Obama Surprises With CIA Pick

President-Elect Will Tap Leon Panetta For CIA Director, Dennis Blair For Director Of National Intelligence

(CBS/AP)  Sources tell CBS News that President-elect Barack Obama has selected two more people for his intelligence team - Leon Panetta to be CIA director and Retired Admiral Dennis Blair to be director of national intelligence.

With no experience in the intelligence world, Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Clinton, is a surprise choice to lead the agency. At 70 years old, he would also be the oldest person to begin a tenure as director.

Panetta was a longtime congressman from California, serving from 1977 to 1993. From 1989 to 1993, he served as chairman of the House Budget Committee. He left Congress to become Director of the Office of Management and Budget for the incoming Clinton administration.

In July 1994, he became White House chief of staff and served in that capacity until the end of Mr. Clinton's first term.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, who will chair the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in the 111th Congress, indicated that she was not pleased with the choice of Panetta.

“I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA Director," Feinstein said. "I know nothing about this, other than what I’ve read.”

"My position has consistently been that I believe the Agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time," she added.

Sen. Feinstein told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer that she was blindsided by the announcement.

"She told me she's not saying she won't vote against him, but it will be an uphill battle now to get him confirmed," Schieffer said.

Panetta currently directs with his wife Sylvia the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy, based at California State University, Monterey Bay, a university he helped establish on the site of the former U.S. Army base, Fort Ord. According to his biography, "the Institute serves as a nonpartisan, not-for-profit study center for the advancement public policy, seeking in particular to attract thoughtful men and women to lives of public service."

Panetta also served on the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that released a report at the end of 2006 with dozens of recommendations for the reversing course in the Iraq war. He was First Lieutenant in the Army from 1964 to 1966.

Blair's nomination has been expected. He served in the Navy for 34 years and was chief of the U.S. Pacific Command during the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Blair is also a China expert, and he was an associate director for military support at the CIA.

He is a workaholic, an expert on Asia, and "is considered adept at running sprawling organizations, seemingly a prerequisite for heading an office that is still grappling with the task of fusing 16 spy agencies," according to the New York Times.

CBS News' David Martin reported that Mr. Obama planned to tap Blair back in November. This news makes the choice official.

[brannigon]

Obama Rounds Out Intelligence Team? You mean there''s still intelligence left in Washington? Thats a joke!

[xlib]

Seems fienstien doesn''t like this pick. Say, maybe richardson has the picture of someone in power with a goat!
Strange pick. Next he''ll bring back gorelick so she can put those walls back up between the CIA & FBI. They worked so well for bubba.

[brannigon]

Well, CBSisPravda1,I agree; if you think that Panetta has no experience for the position, look at the one who chose him; look who''s president! He doesn''t have any experience for the position either! A 2 year rookie senator that has surrounded himself in the past with nothing but crooks! Besides, look at the stupid decisions he''s already made! God help us all!

[xlib]

cbsispravda-see, the left doesn''t think terrorism is a threat. In fact, they don''t even like referencing 9/11.

[ourtomorrows]

Putting any feelings about President-Elect Obama aside, could someone please explain to me the logic of making Leon Panetta head of the CIA? I don''t get it. Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State, this I understand, but Leon Panetta heading up the CIA, he has no relevant experience at all. I would really like to get some logical, reasoned views on this situation, why is Panetta a good choice?

[ourtomorrows]

WE CAN COUNT ON IT THAT EVERY TIME OBAMA MAKES A CHOICE FOR A POSITION THAT THE RECONS WILL COME OUT OF THE WOOD WORK TO CRITICIZE HIS CHOICES. LIKE THE CHOICES OF THE LAST 8 YEARS WERE THOSE OF A GENIUS.

Posted by demswin08

But here is the thing, we are not talking about the last 8 years. President-Elect Obama, as of January 20, will be in charge. It is his job to appoint people who are skilled and qualified. If you believe President Bush was a disaster, then I would gather you would agree that President Obama will be a huge improvement. That does not mean that you can''t simply say, why Leon Panetta? Most of his other choices seemed reasonable and logical, whether or not one necessarily agrees with them, this one however seems very odd. Panetta has no intelligence experience at all, not even while in Congress. How is he qualified, particularly given the threats that now exist (and you can say that Bush brought about the threats etc., but regardless, they are there.)

