The selection of Leon Panetta by President-Elect Barrack Obama seems to be a surprise to most people. Most of all a surprise to California Sen. Dianne Feinstein. She was expecting someone to give her heads up on the nomination. Feinstein in an article “Obama's intel picks short on direct experience” by Pamela Hess is quoted to have said "I know nothing about this, other than what I've read," she said. "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."
When I looked around cable news shows, and online sites I am finding it difficult to find anyone who is defending Panetta. Some seem to be searching for some explanations. They wonder if Feinstein's objections are more because of she was not informed or because she would like to see a person with an intelligence background to be selected. The answer tends to be the same. He does not have enough experience. So this seems like the a major up hill battle for the new Obama administration. (might be the first battle)
If no one comes forth now and defends Panetta He is not going to be able to survive his committee hearing and will never reach the Senate floor. But could we afford having a CIA chief who would need time to learn about the agency. Or someone who may take the agency in a direction away from securing the US. If Biden was correct, (some major test will be presented to the Obama administration) can we afford to waste time needed to catch the problem before it can happen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment