January 07, 2009

1/7: Standing Up For Panetta

The blogosphere is still buzzing about Barack Obama's reported decision to tap ex-WH CoS Leon Panetta as CIA dir. After news of the selection provoked a backlash from intelligence officials and various Dem Senators, liberal bloggers rushed to Panetta's defense. They're describing Panetta as "an ideal choice" to lead the agency in the post-Bush years and are downplaying his lack of experience in intelligence-gathering. They're also blasting incoming Senate Intel Cmte Chair Dianne Feinstein and outgoing Senate Intel Cmte Chair Jay Rockefeller for publicly criticizing the pick. Matthew Yglesias writes:

"Not to be mean about this, but I wish Sens Feinstein and Rockefeller had shown such concern about pushing back against the executive branch on intelligence matters back when, as members of the Intelligence Committee, both decided to back the invasion of Iraq rather than doing their jobs and calling attention to the problems with the intelligence the administration was presenting."

PANETTA: Standing Up To The Critics

Liberal bloggers are fiercely defending Obama's reported decision to tap Panetta as CIA dir.:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "[T]he more complaints I hear about Panetta at the CIA, the more I find the concerns underwhelming. Feinstein and Rockefeller feel snubbed? Given their recent track record, I don't much care. The head of the CIA should come from within the agency? At least six recent CIA chiefs didn't. Panetta doesn't have a background in national security intelligence? Nonsense, as White House chief of staff and an ISG member, Panetta dealt with the very sensitive intelligence on a daily basis. [...] If we start with a premise that Obama wanted to find a credible, experienced manager, who's dealt with intelligence but remains untainted by the Bush-era scandals, Panetta starts to look like an ideal choice."
• Think Progress' Yglesias: "On the merits, this idea that the CIA Director needs to be a career intelligence professional seems to have been pulled out of thin air. Porter Goss wasn't a career intel guy. Neither was George Tenet. Neither was John Deutsch. [...] Nor several other past directors. Meanwhile, it's not like Panetta was just pulled out of nowhere -- he was White House chief of staff where he had a hand in overseeing the entire federal government. He's got the administrative chops and he's held the intelligence clearances. Meanwhile, the sentiment that Obama is somehow obligated to appoint a current senior intelligence manager to the job seems merely designed to ensure that no senior intelligence officials are held to account for anything that happened during the Bush administration. And if you think there've been no serious intel problems during the Bush years, that makes a lot of sense. But if you live on planet earth, that's crazy."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "The pick has gotten the full-throated support of a few Intelligence Committee members: [OR Sen.] Ron Wyden, who was apparently tipped off to the nomination before Feinstein (that will make things a little awkward at the committee table); and [WI Sen.] Russ Feingold. [...] Panetta can also plan on the support of the former Intelligence Committee chair Republican Pat Roberts. [...] Everybody is getting on board the change wagon. Now that Obama has sent the unequivocal message that he will end the abuses of the Bush administration, all Congressional Dems need to join in."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan also praises the choice: "Some are now citing Panetta's appointment as somehow 'political' rather than substantive. But it's obvious that Obama has actually found someone both capable of running a bureaucracy as complex as the CIA, of a stature to be approved by the Congress and maintain good relations, and with the good sense to know how interrogation based on torture is never right and much less effective than legal methods. It remains an inspired choice. And the critics help show why."

PANETTA II: If DiFi Opposes Him, Then He Must Be A Good Choice

Feinstein and Rockefeller continue to take heat from liberal bloggers for their public criticism of the Panetta appointment:

