Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Biden: Not Notifying Top Sens. on Panetta Choice a 'Mistake'

By Paul Kane
Vice-president-elect Joseph Biden admitted today the Obama transition team made a "mistake" in not notifying top Senate officials of the selection of Leon Panetta as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, defending the former Clinton White House chief of staff as a nominee would take the CIA on "new path."

Biden told reporters in the Capitol that the Senate Intelligence Committee should have been consulted in advance of the Panetta nomination, which resulted in criticism from the panel's top Democrats. The incoming chair, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and outgoing chairman, Sen. John "Jay" Rockefeller III (D-W. Va.), questioned the Panetta selection because of his lack of experience in the intelligence community.

"I'm still a Senate man. I always think this way. It's always good to talk to the requisite members of Congress. I think it was just a mistake," Biden said after being sworn in today for another Senate term (he will resign his seat in advance of the Jan. 20 inauguration).

Biden said the issue was one of process, not substance, and that Panetta -- as chief of staff and as White House budget director -- had experience dealing with the CIA and the vast network of spy agencies. "He has been a consumer of intelligence for a long time," Biden said.

He called Panetta "a strong figure" who would "take it on a new path."

The surprise selection divided top Senate Democrats, as Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has given a full-throated endorsement, and some Republicans have voiced doubts about Panetta's experience, including Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond (Mo.), the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee.

Panetta does have a strong ally in a recent past chairman of the panel, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), who served in the House with Panetta and counts him as a "good friend".

"From an outside, fresh-look approach, I think it's a good thing," Roberts said of Panetta's selection. He said the nominee is a "fast learner" who will have the management skills to turn around the agency.

"He brings to the office tremendous experience," Roberts said.

By Web Politics Editor  |  January 6, 2009; 2:11 PM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Hill Transition , National Security  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Senate Rejects Burris in Spectacle at Capitol
Next: Obama Wants Journalist Gupta for Surgeon General

Comments

So Panetta reads intelligence reports and that makes him qualified to be director of the CIA? I ride in airplanes, does that make me a aeronautical engineer?

This was a rookie mistake. Putting Biden on the ticket was supposed to assuage peoples' fears about Obama's inexperience. Are your fears assuaged?

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Posted by: suburbanite | January 6, 2009 9:54 PM | Report abuse

The stench of corruption hangs low over the Obama transition as Richardson and Clinton and Emmanuel are pulled into the vortex. Soon trillions of federal dollars will be splooged into the nimble old hands of these appointed kleptocrats.

Posted by: georgejones5 | January 6, 2009 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Incredible shrinking Biden striving for relevancy

Posted by: georgejones5 | January 6, 2009 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Dumb and Dumber takes Washington!

I suppose it is inevitable that once a generation the drug-adled hipsters have to be taught a lesson. We had to endure Carter and Obama\Biden will make you curse the day you ever heard the phrase "Hope" and "Change".

Wonder if Biden knows whether CIA counts as a "four-letter word".

Posted by: LogicalSC | January 6, 2009 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Just wanted to say this about the Panetta selection. The risk Obama makes in picking somebody that nobody feels real sure about based on experience not on character, is that when the next terrorist attack occurs Obama will look like he didn't take fighting terrorism very seriously and he will then have fulfilled the worry that many have about him now that he is a military lightweight. The left fringe that supported him will never feel that way and instead blame Bush for years to come for aggravating the situation. However most of the US will react quickly with anger and fear and we will then have yet another failed president. It is very risky to try to drastically change what is already in place. It is during those changes that the US will be vulnerable.

Posted by: jkachmar | January 6, 2009 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Wrong, Cheney had a deep distrust of the CIA due to their failure to detect Sadaam's invasion of Kuwait so he set up his own Intel shop.
---------

Now, think about this.

Do you really think the CIA, and/or defense failed to detect Saddam's invasion of Kuwait?

Intelligence THAT inept cannot sustain a superpower, wouldn't be able to sustain Iraq, under Saddam, fercryinoutloud.

So, what does it mean?

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | January 6, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Feinstein and Rockefeller
Democrats or DINO-Fascists who enabled the worst president ever?

Here are their Senate voting records over the past eight years. You decide:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/06/panetta-feinstein-rockefeller/

Posted by: kevinschmidt | January 6, 2009 6:56 PM | Report abuse

'The incoming chair, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and outgoing chairman, Sen. John "Jay" Rockefeller III (D-W. Va.), questioned the Panetta selection because of his lack of experience in the intelligence community.'

I question Feinstein's and Rockefeller's lack of Democratic experience. These two DINO-Fascists are card carrying members of the Military Industrial Complex. Looking at their Senate voting records over the past eight years, it is safe to say both Feinstein and Rockefeller are enablers of the worst president ever.

There is only one thing these two are qualified for, and that is getting voted out of office!

Posted by: kevinschmidt | January 6, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Rhyer,
I served in the air force. Do you know how many B-52's we lost during the Vietnam or Iraq wars? Zero. Why do you think this is?
......
In the future, check your facts.

Hate to tell you, but during Vietnam we lost many B-52s. - 46 were lost, 10 in combat in north, 7 others elsewhere in combat. See nampows.org Doesn't sound like a lot unless you were on board or know someone who was.

Posted by: boscobobb | January 6, 2009 6:36 PM | Report abuse

marylyn80

Never before have I commented on another comment, but you have been reading/listening to too much Ann Coulter. You need to take a chill pill and back away off commnents that border on treason and sedition. You are certainly free to say you disagree with the will of the majority of US voters who are no longer at the extreme right, but your direct comments and innuendo are baseless and rude.

Are you po'd because you didn't get a ticket to the parade? Get a life.

Posted by: dnickell | January 6, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Could do without ROBERTs' suppport!

Posted by: EllenBedlington | January 6, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

"Vice-president-elect says team should have told top Senate officials of their selection for CIA."

On the other hand, after eight years of sinking into the GOP's special cesspool of corruption, yes, permeating the noble Senate too, I think it was, in fact, only reasonable to keep a few things quiet.
Eight years during which no Republican had the courage to blow the whistle on a treasonous presidency.
Eight years during which despicable policies were secretely incubated, only to see the light of day when it was too late for Americans to do anything about it.
I mean, would YOU tell Bush's CIA that Bin Laden was living incognito in the same hotel you were staying at? From what we have slowly gathered over several years now, it seems quite clear that you, and NOT Bin Laden, would be taken out.

If Obama's administration becomes even more secretive and devious, it will be only because of Bush's glorious pioneering in that field.

Posted by: wardropper | January 6, 2009 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Oh come on now VP Motor Mouth Joe Biden,and
fact the fact that both you and the Phony
President Elect Barack Hussein Obama donot
have a clue about how to run your own new White House Administration. Nor,do Crazy Harry Reid and Nutcase Speaker Nancy Pelosi
and all the rest of you crooked,totally corrupt,complete incompetent Democrat Dimwits. So why don't all of you clowns just do the American people a big favor and
resign from office here and now Big Mouth
Joe Biden and save the American people the
pain and embarassment of your corruption.

Posted by: Marilyn80 | January 6, 2009 6:05 PM | Report abuse

"Tenet was the one that briefed Bush, Cheney and Congress on WMD and convinced them to vote in favor of the war.

Posted by: glm6 | January 6, 2009 4:07 PM"
--------
Wrong, Cheney had a deep distrust of the CIA due to their failure to detect Sadaam's invasion of Kuwait so he set up his own Intel shop.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 6, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Finally, after 8 years, an administration that can simply admit a mistake.

I still don't think Bush/Cheney can as they're headed out the door!

Posted by: gce1356 | January 6, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: rhyer

Feinstein is a dinosaur and she should go home. She and Rockefeller are hood ornaments for invertebrate Democrats and exactly the reason my party folded like party chairs on murdering Iraqis to steal their oil.....
******************

I'm a yellow dog Dem and you are so right. Well said!

Posted by: abqcleve | January 6, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Michael Scheuer - Republican critic of Obama
Robert Grenier - Republican critic of Obama

is it any big surprise that the CIA people above that are attacking the Panetta pick are REPUBLICANS?

These Bush Republicans have been hunting Bin Laden, yeah and we see how that's turned out.. and now they have credibility suddenly?

