Panetta as CIA Director

[davidoff]

In the assessment that it is troubling to think that Mr. Panetta is the best available.
The NY Times is reporting that Mr. Panetta was in the intelligence career field(1964-1966) and graduated from the Army Intelligence School.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/us...b-panetta.html

If this is true, then it is also worrisome that he chose not to use this knowledge in serving his country over the next forty years, and instead focused on many other issues. It signifies either a lack of interest in intelligence, its value, or a lack of intellectual curiosity; which is even more disturbing considering the role that intelligence played in the cold war.

[Rex Brynen]

If this is true, then it is also worrisome that he chose not to use this knowledge in serving his country over the next forty years, and instead focused on many other issues. It signifies either a lack of interest in intelligence, its value, or a lack of intellectual curiosity; which is even more disturbing considering the role that intelligence played in the cold war.

I don't find anything worrisome about Panetta's truly outstanding record of public service. Whether he has the knowledge and experience to make a good DCIA is another question. There's no doubt that its a high risk appointment, although I can see some merit to it as well.

[Ken White]

a. Further politicize the CIA.

b. Insure the CIA does not sort of subliminally attack the President as they have attacked several previous Presidents including the incumbent.

c. Serve as a political counterweight to his theoretical boss Dennis Blair.

d. All of the above.

Since I'm not a cynic, I won't suggest those things. I will however, have to sort of agree and disagree with Rex, I do see a little merit in the appointment.

Very little, though...