• Firedoglake's Phoenix Woman: "Feinstein's dig at Leon Panetta is allegedly based in her stated belief that we need an 'intelligence professional' at the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. Yet when several intelligence professionals tried to show her that Bush's planned war on Iraq was based in bogosity, she ignored them. Then again, she seems to be quite willing to suspend disbelief when it's a Republican president telling her to do so."
• mcjoan: "His spokesperson said that Rockefeller 'shares Ms. Feinstein's concerns.' Really. That's rich, coming from these two who practically fell over themselves to capitulate to the Bush administration and turn a blind eye to the abuses of that administration, to torture. NOW they decide to get a spine? NOW they decide to resist a president?"
• Yglesias: "Not to be mean about this, but I wish Sens Feinstein and Rockefeller had shown such concern about pushing back against the executive branch on intelligence matters back when, as members of the Intelligence Committee, both decided to back the invasion of Iraq rather than doing their jobs and calling attention to the problems with the intelligence the administration was presenting. Somehow other members of the SSIC like [IL Sen.] Dick Durbin and [MI Sen.] Carl Levin managed to figure out what was going on."
• dday: "Panetta isn't going to be sneaking through the Middle East collecting human intelligence; he's going to be managing a large bureaucracy. But moral lepers like DiFi value 'experience' that will lock in the status quo over experience that will reveal the agency's sins, and by extension her own. They don't want to risk any culpability on their part from becoming public, so they'd rather 'keep it in the family.'"
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "What I dislike about the Feinstein reaction is that she did, in fact, go along with the rubber-stamping of all the Bush appointees, and she wasn't even in the Republican party. Now, for whatever reason, she appears to be eagerly hamstringing the appointee before a hearing is even scheduled."
• digby: "As [Glenn] Greenwald said, the mere fact that the complicit whiners Feinstein and Rockefeller (who, you'll notice, immediately ran crying to the press) are upset about it, reflects well on the decision."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "There are a lot of fairly intricate and byzantine arguments about whether or not [Panetta] is a good choice. But the people who I'd want to see supporting the nomination do seem to support it. And as I said last night the nature of the opposition, even if it seems to be diminishing, makes me more inclined to support the choice."

PANETTA III: Did The Obama Team Deliberately Snub Feinstein?

Yesterday, TPM's Elana Schor confirmed that the Obama transition team consulted with Sen. Wyden (a junior member of the Intel Cmte) regarding the Panetta selection before consulting with Feinstein:

"[I] just spoke to Sen. Ron Wyden's (D-OR) office, where a spokeswoman confirmed what was hinted at this morning: Wyden had been in contact with the Obama transition team to discuss the Leon Panetta nomination, while incoming Senate intelligence chairman Dianne Feinstein was still in the dark."

Several bloggers believe that the Obama transition team deliberately kept Feinstein in the dark about the Panetta selection, and they see this as a good thing:

• Sullivan: "The more I think about this, the more it seems to me that the snub of these two was a deliberate signal. Their oversight of Bush's war crimes was pathetic. Ditto [House Intel Cmte Chair Jane] Harman. Obama is telling us he is serious about both improving intelligence and drawing a clear line -- for the entire world to see -- between the United States and the war criminals who will soon be leaving office, and those who enabled them."
• Harper's Scott Horton: "The intelligence community was steered by the Bush Administration into a series of criminal escapades. Effective congressional oversight would have exposed these failings and brought them to heel. But the Rockefeller-Feinstein record was little short of disastrous. I'm delighted that the Obama team didn't consult them. And I suspect that Panetta was chosen principally for his managerial skills, but secondarily because Obama wanted someone who would have a more powerful voice in Washington generally, and in Congressional circles in particular, than either Rockefeller or Feinstein."

Other bloggers don't think it was wise for the Obama transition team to snub Feinstein, if it indeed did so deliberately:

• Ezra Klein: "Horton is right to heap scorn on Rockefeller and DiFi's committee performance. But history suggests that acting highhandedly with powerful senators is a bad idea. Those are votes Obama will need not only on his nominee, but on much else, and the last thing his administration should do is anger them or their allies. The point of presidential consultation is to show respect for their opinions and make sure the working relationship is constructive. Putting that aside for either pique or vengeance is a bad idea indeed, and not the sort of thing progressives should cheer."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "As I wrote earlier, it's irrelevant whether anyone gets a frisson of schadenfreude out of dissing DiFi. The only question that matters is whether Obama, and Panetta, gain or lose by, seemingly intentionally leaving Feinstein out of the loop."

