Post | 01/06/2009 9:30 am

Sen. Feinstein Hits Back Against Obama's CIA Pick; Rep. Jane Harman Passed Over for Job

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
Dianne Feinstein/Flickr

Sen. Dianne Feinstein — who begins the job this week as first-ever female chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee — isn’t happy about the pick of Leon Panetta for CIA director.

But it’s hard to tell whether she’s more upset over the fact that she doesn’t think he’s the best person for the job, or that Barack Obama didn’t give her the heads-up about his decision. And does this mean she will lead the charge against Panetta during his confirmation hearings, which she will oversee? We’re not so sure it will come to that, but she will definitely have some tough questions for the former Clintonite.

"I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director," said Feinstein, D-CA. "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."

The outgoing committee chair, Sen. John Rockefeller, D-WV, also doesn’t quite agree with the pick.

A senior aide told the LA Times that while Rockefeller "thinks very highly of Panetta … he’s puzzled by the selection. He has concerns because he has always believed that the director of CIA needs to be someone with significant operational intelligence experience and someone outside the political realm."

The word is that Obama’s transition team passed over many other people with actual CIA experience for the job – as well as some Democrats in Congress who would be qualified – because they were somehow too close to the Bush administration anti-terror policies, or, at the very least, they at one point agreed with them.

Take Rep. Jane Harman, D-CA, for example. This intelligence-savvy lady, formerly the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was considered for the job, but, according to The New York Times, "she was ruled out as a candidate in part because of her early support for some Bush administration programs like the domestic eavesdropping program." That would be the surveillance program that tapped the phone conversations between someone outside of this country and someone in; at least one party would have to be a suspected terrorist.

OK, but she was one of the only lawmakers in the know to denounce waterboarding from the start (which, unfortunately, is more than we can say for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA).

Harman, who spent eight years on the House Intelligence Committee – the final four as Ranking Member – helped shape Congress’s policy response to the 9/11 attacks and played a leading role in the creation and passage of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. She’s currently chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence & Terrorism Risk Assessment, and is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. In her prior life, she was a top Senate aide, deputy Cabinet secretary to President Jimmy Carter, and special counsel at the Defense Department. Sounds pretty qualified.

Although many are questioning Obama’s surprise pick of Panetta, others are saying he will do a great job of getting the CIA’s house in order.

If Panetta is confirmed, his wife Sylvia is expected to take the helm of his Leon and Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy at California State University-Monterey Bay, which they established. Speakers who have visited the institute include secretary of state nominee Hillary Clinton and former New York mayor and Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.

University President Dianne Harrison said she had been "assured by Leon that Sylvia will continue to run the institute and it will be business as usual."

The Senate confirmation hearings are sure to be interesting. Maybe then we’ll see what Panetta is really all about, and whether he can, in fact, help the CIA become the world-class spy agency it’s supposed to be. 

49 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

DeBúrca obj
The word is that Obama’s transition team passed over many other people with actual CIA experience for the job – as well as some Democrats in Congress who would be qualified – because they were somehow too close to the Bush administration anti-terror policies, or, at the very least, they at one point agreed with them.”… sounds good to me. Bravo. Change.
By DeBúrca obj on 01/06/2009 9:48 am
Diana T
In addition, DeB, Leon Panetta has been very outspoken in regards to the violation of the Geneva Conventions in regards to the torture of prisoners. I have a sense that this was a factor in the decision.
By Diana T on 01/06/2009 11:19 am
DeBúrca obj
Today I heard Thom Hartman on the radio nearly giddy over this choice… and he began by saying “There will be no more water boarding done by America.” He went on to say it is about time we have someone in this position who is qualified to be there.
By DeBúrca obj on 01/06/2009 5:08 pm
Diana T
DeB, I still have not had a chance to listen to Hartman.
By Diana T on 01/06/2009 5:21 pm
Belinda Joy
I don’t agree with the Panetta pick. There has to be someone, anyone more qualified for the position than he is. If it is true that the Obama team passed over many other candidates simply because they were closely tied to the Bush administration, that is really disconcerting, and seems hypocritical. How can they on one hand keep Defense Secretary Robert Gates on, who was up to his eyeballs in the Bush administration. Yet deny the opportunity for another who may have been just as engrained to serve for the CIA? This is the first hiccup I have noticed in terms of the transition teams thought process in the selection process. This and of course the fact they didn’t vet Richardson thoroughly.
By Belinda Joy on 01/06/2009 10:09 am
Belinda Joy
As usual DeB, you provide information that sways me. I stand corrected.
By Belinda Joy on 01/06/2009 6:21 pm
f p
Sounds like Feinstein might possibly have a bit of an ego problem. Panetta is a hell of an administrator according to the papers i’ve read and maybe this is precisely what the CIA needs—certainly not some hack who supported tacitly or otherwise Bush’s contempt for the Constitution and use of rendition, torture and secret prisons.
By f p on 01/06/2009 11:04 am
Diana T
Hey, Frank, did you watch Charlie Rose last night? Al Hunt was absolutely thrilled with this choice. And, you said what Hunt said, that getting someone in there to boost their morale, analyse their department and restructure may be just the medicine they need. Apparently, his working relationship with David Blair(who will be director of national intelligence) is great. And, then, I love what Hunt and Rose agreed on: Anyone who is willing to leave Carmel to take a job in Langley must be a very dedicated person. Hey, I wonder if Suzanne knows him; she knows everybody else… :)
By Diana T on 01/06/2009 11:17 am
f p
Sorry Di, no I didn’t watch—but morale is low in the ranks at the CIA from what I’ve read as well it should be after the debacle of the Bush years.
By f p on 01/06/2009 11:27 am
Diana T
Frank, I think one reason the Obama made this choice was because of the loud opposition that Panetta made when the torture scandals became public. I am really getting interested in all I am reading from the intel experts on this choice; they seem to be relieved. And, apparently, David Blair and he have a very satisfying working relationship. What is the worse case scenario? That it will be a flop and he will have to be replaced. I think it’s worth the risk. Speaking of low morale, my sister’s across-the-street neighbors are covert intelligence. Wife is covert CIA/ hubby is covert in one of the 16 other agencies, I forget. At any rate, they have been very discreet these past few years; they don’t complain loudly. Except for NYEve, when they had the cul de sac party. They were both critical of their offices, and he had just returned from Iraq the day before, where he had not one good thing to say about our prescence over there. He is one of the few Arabic speakers in intelligence, and was telling my sister that this administration keeps sending “consultants” over that don’t speak the language, don’t know the culture, boss everybody around, and generally are obnoxious, that the Iraqis hate us and just want us out of there. It will be interesting to hear what they think of the Panetta nomination….
By Diana T on 01/06/2009 11:53 am
f p
What else can one expect from BushCO? Of course the iraqis hate us and they have every right to be pissed—look what we’ve done to their country—a huge majority of the middle class of Iraq now lives in Jordan or Syria—the infrastructure of the country is abysmal. “Consultants” ! Right lol
By f p on 01/06/2009 12:12 pm
Diana T
Apparently, on the level of re-building, it’s a mess just like what we’ve been reading about; that is, if we don’t listen to Fox, Limbaugh etal.
By Diana T on 01/06/2009 12:24 pm
DeBúrca obj
I didn’t have the chance to watch last night, but everything I have heard today was positive about the Panetta choice.
By DeBúrca obj on 01/06/2009 5:01 pm
Diana T
You can always watch a re-run on his website. There are a lot of naysayers out there, but the people that seem to know the most are happy with the idea.
By Diana T on 01/06/2009 5:20 pm