Obama's Savvy Choice Of Panetta Shakes Up Stagnant Senate

It may not have been intentional. 

Obama was still in his first term when he hit the campaign trail, so it was only natural that he would forge most of his close connections to DC insiders within the Senate.  But as he filled out his administration with one Senator after another, what ensued was a desperately needed shakeup in that musty, ancient, bloviating and self-important entity that considers itself "the most exclusive club in the world."

The musical chairs began when Democratic leadership decided the Senate Appropriations Committee, which is in charge of disbursing more than $1 trillion a year in federal spending, was too important to be chaired by the 91 year-old Robert Byrd (who was sending his aides to the meetings he didn't sleep through).  But they observed those august rules of Senate seniority and replaced him with the largely ineffectual Daniel Inouye, 84, so that hardly signaled radical change.

Inouye's decision to take over Appropriations meant he had to give up  Commerce.  Then Biden's departure from Foreign Relations triggered a mad scramble for powerful committee chairmanships that ended with Kerry taking over after he failed to receive a cabinet appointment.  Mary Landrieu took over Kerry's chair of small business.  Rockefeller gave up Intelligence and took Inouye's seat at Commerce, and Diane Feinstein assumed the Intelligence helm. 

And that was that.  The Senators decided amongst themselves how power would be distributed -- they swatted away the pesky gnats who questioned their right to decide what goes on in their club and handed a gavel back to Joe Lieberman, and everyone set out to assert their new authority and exercise control of their new turf.

We are not amused howled Feinstein when Obama had the temerity to offer Leon Panetta the helm of the CIA without consulting her.  Jay Rockefeller and Evan Bayh were sighing about how this is very disconcerting indeed, and they are hailing Feinstein's decision to do something she never did to George Bush -- put forward her own candidate, Stephen Kappes.  They are flashing the ever fashionable fuscha terror alert button and wagging their fingers about Panetta's lack of intelligence background, but the message was clear -- this challenge to their authority was not acceptable.    

They all sound like Sally Quinn.

There is insufficient space here on this blog to recount all the things that the Intelligence Committee has screwed up in recent years, but suffice to say that Feinstein enabled most of it.  She has been a key Bush ally who cast critical votes in support of his most extremist assertions of power.  Her default position is consistently to protect establishment power, and she never batted an eyelash about casting votes that were worth billions in defense contracts to firms owned by her husband.  There are few people in public office more territorial and consumed by a sense of entitlement than Diane Feinstein.

Bush neutralized meaningful opposition to his worst, most extra-legal and noxious actions from Congressional Democrats by bringing them into the fold, flattering them and playing to their own sense of self-importance as he explained to them the things he hid from the public.  Chief among those were Jay Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and  Jane Harmon (who was evidently a Feinstein favorite for the CIA post). 

If someone truly were to come in from the outside and try to find out what happened at the CIA with regard to torture and illegal spying, the complicity and ensuing silence of this entitled crew risks exposure.  They've already demonstrated they'll do just about anything to keep that from happening -- that's how we got retroactive telecom immunity in the first place.

It's notable that Ron Wyden, who also sits on the Intelligence Committee, was consulted about Panetta and approved of his choice. 

I have no idea if Panetta would make a good CIA chief or not. But it's encouraging that Obama didn't let his arm be twisted by those in the intelligence community anxious to cover their tracks of the last eight years. And I can't think of a better place start for Obama to start shaking up Washington DC than with those currently in high caterwaul about Panetta's appointment.

Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com

Comments

[texanna]

Great post, Jane. I hope Mr. Obama is as steadfast in this decision as he has been in the face of the blowback about including Rick Warren in the inauguration ceremony. This is the first thing he's done that has actually given me some hope that he's going to be able to make some changes.

[bayside]

Make my words and take names of all congressmen and women that are objecting to his appointment ,because I predict they know he will clean house of corruption and they are scared..

[scooperss]

Me either Jane. Great post!

[fflambeau]

Agreed, a knockout post Jane!

[bluecoyote]

Watching Countdown tonight gave me hope that Feinstein has opened the door to the press to poke into how Congress dropped the ball on "oversight." She and Rockefeller basically collaborated with Cheney and Bush by not whistling to the country about wire-tapping and other abuses. (Yeah Jay, we know, you wrote the protest letter about TIA in 2003 to CYA). Never mind Feinstein's assistance with the last Patriot Act update!!! Let's hope the spotlight really shines on her!

[AliMB]

IMO, this sentence by Ms. Hamsher reflects the central misfocus of the Pro-Panetta crowd:

"If someone truly were to come in from the outside and try to find out what happened at the CIA with regard to torture and illegal spying, the complicity and ensuing silence of this entitled crew risks exposure"

the is making the tort./legal theme the main factor for choosing a DCI, which i find erroneous because tort. is a non-issue for the CIA... it has no effect on the company's objectives, missions, or goals. its only bad PR for the US government. The President with executive orders can eliminate all controversial policies and tactics, even if the DCI were Dick Cheney. By harping back to this theme we continue with the politicization of the company... the CIA needs to stick to its main focus: preventing international terrorism and its allies; penetrating cells, disrupting attacks, flipping memebers, killing leaders, etc.... anti-tort. policies (or lack thereof) isn't going to effect that. The CIA is best served by an experienced leader who has the president's trust and who can get back to the grimy work of the company, not a little-experienced political appointee with a squeaky clean image.

