Feinstein and Rockefeller didn't need to stab the president-elect in the back

Senator Feinstein and Rockefeller's immediate comments critcizing the Panetta appointment were outrageous today. Why? Well:

A) Have they spoken to Mr. Panetta and the president elect to get the background of the appointment, to learn what he intends to do, etc? Come close to the line of opposing it without even considering it?

B) Have they thought that the problems in the CIA such as torture are caused by having career people lead it with no outside reform?

C) Do they have a better candidate in mind for CIA director? Perhaps it should be Porter Goss???

D) A split between the president and the congress is exactly what the republicans and the media want. The democratic congressional leadership shouldn't give it to them so easily.

E) This is the PRESIDENT's choice. Not theirs. Their role is to advise and consent (which is actually more restrictive than it sounds)

F) Finally we have a president who will clean up the CIA, get rid of things like FISA and waterboarding, but they prefer to keep in the old hands that came up with those lovely ideas?

I was busy with work today and haven't had the chance to roam the Internet for the whole story but if they have expressed some pretty strong opposition to this appointment, SHAME on them.

Anyway, gotta run for a bit. Will reply later if there are any replies.

Obama is the president-elect, she needs to get over herself already.

People, especially long time pols, remember slights like this.

I wouldn't go over the pick with her either. I once liked Diane, like 10 years ago but she stinks of corruption and enabling.

is a freaking neocon war profiteer who doesn't need to be made into a victim on DU.

There isn't an excuse for this kind of rudeness. Obama will need her vote at siome point and it may not be there. This is not a good way to begin. You don't reach out to the GOP and dis your own.

or this country..fuck her if she doesn't like his choice.

and she was very involved prior to the convention. Whatever.

I haven't see too many too worried about difi's hurt feelings.

Hillary did not get the nomination or VP.

She should not have learned about it from the press.

Basic respect and courtesy no matter who the chair is and who the prez is.

not the Senators response

class and there's no reason for her to be made the victim here..

"UPDATE VI: Spencer Ackerman reports that Sen. Dianne Feinstein is upset with the selection of Panetta, petulantly complaining that she wasn't consulted in advance and that it would be best to have an "intelligence professional" in that position. CQ's Tim Starks reports that Sen. Jay Rockefeller is making very similar noises about this selection. Few things could reflect better on Panetta's selection than the fact that Feinstein and Rockefeller -- two of the most Bush-enabling Senators -- are unhappy with it."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/05/olc/p...

But you seem to support these two dinos.

I haven't heard what Rockefeller said yet.

And it's a diss to someone from your own party who, just days ago, was a colleague.

Someone screwed up.

Anything that makes her unhappy is good.

this update says it all for me

UPDATE VI: Spencer Ackerman reports that Sen. Dianne Feinstein is upset with the selection of Panetta, petulantly complaining that she wasn't consulted in advance and that it would be best to have an "intelligence professional" in that position. CQ's Tim Starks reports that Sen. Jay Rockefeller is making very similar noises about this selection. Few things could reflect better on Panetta's selection than the fact that Feinstein and Rockefeller -- two of the most Bush-enabling Senators -- are unhappy with it.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/05/olc/print.html

was flawed. He also knew about torture, as did Dianne "LIEberman-in-a-dress" Feinstein. They BOTH need to go!! :puke:

Then there's the little matter of the gazillions of dollars she and her husband made off the deaths of 4000 or so young Americans in Iraq.

Tough shit for them.

But they will get over it.

Any chance she can be replaced with someone more like Boxer?

Panetta is a great pick. Shut up and start lambasting Bush and Cheney for ordering torture.

Now we're getting somewhere. I can guess what nasty secrets they're both hoping Leon won't disturb, and here's to hoping he cleans up that whole damn stinking sewer before we all drown in it.

When I first read his name for this job I was thinking of Lanny Davis and I was confused about how he would be good.

in there.

NBC News has learned that Senate Democrats -- including Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller, who are the incoming and outgoing Intelligence chairmen -- have privately recommended a career CIA officer to head the agency.

Democratic sources indicate that both have recommended deputy CIA Director Steve Kappes, a veteran CIA intelligence officer who is widely credited with getting the Libyans to give up their nuclear program. Kappes also was former Moscow station chief.

The senators have let the transition team know they believe that the agency has finally settled down under Michael Hayden and needs a real intelligence pro to make key decisions -- and get institutional support to make them stick.

One potential downside for Kappes: Like former counter-terror chief John Brennan, some critics says he had line authority over controversial decisions involving interrogation and detention. Brennan was taken out of contention for the CIA job after criticism on the Web on that issue, even though he says he privately objected to the policies and was not in the chain of command at the time.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/01/05/1732576.aspx

always went along to get along. There's a new sheriff in town, neocon-enabling weenies--get used to it.

Methinks they doth protest too much...

Henry Kissinger, a protégé of the Rockefeller family and Nelson Rockefeller
an the CIA in South America.


Never cared for the family myself.

Weren't they in on those vaunted Intelligence Committee briefings where the Bushies INFORMED our Democratic Senators that they were violating the Constitution of the United States?

Did either of them raise the alarm that we were descending into a police-state because our President/Dictator said it was okay?

Hell no. They kept their collaborator mouths shut and enabled the BushCo fascists to shred our constitutionally-guaranteed liberties. SO SCREW THEM. We have seen the enemy and Rockefeller and Feinstein are among the ranks of the enemy. Democrats in name only and fascists in action. Bought and sold by their corporatist sponsors.

I hope this is just the first of many actions to flog those treacherous bastards.

Someone who has as much to lose by letting the sun shine in on the events of the last 8 years. Unfortunately for them, someone with clean hands and a strong moral compass might expose their collaboration in torture, domestic spying, and other unknown treasons. Bummer.

as if the Obama team did not observe protocol by giving DiFi and Rockefeller the headsup first before making the announcement, but on the other hand, we do not know what if anything did transpire between the transition team and the Intelligence Committee in the Senate.

If nothing at all had happened, then nothing happened. But that seems rarely to be the case inside the Beltway.

The public resistance to Panetta by DiFi and Rockefeller appears to suggest that their role and influence in the operation of the Agency or its policies is likely to be diminished.

I do not know if that is clinically true but if that is why they went public with their cool reception, I think Obama's choice of Panetta is that much more keen.

Panetta is his own man. The impression DiFi and Rock leave is that they'd prefer he not be.