Obama to promote Michael Brown to head CIA Director

[Darius871]

Your shifting the goals, per usual.

I'm only addressing the asinine comparison of Panetta, who has a good deal of both government and leadership positions

You've still ignored the key word DD used, "substantive," and you're smart enough to know the difference. Someone could have all the leadership experience or procedural experience in the world and still have zero substantive experience at the same time. Or vice versa.

Not that this helps DD's comparison, since Panetta has 2 out of 3 and Brown had 0 out of 3, but it does affect whether Panetta was a silly pick in a general sense.

[Winston]

Look, Obama is brilliant. The man's incapable of making an error.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"Heck of a job, Lenny"

What an utterly ridiculous choice for CIA head.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-I'm baffled by the Panetta appointment, but its hard to see how he could do any more damage than the experts have done.

As the NY Times article on it says:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06cia.html?pagewanted=2

“It’s a puzzling choice and a high-risk choice,” said Amy Zegart, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has written extensively on intelligence matters.

“The best way to change intelligence policies from the Bush administration responsibly is to pick someone intimately familiar with them,” Ms. Zegart said. “This is intelligence, not tax or transportation policy. You can’t hit the ground running by reading briefing books and asking smart questions.”

[Darius871]

As the NY Times article on it says:

“The best way to change intelligence policies from the Bush administration responsibly is to pick someone intimately familiar with them,” Ms. Zegart said. “This is intelligence, not tax or transportation policy. You can’t hit the ground running by reading briefing books and asking smart questions.”

Michael Scheuer anyone? (Not that he'd accept, and of course he's too critical of the Israel lobby to be palatable anyway, oh well...)

[Ramo]

This isn't at all comparable to Brown. Sounds closer to George H.W. Bush.

HW was clearly an utterly ridiculous Brownie.

[snoopy369]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0600069&s_pos=

So there's one spook who likes him.

And, honestly, the CIA has been run for years by National Security insiders -- and what a record they've racked up: not anticipating the collapse of the Soviet Union, not anticipating Indian or Pakistani nukes, not anticipating the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs, blocking the FBI from pursuing leads on the guys who would end up perpetrating 9/11, and affirming shoddy intelligence on Iraq. I'm baffled by the Panetta appointment, but its hard to see how he could do any more damage than the experts have done.

I understand your argument, Rufus, but I think there must certainly be someone high up in the agency who doesn't agree with the way it's currently being run - there always is. Find that person, regardless of party affiliation, and appoint him to the spot.

[Ramo]

The issue appears to be that they had a hard time trying to find folks with stature within the Agency who took a stand against the Bush Admin policies on torture and the NSA surveillance program.

I don't know why Agency experience is supposed to be a prerequisite for the job. Panetta has plenty of foreign policy and managerial experience. Is anyone willing to argue that HW was dangerously unqualified?

[Imran Siddiqui]

What foreign policy experience?! Based on 3 years as a Chief of Staff? He wasn't even on any foreign policy committees while serving in the House. He focused on domestic issues. As for managerial experience... also based on 3 years as CoS? Or are we counting Chairing committees? Cause in that case, Feinstein would be a better choice as she actually serves on the Intelligence Committee. Heading up charitable foundations? Cause that preps you for CIA.

Smacks of desperation after John Brennan was deep sixed by the blogosphere, but I did hear a rumor that Panetta may be a caretaker role. Basically being there to close Gitmo and do a few other things and then retire in a couple years so that someone who actually knows about intelligence can take over. That may be ok if that actually is the plan.

It's like saying Andrew Card has the experience to run the CIA (hey, he's got 5+ years of being CoS!).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Is anyone willing to argue that HW was dangerously unqualified?

If Panetta serves only as long as HW did (355 days), I'd be ok with it. I haven't seen anything to indicate that's the case though.

[Ramo]

[QUOTE=Imran Siddiqui;5507222]What foreign policy experience?! Based on 3 years as a Chief of Staff?[/q]

And being part of the Iraq Study Group.

As for managerial experience... also based on 3 years as CoS? Or are we counting Chairing committees?

And head of OMB.

It's like saying Andrew Card has the experience to run the CIA (hey, he's got 5+ years of being CoS!).

Panetta engineered the '96 balanced budget. From what I've read, he was a significantly stronger CoS than Card.

I'm not sold on Panetta; there are definitely people I'd rather see. But these Brownie comparisons are utterly ridiculous. Particularly when HW is considered to be one of the most successful CIA chiefs.

[Ramo]

If Panetta serves only as long as HW did (355 days), I'd be ok with it. I haven't seen anything to indicate that's the case though.

Why, exactly, is one year ok, but four years bad? I'd hope that someone in charge of the CIA for even one year isn't dangerously unqualified.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because they'll likely have a very short term job to do involving basic re-structuring and likely will leave the intelligence stuff to the spooks for the short term until you get someone who understands intelligence to guide policy.

HW was considered successful mostly because of his short time in the job. He was involved in a massive restructuring of the agency after the Church Committee report. He got in, he reorganized the agency, he make removed some taint and then got out.

If that's what Panetta is in there to do, then fine.

[Ramo]

Bush left after a year because he was an ambitious Republican pol, and Carter won the election. Not because someone who folks thought was qualified enough to completely restructure the Agency wasn't qualified enough to head it afterwards.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Carter actually discussed with him about keeping him aboard afterwards.

Regardless. That's why he's held up in such esteem. He didn't have time to **** it up, basically. Then again, I wonder if he would have been as bad as Admiral Turner (who also didn't have an intelligence background, but since he was an Admiral, Carter thought that was good enough)