[dakotaclark]

Hmmm...

Leon Panetta has a very strong and positive record as a former member of the U.S House of Representatives, and as Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget; and, as Chief of Staff to President Clinton.

By the way, he has previous responsible "intelligence community experience" while serving with the U.S. Army.

Most important, however, Leon Panetta was the main person responsible for balancing the budget.

According to Wikipedia, "In 1993, the beginning of his ninth term (in Congress), he was chosen by then-President Bill Clinton to be Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget. He is credited with developing the budget package that would eventually result in the balanced budget of 1998. On July 17, 1994, he was appointed White House Chief of Staff by Clinton, a position he held until January 20, 1997. He was an important negotiator of the 1996 budget, which was another important step towards balancing the budget."

Leon Panetta''s reputation and credentials are flawless. Plus, he is a very good person, to boot!
He has an excellent record of cutting costs and doing an outstanding job at whatever the task.

[ourtomorrows]

Leon Panetta''''s reputation and credentials are flawless. Plus, he is a very good person, to boot!
He has an excellent record of cutting costs and doing an outstanding job at whatever the task.


Posted by dakotaclark

I would not challenge Panetta''s credentials as far as domestic policy goes, I just don''t see how he qualifies as the head of the CIA. He has little to now foreign policy experience and virtually no experience in dealing with or working in the intelligence community. The center he currently runs seems clearly focused on domestic issues. I could see him as director of OBM, as secretary of Commerce, perhaps Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Labor, chief advisor on domestic policy, but I just don''t see director of the CIA. He is a competent person in general, but that does not mean he will be good at everything, especially since virtually all of his experience is in the domestic sphere. I am not in anyway trying to diminish his record, I just still don''t see the logic in this appointment.

[lovegetpeace]

Finally, a great Democrat to head the CIA. He will find out how V.P. D. Cheney cooked the Intel Data.

[lovegetpeace]

Finally, a great Democrat to head the CIA. He will surely find out how V.P. D. Cheney cooked the Intel Data immediately after 9/11 so to produce a Cooked Report to Congress. Ofcourse, Bush did not know what his V.P. did.

[ezchill]

I can''t believe some of the comments on this board. Does anybody on this posting on this board value a person having actual experience doing the job they are considered for???
Go to wikipedia and research this guy. WHERE IS THE SECURITY INTELLIGENCE EXPERIENCE?? WHERE IS THE NATIONAL DEFENSE EXPERIENCE?? Oh yea, that''s right. He was in the Army for 2 years back in the 50''s.
I''m sure I''ll get some moron replying with "where''s George Bush''s experience.."
But your right. It''s only the CIA Director position. Who needs experience for that? Either you people are really stupid or actually want to see the country burn. Does anybody on this board actually know what going on in the world?
I''m embarrassed that I''m actually commenting among you people.

[dakotaclark]

fyi...

"Before his engagement with intelligence issues as White House chief of staff, his only explicit involvement was his stint from 1964 to 1966 in the U.S. Army, where he graduated from Army Intelligence School. He rose to captain and served as chief of operations of the intelligence section at Ford Ord, Calif."

Surely, that must count for something in the way of
"Intelligence Community" experience.

[nincomp]

This pick for CIA director is just further proof that Barack Obama is incompetent, and incapable of holding the office of president.

When even the likes of Diane Finestine (Democrat-CA) says that it''''s a bad idea, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is a bad idea.

Posted by CBSisPravda1 at 07:02 PM : Jan 05, 2009
=========================================================
He can prove his competence once and for all by declaring CIA''s programs like renditions and waterboarding illegal, something he predecessors so called capable people couldn''t do.

