There are a lot of distrubing notes in that article. Some of them are just red flags regardless of the circumstances.

... a competent manager with strong background in budget issues, but has little hands-on intelligence experience. If confirmed by the Senate, he will take control of the agency most directly responsible for hunting senior Al Qaeda leaders around the globe...
Is this really the best that we can do?

Others passages are disturbing because they suggest that we have lost all sense of proportion and possibly reason.

... his selection points up the difficulty Mr. Obama had in finding a C.I.A. director with no connection to controversial counterterrorism programs of the Bush era.

[Obama's] first choice for the job, John O. Brennan, had to withdraw his name amidst criticism over his role in the formation of the C.I.A’s detention and interrogation program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

... Representative Jane Harman of California... was considered for the job, but she was ruled out as a candidate in part because of her early support for some Bush administration programs like the domestic eavesdropping program.
Aren't we carrying this torture and eavesdropping hysteria a bit too far? How many people did we torture? What was it - three, like 6 years ago? And if we're monitoring international calls, then it is really domestic eavesdropping? If it means getting the best possible heads of these agencies, rather than these inexperienced picks out of left field, then I'll forgive someone for a few insignificant breaches of politically correct etiquette, such as the two individuals mentioned.

Lastly,
... Mr. Panetta’s lack of hands-on intelligence experience can be supplemented by others.
That was the argument that we heard for electing Obama. Now the people who are supplementing Obama's lack of experience need to be supplemented themselves? I don't like where this is going.