PANETTA IV: We're Cool With Him

Yesterday we observed that the majority of conservative bloggers were harshly criticizing the Panetta selection. However, a few conservative bloggers are expressing mild support for the choice:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Panetta is widely regarded as very smart...and widely liked across both parties. Though a liberal, the experience of having skippered a White House staff will have schooled Panetta in the art of getting to the president when it must happen and in the ways of winning internal Executive Branch dust-ups. The Congressional background didn't help Porter Goss much, but perhaps it will help Panetta keep the budget cutters away. Panetta's a patriot, an experienced Washington hand, and close to the president-elect. As with many of the other early appointments on the incoming national security team, conservatives should be asking themselves if they ought not to be thanking their stars that the new team appears very realistic about the world they are being called on to lead and the enemies they will be facing."
• RedState's Streiff: "I don't have a problem with Barack Obama's nomination of long time Clinton loyalist and former California congressman Leon Panetta to head the Central Intelligence Agency. [...] The two biggest dings against Panetta are that 1) Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller have their panties knotted over their not being consulted and 2) Panetta is not an intelligence professional. I think both these objections are superficial [...] The least serious objection is Mr. Panetta's resume. When one looks at the history of the CIA and the directors there is really no evidence that intelligence professionals perform any better than your average charwoman."

On the other hand, RedState's Warner Todd Huston remains critical of the pick: "To paraphrase Forrest Gump, Inexperienced is as inexperienced does. At least that is what comes to my mind when hearing that Barack Obama has picked the inoffensive, completely inexperienced and unqualified Leon Panetta to be the new director of the CIA. Really. Leon Panetta? The onetime director of the Office of Management and Budget Panetta, that Leon Panetta? This old Clinton partisan has absolutely no experience whatsoever with intelligence gathering or the administration of the same. None. Zip. Nadda. Now, if George W. Bush had picked such an inexperienced man for any government position much less one at cabinet level, the media would have crucified him -- in fact, it did if you recount the Harriet Meyers for SCOTUS debacle."

GUPTA: America's New Favorite Doctor?

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama's apparent decision to tap CNN correspondent/neurosurgeon Sanjay Gupta as surgeon general:

• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "[T]he more I think about it, the more I think this is kind of a good idea. The surgeon general 'serves as America's chief health educator by providing Americans the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury,' according to the official website. Someone who has made a career of synthesizing complex medical knowledge into television specials seems to be the right person to educate Americans about their health."
• Klein: "Gupta is a great pick. [...] The surgeon general has an informal role as the country's leading medical and lifestyle educator, and it's that role the Gupta is uniquely positioned to fill. There's not a doctor in this country with half his media training and experience, nor one with a rolodex of editors and reporters a tenth as large."
• Benen: "Gupta seems like a strong choice. The responsibilities for a surgeon general are a little vague, but my sense is he/she is generally responsible for being a public health advocate, educating the public and being a spokesperson on medical and health issues. Given his work as a journalist, Gupta seems more than able to fill that role."

Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin is not a fan of the pick: "Celebrity idol Barack Obama picks another celebrity to head up the surgeon general's office. [...] At least it wasn't Deepak Chopra. What next? Judge Judy for the next Supreme Court opening? I vote for celebrity bounty hunter Duane 'The Dog' Chapman to head the Border Patrol."