[promaclaura]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........HA!!!!
WE CAN COUNT ON IT THAT EVERY TIME OBAMA MAKES A CHOICE FOR A POSITION THAT THE RECONS WILL COME OUT OF THE WOOD WORK TO CRITICIZE HIS CHOICES. LIKE THE CHOICES OF THE LAST 8 YEARS WERE THOSE OF A GENIUS.
2 FAILED WARS,1000 DEAD FROM FAILED EVACUATIONS IN LA.
A FAILED ECONOMY,A LRGE INCREASE IN HOMELESSNEES DUE TO FORECLOSURES,NOT TO MENTION 2.3 MILLION JOBS LOST TO CHINA SINCE 2001.

YEAH YOU ALL HAVE A RIGHT TO CRITICIZE OBAMAS CHOICES.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by demswin08 at 06:17 PM : Jan 05, 2009

O.K., so you''ve posted your thoughts on what those opposing this choice believe, how about what your gut tells you. Stop coming from the direction of defending Obama and give some reasoning on why this guy is a good decision to head the CIA.

For myself, I''m leery about it as well. It sounds like he has good credentials for domestic, economic issues, but directing the CIA seems like a stretch. There has got to be someone in the CIA hierarchy that fits the bill better. Heck, it can be a CIA Obama supporter for that matter, as long as it''s someone who has walked the walk and knows the nooks and crannies of the CIA. To top it off, a leading democrat is decrying this choice and clearly upset. In today''s crazy world we need experience for this role, the CIA has got to be scratching their heads over this one.

[liberalme]

When even the likes of Diane Finestine (Democrat-CA) says that it''''s a bad idea, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is a bad idea.

Posted by CBSisPravda1

LOL Take what Feinstein says seriously? What a joke--Her husband made about as much money off the Iraq war as Cheney did from Haliburton!

Maybe she thinks Cheney should be CIA director, he''d be able to figure a way to keep that ole money flowing in!

[promaclaura]

It''s like selecting David Petraeus to oversee the economy. A good leader for the military, but the economy, I don''t think so.

[promaclaura]

Finally, a great Democrat to head the CIA. He will surely find out how V.P. D. Cheney cooked the Intel Data immediately after 9/11 so to produce a Cooked Report to Congress. Ofcourse, Bush did not know what his V.P. did.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by lovegetpeace at 06:59 PM : Jan 05, 2009

Isn''t there any "Great Democrats" in the CIA? I''d feel better if he had selected one of them.

[liberalme]

And now the Democrats will try to dismantel the intelligence structure that kept Americans safe since 9/11.

American voters have chosen -- poorly.



Posted by CBSisPravda1

Hahahaha intelligence in Washington over the past 8 years? Not a bit!

Lets take wiretapping for an example----how many cells have been broken with that bright idea?

Or try this----800,000 names on the FBI terror watch list---how many have been found out from that list?

The only intelligence the current regime in Washington has is how to get away with murder and rob the country blind at the same time---they did that without a hitch! Oil on the other hand -----oops

[ballpen1]

Two things:

1: CBS, could you please find a picture of Panetta that demeans him even MORE? Maybe picking his nose? I checked all my other news outlet, you are the only one with this ugly mugshot. Why? Oh, i just remembered, don''t bother to answer...

2. All you "not experienced" wailers: What is the CIA today? Right, a "subcontractor" to the DHS! Who made it that way? Right, George W. Bush! Has the President Elect picked someone to run DHS? No, he has not (yet)!

The CIA is no longer what it used to be. The real secret and interessting stuff (like warrantless wiretaping...) happens at the NSA, not the CIA or the FBI. And the DHS will become more important and the 27 agencies below it less so (Can you say "budget cuts"? No, not while we have this preposterous "War On Terror"! But can you say "budget relocation"? Maybe...).

Hence it might be clever to place a budget hawk atop an agency that demands lots of money but does not deliver a days work for a days pay (see 9/11, FBI and INS had more on the terrorists than the CIA, what a shame!).

[ourtomorrows]

The CIA is no longer what it used to be. The real secret and interessting stuff (like warrantless wiretaping...) happens at the NSA, not the CIA or the FBI. And the DHS will become more important and the 27 agencies below it less so (Can you say "budget cuts"? No, not while we have this preposterous "War On Terror"! But can you say "budget relocation"? Maybe...).

Hence it might be clever to place a budget hawk atop an agency that demands lots of money but does not deliver a days work for a days pay (see 9/11, FBI and INS had more on the terrorists than the CIA, what a shame!).

Posted by ballpen1

so I gather you don''t actually know what the CIA does. The CIA is primarily responsible for intelligence gathering outside of the US. They do work completely different from the FBI or Homeland Security. The CIA''s work is worldwide and meant to examine, analyze and gather information in various countries throughout the globe. They are not primarily responsible for law enforcement in the US (FBI) or protection of the homeland from terrorism (Dept of HS). Bush put together a network so that the CIA now has a direct line to share information with Homeland Security that is relevant to HS just like all the other agencies do, but if you remember the entire debate when this set up was created, the CIA still has a huge level of autonomy.

[jn122736]

When even the likes of Diane Finestine (Democrat-CA) says that it''''''''s a bad idea, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is a bad idea.

Posted by CBSisPravda1

LOL Take what Feinstein says seriously? What a joke--Her husband made about as much money off the Iraq war as Cheney did from Haliburton!

Maybe she thinks Cheney should be CIA director, he''''d be able to figure a way to keep that ole money flowing in!

Posted by liberalme at 07:36 PM : Jan 05, 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good point, liberalme.

And don%u2019t forget, immediately becoming speaker of the house, Diane Finestine also refused to even consider the impeachment of president Bush.

I have never understood her reasoning for that. Perhaps there is more to it than we are told.

[ioweign]

"cbsispravda-see, the left doesn''t think terrorism is a threat. In fact, they don''t even like referencing 9/11."

Posted by Xlib at 05:27 PM : Jan 05, 2009


It must not be a threat - OBL is STILL free...

[kansas1946]

When dirty bombs and beheadings come to America, thanks to Obama the Incompetent, then Americans will pine for the days of the Bush Presidency.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by CBSisPravda1 at 08:05 PM : Jan 05, 2009
+ report abuse
**************************************

Well, I am not too sure about the Panetta appointment, but there is nothing that could make me "pine for the days of the Bush presidency."

[promaclaura]

ballpen1

The picture is bad. I like your post because you gave support on why you think it''s a good choice. Although, I''m still not behind your philosophy as I''d like the CIA Director to hit the ground running on "intelligence" not "budgeting". Maybe someone in the reverse of this selection, a lot of intelligence experience with a budgeting background in comparison to a lot of budgeting experience with a smidgen of intelligence experience.

[cbsblogger]

Is Feinstein pxssed because he isn''t a neocon Zionist? To her and others that becomes the most important qualification of all. It''s time we have leadership for America instead lackeys for Israel.

[powmadeak47]

This guy is supposed to protect us while Ocrapa and Hillary sell us out to the ''poor downtrodden'' Israels? h ah ah ah a good luck Leon

[donbl1]

I guess Paneta can do the budget over at CIA........

Pretty weak intelligence team being put together.

But, that is what Clinton did, too.

[powmadeak47]

CBSisPravda1 - Are referring to Muslim extremists or the Mexican cartels that routinely kill here in the US while Bush sticks his head up Israel''s back side?

[promaclaura]

CBSisPravda1 - Are referring to Muslim extremists or the Mexican cartels that routinely kill here in the US while Bush sticks his head up Israel''''s back side?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by powmadeak47 at 08:44 PM : Jan 05, 2009

Our new concern should be how Obama handles the Mexican cartels. It definitely ranks up there for border security.

[cbsblogger]

Good point, liberalme.

And don%u2019t forget, immediately becoming speaker of the house, Diane Finestine also refused to even consider the impeachment of president Bush.

I have never understood her reasoning for that. Perhaps there is more to it than we are told.

Posted by jn122736 at 08:07 PM : Jan 05, 2009

=================================

It''s been claimed that impeachment of Bush would have led to embarrassment for Israel and their toadies in our government. That is a risk that AIPAC and others were not willing to take.

Google: Kucinich AIPAC impeachment

[lopezf11]

Good point, liberalme.

And don%u2019t forget, immediately becoming speaker of the house, Diane Finestine also refused to even consider the impeachment of president Bush.

