Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THE PANETTA LEAK.
Reports that Dianne Feinstein, the incoming chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Jay Rockefeller, the outgoing chair, weren't consulted on Obama's choice of Panetta are weird indeed. The plausible explanation comes from Ambinder: It leaked. According to him, the Obama team meant to to announce Panetta later in the week, after notifying DiFi and Rockefeller.
The irony is that Panetta didn't want the CIA job, at least not originally. He wanted to go to Commerce, which made much more sense for a former director of the Office of Management and Budget. But Commerce went to Richardson. It's easy to imagine a world in which Panetta's appointment hadn't leaked, DiFi had expressed quiet opposition, and Richardson's withdrawal had cleared the way for Panetta at Commerce. As it is, it would be hard for the Obama administration to back down on Panetta now. The key question now is who they choose as his deputy. That figure will have to be a career spy with a lot of respect from the rank-and-file and a serious shot at moving to the top job in a few years. Otherwise, you're looking at Senate opposition and, much worse, a demoralized CIA that lacks confidence in its director.
Also, it's doesn't look good that the worst leak of the Obama administration came in its spymaster.
COMMENTS (8)
Worst leak? And the Hillary for SOS was the best one?
I know it's your job to be a voice of constant criticism, but let's not be dramatic.
Posted by: IVA | January 6, 2009 11:45 AM
If I botched the naming of my CIA head, I'd put word out to Ambinder that it was a leak.
Posted by: kaybeel | January 6, 2009 11:46 AM
If your analysis is correct, would it be irresponsible to speculate that this leak came from someone who either didn't want Panetta at Commerce (why not?) or more likely wants to make sure that Panetta gets the CIA position.
Now who would want Panetta at CIA? Given what we know of Panetta, his habits, skills, etc., I imagine that pretty much anyone at the CIA who dislikes the Bush/DiFi version of foreign affairs and doesn't have an investment in someone internal being promoted (i.e. someone who is not likely to be promoted up the food chain due to vacancies if Obama were to pick someone inside for the position) might rather like Panetta as his boss's boss's boss.
Now who would have the knowledge that Panetta was on the short-list for the CIA position who also has friends in the CIA who would want Panetta as a boss? That would be your leaker right there ...
Posted by: DAS | January 6, 2009 11:50 AM
The fact Panetta wanted Commerce (ie the good time job) means that he didn't really want to work in the admin but wanted to take a bunch of trips. He might have changed his mind and decided against the golden retirement package that is Commerce.
Posted by: Rob | January 6, 2009 12:05 PM
If Panetta doesn't want CIA, and Obama doesn't want him at CIA, why should Obama be beholden to some random leaker?
If Obama doesn't have enough spine to name his own cabinet and spy chief, then he's in big trouble.
I still say this was a CYA to Ambinder. Ed Henry reported yesterday that the Obama people realized they'd made a misstep.
Posted by: kaybeel | January 6, 2009 12:12 PM
If DiFi is having faint spells over Panetta, then by all means he has my support and is likely the best man the CIA could ever hope for.
Rockefeller is in a tizzy too over him. See? Panetta has already smoked out two neocon spooks, and he hasn't even started the job yet!
Posted by: Hairy Reed | January 6, 2009 12:19 PM
Interesting story on Panetta's GOP roots here :
http://www.beautifulhorizons.net/weblog/2009/01/leon-panetta.html
Posted by: brucds | January 6, 2009 12:36 PM
I keep remembering that the last two Democratic presidents came in attempting to put well-known non-spooks in charge of the CIA (Ted Sorensen and Anthony Lake), and both of them got shot down.
Posted by: Henderstock | January 6, 2009 3:30 PM