The CIA Chief does not need to be a seasoned CIA agent. The heads of these departments need foreign policy experience, which Panetta has tons, and the vision, wisdom and experience, Panetta also has, to lead the department he is in charge of. The experts and intelligence people in the CIA and other agencies will provide Panetta, the brains of the operation all he needs to make his decisions. The new, improved, CIA Chief will make decisions based on that intelligence and Obama's CIA policy which he is there to uphold.

It is quite fun though to watch you Republicans squirm over every little thing Obama says and does. Squrim! squirm for us, it's amusing to watch, very entertaining! I hope you Republican are suffering good, you've ruined America, you deserve to suffer for what you have put us all through.

Posted by: Hillary08 | January 6, 2009 5:47 PM | Report abuse

So this is another role for mouthy Biden, taking blame for the rookie, right? What a inept bunch of clowns Biden and the other Obama slugs are.
They knew Feinstein would throw them out of the room if they went in and told her that the Pillsbury dough boy was going to be nominated.
I hope she stands her ground and derails the nomination. Then again, she's a democrat , and democrats in Congress really have no principles, so I guess she won't. I doubt Panetta can even spell CIA.
Pathetic!

Posted by: LarryG62 | January 6, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

He says that: "He has been a consumer of intelligence for a long time." We're not asking Panetta to CONSUME intelligence. We're asking him to PRODUCE intelligence. It's like iPods - any teenager can be a consumer, but ask them to actually build an iPod? Political handshakes are part of the business in the White House - but not with the CIA. I think Rockefeller and Feinstein were right. Nothing against Panetta personally, but we don't need a political hack in a sensitive position like the CIA.

Posted by: mwcob | January 6, 2009 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Joe Biden. Synonymous with the word mistake.

Posted by: rg019571 | January 6, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

So they just happened to forget to consult Congress!~ Sounds like Bush-Cheney all over. What else have 'they' forgotten? Oh well this is also Clinton once again. Here we go again.

Posted by: KBlit | January 6, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

I served in the air force. Do you know how many B-52's we lost during the Vietnam or Iraq wars? Zero. Why do you think this is?

Posted by: rhyer | January 6, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

At first I thought this was a terrible appointment, then I thought about their budget, the horrible results gotten and a bean counter may be the cure. Will insiders get rid of the people that changed intelligence analysis that Cheney coerced with his daily trips to Langley. Wilson's report of no yellowcake was discarded for a discredited source, anodized aluminum tubes became centrifuge tubes, mobile labs breeched by a common road accident holding deadly biologicals, Saddam in bed with Al Qaeda after he sent his army after Ansar-Al-Salem, torture instead of using Dearborn, MI residents to interpret Saddam's intelligence motherlode, relying on Mossad for Iranian information, and probably ten times that from an insider with knowledge, tells me change was needed. Operational strategy will be left to Blair and hopefully Kappes will stay and coordinate with him.

Posted by: jameschirico | January 6, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Yes Diane Feinstein should have been worn that her husband Mr. Blum's secret dealing and pay to play contracts given by the White House might come to light with an honest CIA Director. It was much easier for Feinstein with Porter Goss in charge as she supported him knowing he didn't know how to use a computer/cell phone and let Fargo and Wilkes steal at will. At lease Diane got her husband his money as she supported all of the Bush Administration's corrupt orders. Diane could lost her job and even go to jail if the wrong CIA gets picked. Now Obama will have to let her know so her husband can work as fast as possible to destroy the evidence of his dealing with the Caryle Group and their billions they got from the Iraq invasion. Diane never knew the Bush picks and when she did she didn't object knowning none were experienced or qualified. That says it all.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | January 6, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Soooo Joe,

What's up with San Fran Nan trying to abolish the "Contract with America" Thingy?

You guys are proving once again just how much "Elitist" should be a Four letter word!

Scum!

Absolute SCUM!

Posted by: SAINT---The | January 6, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Samson151,

It's immaterial which between the CIA or NSA have more/greater collection capability; there's no question the CIA has more face time with POTUS. Hence, the CIA is more powerful in terms of its influence with the administration. Panetta seems like a great guy (even switched from Republican to Dem in '71 because he felt the GOP was straying from the center, I certainly like that kind of dedication to ideals). I just don't think he's qualified to run the CIA. This kind of selection makes me seriously question the President-elect's judgement on security issues.

