I think the choices are not merely good, but inspired, and I see the friction with Feinstein and Rockefeller as a plus rather than a minus. The selection of Admiral Blair, a tough retired Naval intelligence professional, quite appropriately puts the key coordinating position for the intelligence community in the hands of a non-political figure who commands uniform respect among its rank-and-file. On the other hand, Panetta has no experience in the intelligence community—he would be a fresh face. He has gathered broad respect for his managerial competence and for his ability as a legislator. He acquitted himself ably as chief-of-staff to Bill Clinton, even in rough sailing.
"To discover to the world something which deeply concerns it, and of which it was previously ignorant; to prove to it that it had been mistaken on some vital point of temporal or spiritual interest, is as important a service as a human being can render to his fellow creatures..." John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty"
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
An inspired choice
I think the choice of Panetta at the CIA is brilliant. Obama needs someone their to watch his back. (If only JFK had made such a choice.) The fact that Feinstein and Rockefeller are skeptical only serves to reaffirm the brilliance of the choice. They both have blood on their hands for their lack of oversight of the Bush policies. Scott Horton in Harper's is spot on. Money quote: