Is Panetta 'an Awful Pick' or Does His Selection Make Sense?

Reader Comments
Back to blog

slow 1980 revolution estimates range gas

waylanbeck of IN 12:29PM July 05, 2009

I think we have to look at the nomination of Panetta to the head post at the CIA in combination with Obama's choice of Admiral Dennis Blair as the Director of National Intelligence.
Panetta has the management skills and, hopefully, the business savvy, to keep the CIA's information systems and technology upgrades moving in the right direction. I also agree that an outsider is potentially advantageous to ensuring that information is able to reach the highest levels without filter.
At the same time, for those who worry about the emasculation of the Agency, with Admiral Blair at the helm of National Intelligence, you'll have cojones big enough for the entire IC to share.
I would be concerned about the appointments if, say, Blair were nominated for the CIA post and Panetta for the ODNI post. But as it is, I am hopeful that information sharing between agencies will continue to strengthen and modernize, and we will return ourselves to the most efficient and respected IC in the world.

S. Roberts of DC 4:28PM January 15, 2009

The CIA is one of the most important bastions of our homeland security. Why on earth did Obama select someone with absolutely no experience in intelligence work? Is Obama deliberately putting our country at risk? Why?

TOM of NM 4:26PM January 14, 2009

Three of the six comments praise Panetta for his honesty and integrity. Isn't Panetta one of the Keating Five? Maybe being a crook in the past is okay? Sort of like being a klansman in the past.

Two Dawgs of GA 10:24AM January 09, 2009

Great managers are seldom great technicians. The ability to lead is many times separate from the ability to do the nitty gritty work. The problem with Panetta is that he is another reach back, not a reach forward. It is time for a new generation to take the lead.

Mac of AZ 7:57PM January 07, 2009

I admire David Ignatius from afar. In the 1980's, an articile he did on the efficacy of "overt action" instead of covert action changed my life--it opened my eyes to the idiocy of trying to do everything in the most expensive, illegal, riskiest manner possible (I was then a third tour case officer with CIA). Similarly, Raph Peters is one of my heros, and a superb author on both strategic reality and on Civil War history. They are both right. Panetta will ably revitalize CIA and represent it, bringing it back from the dead; AND--if he does what I hope he can do--he will ALSO emasculate and the blow-hards that live immunity instead of cover and use myth and lies—including lies to the President—as a substitute for deep non-official cover professionalism.
I do not know Panetta, but my trusted colleagues from OMB think the world of him—high integrity, very high courtesy toward others, and a real brain that understands nuances. From where I sit, Panetta has two things that no one at CIA can possibly replicate: he knows as only a Chief of Staff can know, how crummy “secrets for the president” really are, and he knows in detail what the President, Cabinet, and Congress really DO “need to know.”
IF he opens a red line for the iconoclasts and reformers; and IF he never takes anything any CIA career officers tells him at face value (“don’t trust, DO verify”), and IF he assures Congress that reform can be job and revenue neutral district by district and state by state, then I predict that Director-designate Panetta could be the first modern DCI; the first DCI to serve ten years; and the best-informed person on the planet, a real asset to the President, Congress, and America.

Robert David STEELE Vivas of VA 5:25PM January 07, 2009

To clean house and shut the CIA down, or at the very least turn it into a sniveling, simpering arm of the State Department. Panetta would have been better placed in Commerce when El Kabong withdreww. The Left won't be happy until the CIA is defunct, we're (the US) attacked again and we live in a third world country under Sharia Law.

Kent Book of TX 5:05PM January 07, 2009

the same logic to the Pentagon then I suppose we could put Julia Childs in charge... Oh wait, she's dead - no matter, better still...less troublesome.

R,L, Schaefer of CA 4:35PM January 07, 2009

He represents a track record of the highest ethics, strong American values regarding torture- rendition-and the sovereignty of foreign governments, clear commitment to the safety of this country, personal knowledge of how Congress works, and strong management skills to coordinate a delicate relationship between all branches of government.
It's BETTER to have someone who is not an insider - who does not owe favors and is not indoctrinated by military or security hard core types.
We don't need "General Ripper" (Dr. Strangelove?) to lead the CIA. The skill sets of those who had the job before were very similar. Why would Panetta need to be more qualified?
He was the congressman representing my district in California years ago. He's a solid guy.
Good pick.

Dorfy of SC 4:03PM January 07, 2009

The top man does not have to be a spook. In fact, it's better if he is not.
But the top man DOES have to be honest to a fault. Honest to the President, honest to the staff, and honest to the country.

of 3:34PM January 07, 2009