BUSH: The Dream Is Over

Several conservative bloggers were disappointed by ex-FL Gov. Jeb Bush's decision not to run for Senate in 2010:

• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Disappointing."
• NRO's Rich Lowry: "Bad news."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "With Bush out, the race to replace Martinez is wide open in a state that Obama carried and in a political climate where the GOP will have to defend 19 seats versus just 16 for the Democrats. A gimme in Florida would have helped -- a lot. Oh well."
• AmSpec Blog's W. James Antle, III: "Not only does that take the strongest Republican candidate off the table in that particular race but it also could dampen recruitment for other races. Being able to attract a big name like Jeb Bush might entice other big names to run as Republicans in 2010."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "I am disappointed in Jeb's decision. I am no fan of the Bush family in general, but this Bush was a very solid conservative governor and would have been a near shoo-in for election to the Senate. Unlike Caroline Kennedy, he would have EARNED his spot by election from constituents who have already seen how he performs in office. I do find him a bit arrogant, to say the least, and I would never want him to run for or be president, but I think he really ought to have run for the Senate. After all his brother did to hurt the Republican and conservative 'brands,' the least Jeb sould do is to help make up for his brothers' (and fathers') harm by holding a seat conservatives desperately need to hold. Again, then, the Bushes disappoint."

Glenn Reynolds had a different reaction: "Jeb Bush won't run for Senate. Good. By all accounts he's a decent guy, but we could use a bit less dynastic politics these days."

SPECTER: How Ya Like Me Now, Toomey?

Conservative bloggers are praising PA Sen. Arlen Specter for criticizing Obama's decision to nominate ex-Deputy AG Eric Holder as AG:

• Lopez: "There looks like there will be a fight over the Holder nomination, after all; thank you Senator Specter."
• AmSpec Blog's Doug Bandow: "Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is the squishiest of the squishy. But he appears to be growing a backbone when it comes to Attorney General-designate Eric Holder. [...] It could be all talk, of course. But Sen. Specter has pointed to reasons for fighting the Holder nomination. A return to the bad old Clinton Justice Department surely isn't 'change that we can believe in.'"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Idea Of Israel

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein criticizes the Israeli invasion of Gaza:

"[T]his latest incursion, and indeed, much of Israel's military history, seems manufactured in opposition to the founding idea of the Zionist project itself -- that the world should be made safe for Jews. And that if the larger world could not be safe, than at least one place -- the Promised Land -- should be. I needn't argue here that Israel is one of the most unsafe places on earth to be a Jew; with suicide bombings, missiles, and now full-fledged war, that much is apparent. Asking young Jews to fight and die in a ground war, one whose perpetration inflames anti-Semitic sentiments, is not the best way to make Israel, or the world at large, safe for the Jewish people. And sure enough, it is tragic to learn that due to the fighting in Gaza, Jews in France, Sweden, Belgium, and Denmark have suffered anti-Semitic violence and vandalism in recent days.

To be sure, Israel's military response is not dissimilar from that of other nations that have faced terrorist threats, and errantly believed they could quash the threat with brute force. But in a post-Holocaust world, Israel is simply not like any other country. It is special, and holds particular sway over the religious and cultural imagination. I don't need to be convinced that anti-Semitism is a world-historical force that would exist, sometimes virulently, with or without the existence of Israel. I majored in European History, for god's sake. [...] It's just that I want to believe that the collective, historical experience of Jewishness and Zionism leads to something better -- something more humane -- than what we've witnessed in the Middle East this past week. Jews in Israel and the Diaspora who are similarly frustrated have the responsibility, I think, to raise their voices. We support Israel's right to protect itself. We just don't see how this will accomplish that in the long run."

LEST WE FORGET: Fun With Craigslist

McSweeney's contributor Eric Feezell compiles a list of "Unpromising Apartment-Ad Teasers Actually Found on Craigslist That Would Make Even Less Promising Personal-Ad Teasers":

• Beautiful on the Inside!
• Totally gutted and refurbished charmer
• Huge unit! Looking for single person or couple only.
• Back on market. Spacious! Clean!
• 'UNIQUE'
• Gas, garbage incl. Cozy.
• Your complex awaits!
• BIG...CLOSE TO EVERYTHING...
• Rarely available and will go quickly!
• Look no further! I'm where the welcome mat goes!
• Legal in-law

Posted by Ian Faerstein at January 7, 2009 01:00 PM