Posted by: PHRamadi04 | January 6, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Assume for a moment that what happened with Panetta is NOT a mistake. Except for Richardson, the Obama team has been flawless on these appointments. So, what if they leaked Panetta? That would box in Feinstein and Rockefeller, as they would then have to make statements taking umbrage, but not dismissing Panetta outright. Had they been consulted, they could have worked behind the scenes to get the people they wanted: career intelligence types. To do that now, they would have to reject Panetta, likely handing the new President his first loss. Not an enviable position to be in.

Posted by: stevec3 | January 6, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Feinstein is a dinosaur and she should go home. She and Rockefeller are hood ornaments for invertebrate Democrats and exactly the reason my party folded like party chairs on murdering Iraqis to steal their oil. They stood by while Bubba Big Oil and Rice from the board of Chevron and Dick from Halliburton moving to Dubai raped our national unity after 9-11 into an international oil heist and to their death they'll tell you they had an ordained right to murder a million Iraqis to control their society and suck oil contracts from them, not unlike the Niger Delta, not unlike the Ecuadorian rainforests, not unlike Burma. Imagine that. Feinstein is a dinosaur and she should take her bloody CIA and their "blowback" and go home!!

Posted by: rhyer | January 6, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Panetta wouldn't even know where to hide after doing a ding-dong-dash and now he is our top spy?
A news correspondent for surgeon general and a political hack for DCI.

Keep that change coming!

Posted by: mobileclem | January 6, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness, one more time: the Constitution contemplates "the advice and consent of the Senate." See the "advice" part? If a President wants his picks confirmed, it's usually a good idea to at least make the people's representatives think they are being listened to. Everyone has Members of Congress they don't like, but Chairmen (and women) of Committees are usually good people to talk to, when they'll be presiding over the confirmation hearings.

Posted by: mfm1 | January 6, 2009 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Torture is only a small part of what the CIA does. It can be eliminated from the approved interrogation methods with just an Executive Order. What's more difficult is to defend against retaliation from the White House, the Congress, and the bureaucracy. People are really pissed. That's where Panetta can help.

Posted by: blasmaic | January 6, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

PHRamadi04 wrote: "I just want an honest assessment of the man who will guide the world's most powerful intelligence organization."

Fair enough. But if you're looking for the world's most powerful, etc., it's no longer the CIA. Try the NSA. Part of Panetta's job is to restore the Agency to its former glory. And do it ethically -- always a big challenge.

Posted by: Samson151 | January 6, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Strength through Weakness.

Promised!

Attempted Delivery!

Hope it works!

Posted by: thelaw1 | January 6, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Hard to change an organization like the Agency without bringing in an outsider at the top. The question is, can Panetta understand that eccentric CIA culture fast enough to begin reforming it? Because reform is what it needs...

Posted by: Samson151 | January 6, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Hey, there, "fide." It's actually "PHRamadi04" which stands for Purple Heart, Ramadi, 2004 which is where and when I bought my piece of the farm as an enlisted Marine. I'm no apologist for the Bush administration, I just want an honest assessment of the man who will guide the world's most powerful intelligence organization.

Panetta's Wikipedia write-up says he served two years at Ft. Ord as the "operations planner for the intelligence section." Not a great description of his unit or billet, but as a 1st Lt (his most senior rank in the two years he was in the Army) I doubt he did much more than lead squad on morning PT runs.

Other than that, it seems his career focused mainly on budget, civil rights, enviromental and agriculture issues, noble causes all. Just not the resume I want for the DCI (that's, Director, Central Intelligence, his soon-to-be title).

Posted by: PHRamadi04 | January 6, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

The pick is a mistake and not telling the Senate Intelligence Committee was also a mistake. The CIA is not a bureaucracy, it does not need a bureaucrat running it. Panetta would be a great EPA Director or Commerce Secretary, but not DCI.

Posted by: thelaw1 | January 6, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

The pick is a mistake and not telling the Senate Intelligence Committee was also a mistake. The CIA is not a bureaucracy, it does not need a bureaucrat running it. Panetta would be a great EPA Director or Commerce Secretary, but not DCI.

Posted by: thelaw1 | January 6, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

What's with this KUMBAYA baloney???

Folks, if the President can't appoint and needs to send messages to Congress before his announcement, it sounds like Congress is now in charge of the White House.

