Leon Panetta at CIA is meant to compliment Dennis Blair in his role as Intelligence Czar

here's a good rundown of the two: http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/node/14907


Talk about intelligence failures. Naming Leon Panetta as the next Director of Central Intelligence, the Obama Administration achieved a number of things not the least of which may have been reminding knowledgeable intel community (IC) insiders just how wrong they can be about key issues. Not that they really needed to be reminded of that following the Bush years. But still, Panetta’s name was seldom raised as a likely candidate for the job and judging from the calls I have been receiving this afternoon, people are scrambling around trying to figure out the whys and what it means.

Panetta of course, is hardly an unknown quantity in Washington. Known primarily as a master of the budget, as a deft manager and as a thoughtful guy, it is a safe bet that he will be able to handle the operational challenges at Langley. That said, it almost seems that more important than what he is known for is what he is not known for, more important than what is on his resume is what is not. He is not an old (intelligence community) hand. He is not tainted by any links to Bush policies that were perceived as intelligence blunders or violations of human rights. He is the classic model of the wise man of great integrity who is called in to hit the restart button.

Panetta, as a member of the Iraq Study Group, was exposed to some of the consequences of Bush-era intel missteps. Further, during the Clinton Administration, as White House Chief of Staff, he saw that team’s bumptious management of the intelligence world and also saw up close, the value of good intelligence support for the president. As a former head of the Office of Management and Budget, he also is well familiar with the bottom line for community and as a former senior member of congress he has all the tools to be an excellent bridge to the hill.

It is also important to remember that the Director of Central Intelligence job is not what it once was. The DCI reports up to the Director of National Intelligence, the new top dog in the system. Thus, Panetta will not have the obligation of most of his predecessors of being the principle architect of the intelligence strategies of the United States. Rather, he will be a key player in a team. If, as expected, the DNI is Admiral Dennis Blair, the pair would represent a formidable combination. Blair is one of the military’s most thoughtful soldier-statesmen types, a former Rhodes scholar, former commander of the world’s largest military command (US Pacific Command) and a former Associate Director of Central Intelligence. Blair is exceptionally capable, has a well-developed world view which is constantly being refined by a curious and wide-ranging intellect, and of course, has the IC and military background that Panetta does not. He can be the strategist and the architect. Panetta can add much on political and management sides (which is not to underestimate his very considerable policy knowledge). Together they would represent the kind of leadership team that can help Obama move the IC forward out of an uncomfortable period in its history and yet ensure its vital resources remain strong and available to the President and the national security leadership as they must be given the threats we currently face.

http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/node/14907

and the Pentagon needs to have some of that power wrested out of their hands. I know Gates was not in favor of Rumsfeld's putting more and more of the intelligence work, and the budget under the Penatagons control. Hope he still feels that way now.

. . . from the many sources. Blair and Panetta are apparently going to wrestle with all of that.

intelligence community failed, and should take the heat.. for either 9/11 or the Iraq war it makes my blood boil. I hope the flood-gates open when Bush's posse rides out of town, with intelligence workers spilling the beans on Rummy etal. But then.. we would need a media to report it.

. . . but Tenet and others were less than credible in the cover they provided Bush for his invasion, considering what they knew at the CIA.


David Corn from the Nation:

In October 2002, as Congress was about to vote to grant George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq, Democratic Senator Carl Levin forced the CIA to declassify intelligence analyses indicating it was unlikely that Saddam Hussein would strike the United States with unconventional weapons or share such arms with anti-American terrorists. But CIA director George Tenet undermined the political punch of this disclosure by stating publicly that the CIA's view was not inconsistent with Bush's claim that Iraq posed an immediate and direct WMD threat. Moreover, Tenet's CIA at the same time revealed there had been "senior level contacts" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This suggested that Saddam was in league with the 9/11 murderers. Unmentioned was that CIA analysts had concluded there was no evidence of significant ties between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden. With this misleading disclosure, Tenet helped Bush grease the way to war.

As Tenet recounts this episode in his new book, At the Center of the Storm, he concedes he was wrong to have bent to a request from National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to issue this public comment. But he neglects to mention release of the intelligence that appeared to link Saddam to Al Qaeda. Here's the Tenet formula in a nutshell: Accept some blame while blaming others and sidestepping inconvenient matters.

Tenet acknowledges that the CIA failed to act on pre-9/11 leads and botched the WMD issue. But he ducks a critical charge: He and his agency disregarded warning signs about the WMD intelligence that was being oversold by the White House. For instance, Tenet downplays questions raised within the agency about the credibility of Curveball--the fabricator who claimed Iraq had mobile bioweapons labs--and ignores previously disclosed e-mails that document this internal debate.

read: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/corn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_National_Intelligence

That was a new one to me. I must have missed it, during that all-engrossing campaign period. That makes o'Bama's pick a lot more sensible. Next question: Who (if anyone) will be picked to replace McConnell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michael_McConnell)?

pnorman

He has some conflicts of interest with the Defense industry, but he has a number of good points which, I think, will make him as acceptable a choice as far as Obama's own motivations are concerned.

that was creepy.

:blush: :blush:

pnorman

We had some freak Lute who was called the war Czar now we continue this insanity with a car Czar and a Czar of almost every color of the rainbow.

It sounds so militent CZAR . Do they get special uniforms and badges to go with the fucked up title CZAR?

but it's just slang

The part from the Intelligence professional is very good.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/01/really_a_mystery.php

If he did, who would know?

That's a serious question. It wouldn't even be legal to detail his spook career, if he was one.

Officially he held an ops position for Army Intel in his youth. His institute has a few spooky connections: Lee Hamilton, Jane Harman. Plus he was on the Baker Commission.