Initial Reactions to Obama's Choice of Panetta to Lead CIA Take Shape

Writing for the New York Times, MARK MAZZETTI notes that: "President-elect Barack Obama and his top aides called lawmakers, deployed surrogates and offered public testimonials on Tuesday as they scrambled to mend a divide in Democratic ranks over the nomination of Leon E. Panetta, a former White House chief of staff, to take over the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Obama and his aides were trying to mend damage done on Monday when news of Mr. Panetta’s selection leaked before it had been shared with senior senators, and some Democrats responded with surprise and skepticism because Mr. Panetta lacks much intelligence experience. Speaking for the first time publicly about the choice, Mr. Obama said Tuesday that Mr. Panetta and other members of the new administration would be “committed to breaking with some of the past practices” that had “tarnished the image” of the United States’ intelligence agencies." Perhaps in an effort to mollify the concerns voiced by opponents of Mr Obama's choice of Panetta; "transition officials said Mr. Obama also intended to keep the C.I.A’s No. 2 official, Stephen R. Kappes, a highly regarded former Marine officer and agency veteran... (a move) that could help defuse criticism inside the C.I.A. about Mr. Panetta’s own thin background in intelligence." Particularly critical of the Obama choice of Panetta was voiced by "Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat who is chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and whose career in California politics tracked closely with Mr. Panetta’s for years. After hearing directly from both Mr. Obama and Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Tuesday, Mrs. Feinstein seemed to soften her opposition slightly, but she did not indicate whether she would vote to confirm Mr. Panetta." The whole affair proved somewhat damaging to Mr. Obama when several of his aides "conceded that they had mishandled the process, a significant stumble of his otherwise smooth transition. Mr. Biden said it had been a “mistake” not to notify Mrs. Feinstein and others about the decision. Mr. Obama vigorously defended his selection on Tuesday, saying Mr. Panetta was “fully versed in international affairs, crisis management and had to evaluate intelligence consistently on a day-to-day basis” during his two and a half years as chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. The Times Mazzetti further elaborated on statements by Obama's aides that: "In describing the rationale for turning to Mr. Panetta, aides to Mr. Obama said it was important to bring clarity to the division of responsibilities among American intelligence agencies, and in particular to end the current disputes between the offices of the C.I.A. director and the director of national intelligence." Furthermore; "Because Mr. Panetta does not have a C.I.A. background, the aides said, he may be less likely to instinctively defend the C.I.A.’s turf against other spy agencies. They said Dennis Blair, the retired admiral who has been tapped to become director of national intelligence, had played a role in choosing Mr. Panetta, but would have the clear mandate from the White House to set intelligence policy across the 16 intelligence agencies." There is a long and complicated relationship that Feinstein and Panetta have shared over the years. As noted both Feinstein and Panetta "are both considered power brokers in California politics,.. In 1998, for example, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Panetta were both considered viable candidates for the Democratic nomination for governor. Mrs. Feinstein eventually declared that she would not run, after which Mr. Panetta reportedly considered a bit more seriously. Ultimately, he too passed. In 2003, some Democrats from the national party considered but then abandoned a plan that would have put either Mr. Panetta or Mrs. Feinstein on the recall ballot to offer state Democrats an alternative to Gray Davis, the embattled governor. Even now, as she takes over the Intelligence Committee and will preside over Mr. Panetta’s confirmation hearings, Mrs. Feinstein is said to be considering a campaign for governor in 2010." In the meantime, several Democrats, including: former Democratic Senator Bob Graham of Florida; Intelligence Committee member from Wisconsin, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold; and Texas Democratic Congressman Silvestre Reyes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and several other Congressional Democrats voiced their strong support for Mr. Panetta. It seems like a case of miscommunications led to Mrs. Feinstein's negative remarks and perhaps with time all wounds will heal and Mr. Panetta will be confirmed to the Directorship of the CIA. A position for which I believe he will be well suited for both the moral and direction of the agency and as a valuable advisor to Mr. Obama.

