Biden: Not Notifying Top Senators on Panetta CIA Choice a 'Mistake'

Source: Washington Post

Vice-president-elect Joseph Biden admitted today the Obama transition team made a "mistake" in not notifying top Senate officials of the selection of Leon Panetta as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, defending the former Clinton White House chief of staff as a nominee would take the CIA on "new path."

Biden told reporters in the Capitol that the Senate Intelligence Committee should have been consulted in advance of the Panetta nomination, which resulted in criticism from the panel's top Democrats. The incoming chair, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and outgoing chairman, Sen. John "Jay" Rockefeller III (D-W. Va.), questioned the Panetta selection because of his lack of experience in the intelligence community....

Biden said the issue was one of process, not substance, and that Panetta -- as chief of staff and as White House budget director -- had experience dealing with the CIA and the vast network of spy agencies. "He has been a consumer of intelligence for a long time," Biden said. He called Panetta "a strong figure" who would "take it on a new path."

The surprise selection divided top Senate Democrats, as Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has given a full-throated endorsement, and some Republicans have voiced doubts about Panetta's experience, including Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond (Mo.), the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee.

Panetta does have a strong ally in a recent past chairman of the panel, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), who served in the House with Panetta and counts him as a "good friend." "From an outside, fresh-look approach, I think it's a good thing," Roberts said of Panetta's selection. He said the nominee is a "fast learner" who will have the management skills to turn around the agency....

Read more: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2009/01/06/biden_not_notifying_top_sens_o.html?hpid=topnews

Notify them in advance of Obama's choice, of course, but the word consult implies those Congressional representatives have some right to preempt Obama's decision.

Which they should not.

still understand what Biden is saying here.

It wouldn't take many pissed off Dems voting with the Repos to sink this nomination. And DiFi has lots of experience voting like a Repo.

Obama called Feinstein. She has harrumphed and issued a statement.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9VKSxg3vlTYL9fO-cAILwUZbM-gD95HSCU01



The Queen was pissed because she wasn't cut in, or her choice wasn't chosen. She could also have been irritated because a junior former member of HER Congressional delegation has jumped over her head, is now closer to the throne, and will have unfettered access to the President.

She's apparently getting over it. She got the "There, there" call from Barack, and she got the "Aww, yeah, I feel your pain" quote from Biden, so now it's time for her to STFU and vote YES WE CAN on the Panetta nomination.

Because he will be confirmed. He's got enough cheerleaders on both sides of the aisle to make it work.

She will get over it. It think they knew what they were doing in not going to her first because she would not like this pick but oh well. Her husband is a war profiteer so she will just have to suck it up.

We shall see.

If that is indeed the problem here.

Following on the heels of the Warren pick. He still doesn't get it that part of coalition building is including people in these choices. Everything he does has meaning to many different people. You don't just find common ground, you build it too. Dumping these decisions on people doesn't equate with being inclusive.

which, I sense, reflects the content you wish to invest them with.

I believe you are absolutely mistaken in believing that Obama promised a coalition government, and that it will be a government by committee that he will run. He promised to treat the Democrats' Republican opponents with courtesy and respect - insofar as such considerations would not conflict with his proper (in both senses) government - even to the extent of using the expertise of some of their number.

Common-sense should suggest to you, that these concessions and courtesies will necessariy be at his discretion. What a Democratic President would consider to be in conflict with proper government is clearly very different to what most of today's Republicans/ Neocons would consider so. Bear in mind that most of the population would like the Democrats to turn fire hoses on them - if not tanks.

Although there is a cliche that there is really only one party, the party of business, now, more than ever, with this Republican-created and maintained, incipient, economic collapse, the demarcation between the parties is likely to become ever clearer and more pronounced. "Get over it!" as your friends would say.

Coalition and inclusion are relative words. They imply a relatively organized structure and set of groups. Within this context it is predominately the body politic in the US (which really is vastly smaller than the population) and in some cases merely the legislative branch (but includes associated lobbying groups). A coalition in this context is a collection of people not otherwise identified with each other, ignoring the larger association, especially on a topic by topic basis. Inclusion is similarly involvement of people outside of the normal alliances. "Bipartisan" is only one kind of inclusion, and only occasionally the type of coalition that needs building. i.e it can be easier getting moderate GOP support than say "blue dog" support.

However, these words, as relative as they are, still have antonyms. A guy like Warren, who actively works to exclude people, can't be considered "inclusive". He is divisive by nature. And you aren't building a coalition by honoring him with a singular action, you're just picking and choosing who you will include and who to exclude. And excluding senior legislative branch from input into the process of selection of major appointees is not being inclusive nor is it how coalitions are built. In this case it is the antonym of this, it is exclusive and avoids building support for a candidate.

As for whether Obama "promised" a "coalition government". That is a phrase with a vastly different meaning. That means ceding power to your opponents. What he promised was to build coalitions on an issue by issue basis. He spoke not of "spending political capital" but of "those Americans whose support I have yet to earn...I will be your President too.". In his book, "Audacity of Hope", he spoke of the need to recognize that there was common goals that can be found in the issues which divide us. That is the change he was suggesting. You don't do that by kicking one group to the side and favoring another. You don't do that by excluding people from selection processes when they will have to work with the results of those selections.

be quite disparate goals, even with a conciliatory President and opposition.

I respect and admire Obama, but I don't necessarily believe his words are always free of political calculation, that is to say, he will put the best complexion on an issue. Not necesssarily spin, unless too much is read into them ingenuously by wishful-thinking opponents.

To me, this would be a case in point. You seem to think he was more or less saying, "Democrat? Republican? No! The input of Republicans is just as likely to be pertinent as that of sincere Democrats. Why bother with distinctions? Parties, even? This adversarial system of ours is crazy. We're all pals together.

I doubt that. I certainly hope not, anyway.

PS: You make my point about the terms, "coalition" and "inclusive" being relative, not absolute. I'm sorry I gave the contrary impression. I felt that you were investing them with an absoluteness that was not intrinsic their meanings.

I'm not sure if this was the best pick...as I know very little about the man or the position he is to fill...but I'm sure the repug/fascist party will go over him with a fine tooth comb to find as much wrong as possible.....so we will learn soon enough.

As for Obama's transition team making a mistake...gosh, anything like Katrina with Brownie ya think? How about a war for a few trillion and a few million affected lives with death and destruction? Hmmmm....would say not quite close yet.

isn't Rahn's prior experience doing that at least part of the reason Obama picked him?

That said, if Feinstein has a problem with his pick, why doesn't she call Rahm or Biden and complain, ask why Pancetta, etc. Why go strait to the media? And, if Obama calls her to apologize, why does she not keep that to herself, instead of again going straight to the media?

;)

It is probably the one area where this old rule isn't true. There, if you do this too much (i.e. once) you'll find them "trying to get out ahead of you" on issues, including your next appointment.

Difi and Rockyfeller, not to be confused with Rocky and Bullwinkle, were purposely ignored and that is why Difi is whining to the press. This appointment is the fish wrapped in newspaper for the both of them. Notice there has been nary a squeek out of Rocky. He's smarter than Difi.

Obama says....."I know what you did last summer, darling". Difi can consider herself neutered and she knows it. That's why she is so pissed off.

It's easier to get forgiveness than permission. ;)