system and resting full discretion in the hands of intelligence agencies, that law, in and of itself, if applied to U.S. citizens, is fundamentally unconstitutional.

A CIA head that recognizes that fact, rather than going along with it, is something to be desired, not feared.