Besides, what are their legislative aides / staffers doing? Hanging around Starbucks, sucking down lattes?

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | January 6, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Biden is as stupid as a bag of hammers. But still, he makes Obama looks like a 110 pound brain. Of course, that why Obama picked him.

Posted by: Leftie | January 6, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Great choice because Mr. Panetta is a hard worker who knows his way around the US Gumment. I hope he uses his budget skills to cut away the dead wood and bring the CIA to the 21st Century.

Posted by: bullz1 | January 6, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama's team is already 100 % better than anything we have had in the last 8 years! The yo-yo with the Boston terrier needs to take a hike and remember your dodo bag.

This incoming administration will bring people better equipped to handle the various departments, and they will do it with a transparency that will enable folks to see progress. And they will admit to mistakes, such as this trivial one about notifying all parties.

So take your little mutt for a real long walk, like to Canada. The next 8 years will be needed to turn this country around and get us on the right track. The Republican administrations have done so MUCH damage, we are lucky this country is still here.

Now watch what can happen when you install intelligent people, with high expectations, while holding them accountable to the great people of this country!

Our outgoing president has left behind a legacy of ineptitude that will hopefully never be equalled. His arrogance in the face of tragedies like Katrina are mindboggling. New Orleans still struggles to get going. His immoral views on torture are only superseded by his ability to truly admit that he authorized these activities. Why can't he admit what he claims we did? He states that we garnered great information from these enemy prisoners. What information???? I've seen Stalin movies with better logic on torture.

No more closed door meetings with energy bigwigs to raise more money for the rich. Why did Cheney do all of his work in the dark underground dungeons of DC? What a travesty! Nothing good for this country came out of those meetings. Cheney was in this for the money and the power. He is getting out of here and taking a lot of money with him but we will survive!

America is the greatest country! And now the world will once again look to us to lead them out of the Bush/Cheney despression! Go Obama! Go Boston terreirs! Goood bye PHRamad!!!!!!!

Posted by: fide | January 6, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Yeah - the mistake was choosing a political crony to run the CIA. Panetta is not qualified. Plain and simple. This in a time of war??
---------
Two wars and a broken economy, brought about by Dick Cheney's highly qualified "experts."

ROTFLMAO

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | January 6, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

And all those bashing the Bush Administration about CIA choices forget that Bush Administration kept Tenet on board from the Clinton Administration. Tenet was the one that briefed Bush, Cheney and Congress on WMD and convinced them to vote in favor of the war.

Posted by: glm6 | January 6, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse


Trying to make "news"??- Your headline is very misleading-
Biden did not say the choice was a mistake-as your headline implies--
He said not informing certain parties was a mistake.
This is a really good example of how the press manipulates the news trying to sensationalize it- I thought the Post was better than that- sales a little slow???
Norm S Erie Pa

Posted by: nccoles | January 6, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Panetta is qualified for this job. I have it on good authority that in addition to receiving briefings on intelligence operations at least once a week, he also spent the night at a Holiday Inn...

Posted by: glm6 | January 6, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Yeah - the mistake was choosing a political crony to run the CIA. Panetta is not qualified. Plain and simple. This in a time of war?? Folks just don't understand how critical the CIA is in protecting our country. We need a career intelligence professional at this post. It would have been a good choice to keep Hayden, but understandable that Obama would not. Never the less we need a profeesional - not a political hack.

By this choice I fear that Obama does not understand the gravity of the job of protecting our country. We haven't been attacked in eight years. But other western countries have been hit. Only by maintaining and improving our intelligence assests will we be able to prevent anoterh 9-11. Paneetta at the CIA is a critical mistake in my view.

Posted by: Jaymand | January 6, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I am sure the Obamoron sheeple can't understand why we would need an intelligence chief with experience during a war. After all, they're the same lemmings who elected a President with no experience who also happens to come from the most corrupt political system in the country.

But I'm certain they feel all fuzzy inside (until of course, the buildings start dropping again).

Posted by: Bcamp55 | January 6, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

I think Feinstein and Rockfeller are just jealous they weren't considered for the post and are just venting.