[alexis d]

1. Who you callin' "little experienced?" Leon Panetta has been around the block plenty 'nuff times to run the CIA. George HW Bush didn't have a lot of direct intel experience either when he took over.

2. Holding your agencies to ethical standards is good PR for the government, not bad.

3. A well-oiled clandestine machinery may be a necessity of good statecraft, but it needn't be dirty. Just like any other agency, it can be used for good ends or bad. I would say the use of the CIA to do the dirty work of major corporations has caused more problems than it's solved over the past 50 years. Many of the most intractable problems we face today, including terrorism, have been aggravated by our own dirty dealing.

[AliMB]

thanks for the reply

1. Mr. Panetta is little experienced vis-a-vis intelligence work,and has no experience within the agency... again, using previous DCIs as benchmarks doesn't seem like the "change" the PE promised.. and for the record Pres. H.W. Bush had much more experience than Panetta before his appointment as DCI.

2. I never argued that the President shouldn't hold the CIA to an ethical standard; so long as that ethical standard doesn't interfere with the often morally/le­gally-dubi­ous (but necessary) work of intelligence. For example, if holding the agency to "high ethical standards" includes forbiding them from breaking laws in other countries, that would be a disaster for both the president and the country. Remember what the CIA does...

3. Clandestine machinery and intelligence operations are by nature "dirty" (an ambigous term if there ever was one). I think many of the recent intelligence failures have been due to a lack of pro-active 'dirtiness'... e.g. failing to kill bin laden in the 90's due to legal red tape. The statement that the CIA had been doing the "dirty work for corporations" is true, if however inaccurate... the agency works to advance all types of american interests: political, security, and surely economic. has there been blowback? of course, but that is inevitable when excercising statecraft.

[ConfuciusSay-]

"tort." isn't a non-issue for its victims.

[AliMB]

many of whom are hardcore al-qa'ida k i l l e r s... i don't agree with the policies, but you won't get much sympathy from me for its "victims"

[Ohsnap]

Did we elect Fenstein? Who cares what she says?

[GaiaTerra7]

You hit the nail on the head, she wants to cover her rear-view mirror!!!!!!

[Articulator]

Interesting viewpoint, in a way a break from the good ol boy network.

With the little I know it seemed some what like Obama was disappointingly politicizing the position but I am very willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as long as he doesnt look me in the eye and lie to me all the while knowing full well that every one knows it's a lie (as has been standard operating procedure for the last 8 years).

[Beachrunner]

Time to start over from ground zero. Our entire system is so corrupt it's just sickening. The waste of the peoples' money . . .

Ah well, when the dollar is worth what's it's worth . . . about a peso . . . then we'll see some real change.

Pretty soon, too.

[vietveter]

I LOVE IT when you are right, Jane! ;~)

[milo9]

You're spot on Miss Hamsher. Panetta might uncover the disgraceful secrets of Feinstein and Rockerfeller.

[mmeppie]

Panetta is a great choice. He was congressman in my district in California, I've met him. He's very smart, very honest, a straight-shooter. He's exactly what is needed in a demoralized agency like the CIA. I can't think of a better man for the job. As for Feinstein--her nose is out of joint because she wasn't "consulted" first. But she's been wrong on everything from her support of the war in Iraq, Condolezza Rice for Secretary of State, her support for Porter Goss, and just about everything else having to do with intelligence and national security. She's batting zero in my book. I hope she doesn't hurt Panetta's chances. He's too good to lose this one.

[vippy]

It is high time for us to assist Obama and clean up the senate! Get rid of the old dinosaurs and
their "experience" at more and more pay raises only and everything that is bad for the people!

[BlueMrsKitty]

This CA resident is sick to death of DiFi. I wrote her to voice my opinion about her (crappy) votes on the telecom immunity. Her office wrote me back to say that the Telecoms hadn't done anything wrong, so the immunity wasn't really important. I wrote them back to say that although I am not a lawyer, I'm not stupid enough to believe that someone lobbying for IMMUNITY has done nothing wrong. I never got a response. Figures.

[RussellH]

Yes, I had determined some months ago, because of her bizarre statements, that I could not support Feinstein again. What is her problem? Yes, her husband's contracts.

[wendynyc]

Panetta is a great choice - especially if he's ruffling so many feathers!

[jdenham]

Jane I think you hit it right on the head. Many of the points you mentioned I have been thinking for a while. Glad to see it in print. I completely agree with your contention that the one area that needs attention is the US Senate. They are a stagnate body that has been completely ineffective. Most honest legislation gets bogged down as the nation plunges into crisis. Between the Filibustering Republicans and DLC Democrats like Feinstein it is no wonder our country is in such a mess.