The Vice Presidency of Dick Cheney: His No Regrets Legacy of Disgrace and Dishonor

The Philadelphia Inquirer has written an editorial on the soon to be former Vice President, Dick Cheney. Vice President Dick Cheney was the experienced Washington pro whose decade’s long familiarity with the corridors of power in our nation’s capital was supposed to serve as the mentor to the newly elected, younger, more charismatic, but less experienced compassionate conservative George Bush. At least that’s how the media touted Cheney’s own recommendation of himself to serve as Bush’s Vice President. George Bush was touted as a bipartisan leader whose governing style would bring Americans together for the greater good of the nation. The oddity of all the hype was that nothing ended up working like it was supposed to. Bush viewed the presidency much as a CEO who headed up a corporation and he ended up delegating many of his powers away to those who served under him. Bush decided and others governed; at least that’s what the American people have come to understand from the masses of books written so far about the Bush Presidency. But instead of offering advice and guidance; Cheney saw an opportunity to take advantage of Bush’s lax leadership style and assumed powers far beyond any other vice president in American history. In fact, Bush and Cheney acted with such indiscretion that they quickly assumed powers that superseded the Constitution. The Bush Administration, under advisement by its own Justice Department and with the support of an acquiescing Congress that was firmly controlled by the Republican Party, made the legal distinction that the Constitution intentionally allowed for a hierarchical, unified executive branch of the federal government that placed the President at the apex of the nation’s government. Bush and Cheney effectively gave themselves complete control over the government and they governed for eight years with those principles in mind. Now, however, the eight years of Bush rule are nearly over and the administration; suffering from pitifully low public opinion ratings and soon to be displaced by a Democratic President and Congress, have launched a “Legacy Project” to smooth over the rough edges of public sentiment by giving the administration their own opportunity to define the first draft of the historic record of the Bush Administration. Bush went to bat first to give an overview that would define the shape and fill the contours of history from Bush’s ‘first hand’ knowledge of what really happened. Later, other administration officials would fill in the details to provide the administration with an exemplary record of accomplishment. Enter Cheney. The Vice President who never bothered with telling the truth in the past, because governing, from Cheney’s point of view, didn’t mean that his take on events needed to line up with the facts. For Cheney, truth was a commodity that he used to construct a reality that always placed the Bush Administration in the most unassailable position possible, thus protecting the administration against criticism. This practice of switch and bait that was played with the truth worked well enough for Bush to gain a second term in office before the frequency of telling lies could no longer outpace the truth. And once the truth about the Bush Administration’s deceptions gained general acceptance among the citizenry, Bush lost the trust of the vast majority of the American people. Now all we are left with is farce: “In an interview just before Christmas with the administration-friendly Fox News, Cheney offered no regrets about the invasion of Iraq, the illegal tapping of American citizens' phones and e-mail by government agents, or the torture of terror suspects. He defended former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and said he "did a good job" - despite the failures in Iraq. In an earlier interview with ABC News, Cheney suggested the administration would have invaded Iraq even without the bogus intelligence claiming Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. That certainly conforms with what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said took place at the very first National Security Council meeting 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before the Sept. 11 terror attacks. At the meeting, O'Neill says, the main topic of discussion was regime change in Iraq.” To add justification to going to war with Iraq after the terrible events of September 11th, 2001, the Bush White House forged documents, twisted intelligence reports and spread false claims that Saddam Hussein controlled stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that he was prepared to unleash on America and its allies. When former ambassador Joseph Wilson “accused the administration of doctoring prewar intelligence on Iraq in a New York Times commentary, it was a top aide to President Bush and Vice President Cheney, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby who outed “the name of Wilson's wife, CIA official Valerie Plame,.. to reporters in 2003. After years of denying the torturing of terrorist suspects; “Cheney said recently that he approved of the administration's use of coercive interrogation tactics, including waterboarding - which is illegal under the Geneva Conventions. But Cheney doesn't think rules apply to the White House. He seemed proud of the broad expansion of executive power that he helped craft and implement... So much for checks and balances, let alone the Constitution.” The time for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney has long passed with just days left in their terms of office. But it is not too late, nor should it be overlooked that once out of office, Bush, Cheney and other suspected lawbreakers in the administration be investigated with all appropriate dispatch and if found.