Posted by: rusty6 | January 6, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I missed the part of the Constitution where it said Obama had to get approval from the Senate. In fact, I believe exactly the opposite is true. They've been notified. They have no say in the matter. So what's the problem?

Posted by: jmcgill1 | January 6, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Ahhh, jmcgill1, try actually reading the Constitution. To Wit:

Article 2

Section 2

Clause 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Posted by: anonthistime | January 6, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

He is another fresh face in Washington--not. This is an unbelievable pick and because lying Joe Biden has admitted mistake perhaps he made the choice. Panetta for the head of intelligence; Caroline Kennedy for the Senate--I would have chosen Kennedy for the CIA Chief and sent Panetta to Illinois to try for the Senate seat. Our foes are certainly afraid now knowing that our intelligence effort will be led by such an experienced person..First new policy will be to issue new interrogation rules--"Are you a terrorist, do you blow up people, are you looking for martyrdom?" "No." "OK, you are free to go. Here is 100 bucks for your trouble and honesty in the face of our thorough interrogation techniques."

Posted by: tknewell | January 6, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Biden admitting to Obama's "mistake?" That sounds odd, to begin with. But Biden vouching for Panetta's intelligence credentials by saying, "He has been a consumer of intelligence for a long time," sounds like he has no idea what qualifies the former senator for the post. I've consumed beef since I was old enough to chew but I don't know the first thing about being a rancher. VP-Elect Biden, I assure you there is a great deal more that goes into intelligence collection than what is finally presented to you on the Hill in nice, neat packages.

Oh, and his good friend Senator Roberts calls him a "fast learner." Brilliant. So is my Boston terrier.

Posted by: PHRamadi04 | January 6, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

hclark1

when did you EVER hear Cheney or Bush admit to an even small mistake, i e. like this one?

if this is a really really bad day, then what do you call Bush vacationing and ignoring warnings of 9-11 type event? federal response to katrina? Bush policy in Iraq? illegal torture in Iraqi prisons? Mission Accomplished? socialist welfare for wall street banks?

the list goes on.....

Posted by: antiquepaper1 | January 6, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

I would comment on this issue but there is only one President-Elect at a time, cough-cough.

Posted by: truthhurts | January 6, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

&*&*&*&*

I'm forgetting_
Who's president now?
What's his approval rating?
What's the national debt?
What was it when he took office?
Where is OBL?
How is that middle east peace process going?
How many people are out of work?
What does the stock market look like?

I guess most of the people posting here
want 8 more years of this sh&t.

*&*&*&*&*&*

Posted by: printthis | January 6, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

It looks like the Senators are not going to lie down and play dead for BO. Hope not.

Posted by: annnort | January 6, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Lots of criticism here but what about all the good things people believe Mr Obama may do?

Posted by: HassanAliAl-Hadoodi | January 6, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

LOL! :-D

And they are not even in yet!

The First of I am afraid of how many Retractions! :-(

BTW-Who's President-to-be again?

Hard to keep up! ;~)

Posted by: SAINT---The | January 6, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Sadly, incompetence, inexperience and ego maniacal tendencies follow poor unaccomplished, non achiever Obama wherever he goes. Obama's motto must be "Looking the part is better than being ready for the part"

Posted by: vgailitis | January 6, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

jmcgill1, the appointments in question are with the "advice and consent of the Senate." That's "the problem." He can ignore their advice, but they might withhold their consent.

Posted by: mfm1 | January 6, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Do Dianne and Jay think they should have been the CIA chief?

Posted by: wj_phillips | January 6, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

I missed the part of the Constitution where it said Obama had to get approval from the Senate. In fact, I believe exactly the opposite is true. They've been notified. They have no say in the matter. So what's the problem?

Posted by: jmcgill1 | January 6, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

This is Rahm Emanuel at work. He's already gotten Obama in front of federal investigators in record time, failed to notify Senators (proof that he does not care), and allowed Obama to comment on everything under the sun that does not concern the President-elect.

Posted by: hz9604 | January 6, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

bhc001, I think the name-calling is equally bad when it is aimed at "Republikcans," "war criminals," etc; it's just that "hclark1" was the only name-caller whose comments were up when I sent mine. Hold your fire!