I have never understood her reasoning for that. Perhaps there is more to it than we are told.

Posted by jn122736 at 08:07 PM : Jan 05, 2009

================================
=

It''''s been claimed that impeachment of Bush would have led to embarrassment for Israel and their toadies in our government. That is a risk that AIPAC and others were not willing to take.

Google: Kucinich AIPAC impeachment



Posted by cbsblogger

Unlike Kucinich, Feinstein is sane.

[nincomp]

Feinstein pxssed because he isn''''t a neocon Zionist? To her and others that becomes the most important qualification of all. It''''s time we have leadership for America instead lackeys for Israel.

Posted by cbsblogger at 08:25 PM : Jan 05, 2009
+

Well said, Obama pulled the rug under the feet of a zionist Dianne Feinstein

[caligula1--2008]

The reason Feinstein didn''t push to impeach Bush is that even a delusional left winger like herself is fully aware he didn''t do anything that would deserve impeachment. Being wrong is NOT a crime or most of you would be in jail right now.

As far as her being "not pleased" with Paneta, well, she "wasnt pleased" with Bush as President, rooted overwhelmingly for Obama, and now just has to live with it. That is the part of Politics that the Harridan of the House never likes; that is, the part where other people disagree with her.

Heck, she SHOULD be delighted. Her branch of the left has been trying to eviscerate the CIA for decades, having Paneta as Director will probably finally do this.

Now HER party is going to have to do all those "evil things" Bush did, or suffer a repeat of 9/11 only somewhere else using a different weapon. Frankly there are more ways to inflict massive damage on this country with minimal effort than I like to think about.

[nojoy01]

Well, I am not too sure about the Panetta appointment, but there is nothing that could make me "pine for the days of the Bush presidency."

Posted by kansas1946 at 08:19 PM : Jan 05, 2009

H-m-m-m. A Ralph Nader presidency would make me think kinder thoughts about ''ol GW. And positively make me ''pine for the days'' of the Carter Presidency.

[imnho]

Panetta has some experince in intellgence. He mainly has experince in manging large organazations. They made a mistake in not consulting with the senior senator from Califorina. When you don''t consult with the right senator on an apointee the person in question gets mad.

By the way- the speaker of the House is Nancy Pelosi.
Senator Dianne Feinstein is Chairperson of the Senate Intellgence Commitee and has never served in the house.

[lil_willie61]

YEAH YOU ALL HAVE A RIGHT TO CRITICIZE OBAMAS CHOICES.

Posted by demswin08
---------------------------------

He11 yes, I have the right to criticize - I''m an American citizen who votes. Whether I voted for him or not, I have the right to criticize or question the actions of the President.

And stop shouting....

[nojoy01]

By the way- the speaker of the House is Nancy Pelosi.
Senator Dianne Feinstein is Chairperson of the Senate Intellgence Commitee and has never served in the house.

Posted by IMNHO at 09:26 PM : Jan 05, 2009

Nice try at straightening things out IMNHO, but do not expect too many of the posters to pay any attention or let a little thing like the facts get in the way of their prejudices.

[nojoy01]

H-m-m-m-m. I am going to sign off now. I seem to be more annoyed than amused by the fools tonight & that means this is not entertainment but just aggravation.

[cbsblogger]

Who cares what Feinstein thinks? Her husband is a war profiteer who made a mint off the Iraq War that she helped perpetuate.

Google: Feinstein war profiteer

[hatesthecolt]

I guess Paneta can do the budget over at CIA........

Pretty weak intelligence team being put together.

But, that is what Clinton did, too.

Posted by donbl1

If by "pretty weak intel team" you mean not within the community that''s EXACTLY the point. The last thing the CIA needs is "more of the same."

[ballpen1]

Jedi, how can you say this was a blunder? At least the guy in question wasn''t organizing horseraces (and FIRED from that job!) before he was appointed to head an agency...

[bobnjersey]

[This will be one of many inept surprises that prove Americans made the wrong choice in electing an unqualified person.]
[Posted by peace4321 at 10:47 PM : Jan 05, 2009]

so where are we on the scale of ''as bad as gwb''?