Posted by: mfm1 | January 6, 2009 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Uh, waterboarding has been banned at CIA since the current director took office. Morale is on the upswing, clandestine operations have been reinforced and numerous terrorist attacks on the homeland have been twarted (even some that have made the news). What exactly is it at CIA that so desperately needs to be "turned around"? I mean other than just not having a President named "Bush"?

BTW, I would be much more persuaded by the rightous indignation about name calling, if every other post on these boards didn't include the phases "Repuklicans", "war criminals", "boneheaded", "old biddy", et. al. I guess it's okay when you agree with them, eh?

Posted by: bhc001 | January 6, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Oh, come on. Panetta qualifies.

I understand he could see all the way to Langley VA from his office.

Posted by: Bluefish2012 | January 6, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Considering the boneheaded Bush moves that neither Feinstein nor Rockefeller found any fault with, who cares that Obama didn't say mother may I when he picked Panetta? That those two don't like him is a good sign.

Posted by: SarahBB | January 6, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

obama/biden are wise to hold their cards close to their chests, as their Senate colleagues have not shown much "intel capability" in tagging along with Bush over the past 8 years.

-------

Feinstein, Rockefeller, Pelosi, too, bending over for Bush and Cheney at every juncture, complicit in the illegal "war on terror."

They should be held liable for war crimes, along with the rest of them.

How does our country survive when Congress aids and abets a clearly treasonous administration?

It doesn't.

So, let's find out why this happened.

Or is that too real?

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | January 6, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

They should never tell Feinstein anything. She is irrelevant. Since when did the constitution change to say that an old biddy from CA had to approve CIA appointments?

Get off your high horse Senator, and let's try fixing the economy and bailing out the middle class. Haven't seen your proposal on that yet.

Posted by: mty917 | January 6, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

IT WASN'T AN OVERSIGHT AS SEN. BIDEN INDICATES. IT WAS AN END-RUN AROUND THE SEN. INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. THE BIG QUESTIONS IS...WHY WOULD LEON PANETTA WANT THE JOB? TO SET THE PROPER MORAL TONE? PANETTA IS ALSO A CONTROL FREAK; HENCE, THE FOLKS AT THE AGENCY WILL MAKE HIS LIFE MISERABLE AND IN TURN FOR PRES. OBAMA. THERE'S STILL TIME TO TURN IT BACK. THEY DON'T KNOW SEN FEINSTEIN.

Posted by: danshanteal | January 6, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh started the quaint little fad of name coining (feminazi, etc.) and now every brain semi-dead political pundit--amateur and professional, conservative and progressive--has adopted the practice. All they're doing, to me, is advertising the fact that they are unoriginal fools incapable of free thought.

Posted by: hayeseric | January 6, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

obama/biden are wise to hold their cards close to their chests, as their Senate colleagues have not shown much "intel capability" in tagging along with Bush over the past 8 years.

if Panetta can rectify some of the CIA's tact toward becoming a lawless hitsquad, he will be welcome: take a look at that black budget, too, Leon.

Posted by: forestbloggod | January 6, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Ha-ha, namecaller, very clever, that. So witty. But you inadvertently make a good point. For the past eight years a "really-really bad day" was, like, 9/11 or Katrina. If this represents a "really-really bad day," that's FANTASTIC news for everyone. Thanks for the bright outlook!

Posted by: merelymyopinion | January 6, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

"Another, really - really bad day for the DEMOCRUDS."

Right, poster: Let's not forget, of course, the disastrous choices made by Bus for CIA. I'm no big fan of Panetta, but compared to Porter Goss and the trainwreck of George Tennant (who I know was there before Mr. Disgrace came into office), he probably couldn't do any worse.
And please, grow up and quite using childish names for Democrats, will you?
It'll only reflects poorly on you, not the Demos.


Posted by: vegasgirl1 | January 6, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

While I have an open mind on the Panetta appointment, it is astonishing to me that people like "hclark1" think they somehow persuade people of their views by engaging in name-calling. "DEMOCRUDS" -- what does that accomplish?

Posted by: mfm1 | January 6, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

This is not "a bad day...", it is a great choice and signifies the end of bush-cheney's disregard for the law and a hopeful sign that intelligence gathering will be intelligently gathered.

Posted by: craigbrewer | January 6, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Another, really - really bad day for the DEMOCRUDS.

Posted by: hclark1 | January 6, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company