It is very clear what the problem is: The Gang of Eight, which included DiFi, Rockefeller, Harmon, etc. feel the law breathing down their wimpy necks. They secretly approved the torture, the spying on American citizens, the illegal wiretaps on Americans, the whole thing. She was perfectly fine with the "pResident's" picks such as Goss, etc. but is willing to challenge Obama? The Gang of Eight was actively complicit with the bush administration's trashing of The Constitution. Time for you to move on, DiFi. You've helped your defense-industry husband enough now. Just be lucky you won't be tried for treason and war crimes.

RULE OF LAW RULE OF LAW! RULE OF LAW!!!!!

I'm a fan of Panetta. He's a smart guy and a good administrator. I don't doubt that Feinstein and Rockefeller are complaining because they got left out of the decision, which tends to reduce their credibility, along with the other political considerations.

On a more serious note, what worries me about Panetta is his lack of experience in intelligence operations and management. What's really need at both DNI and the major intelligence agencies, of which CIA is only one, are leaders who are smart, skilled administrators and who understand at least the basics of operations and technical issues. I realize that some people are almost totally focused on the issue of interrogations and "torture," but that's a very small part of a very big set of problems.

Clearly the issue here about naming an agency insider is that they are all tainted with their compliance with torture and with the WMD lies. Panetta has been a competent player who was Chief of Staff for Clinton and knows how to deal with the political world.

This is great news. Panetta will be nice to our enemies. I can just see Panetta having little tea parties with terrorists. How lovely.

Allah Akbar!

BTW, what's the word on Blogovitch? Remember, good democrats hate corruption!

Pretty sure panetta sat in on the Clinton daily briefings, so he certainly knows how that all works. He should have an easy time with clearance, too.

On TPM, Josh reprints an email from a 29-year intel vet who likes Panetta. His main point:

I think there is a lot more here than is being said. I believe that Feinstein did not want someone like Panetta who has a large and independent power base and network. If you get a career guy they are a lot easier to isolate and move around. Panetta has been around for a long time and has his own network. I actually think that it is a good choice. He knows how intelligence needs to be presented to the President - that is the critical issue here.... I think the Panetta selection is another indication of the change coming. I was concerned that the selection of Jones as National Security Advisor and Blair as DNI underscored the great concern that I have about the militarization of intelligence. The selection of Panetta, with a much wider and deeper power base than either of them, makes me hopeful in this regard. Panetta is a skilled operator, he knows how to get things done. He knows how to get a budget approved and to make the wheels of government work. He will be a force - both in the Administration and on the Hill -- much larger than any career guy could be. This is good. It gives the CIA the opportunity to re-create itself within the current structure.

It's one man's opinion, but it's persuasive. I know Backbeat and I aren't alone in finding Feinstein's behavior over the past 8 years shockingly compliant with Dubya. That she dislikes Panetta (one of the few really stellar members of Clinton's team) sort of confirms that he's a good choice, doesn't it? Plus, our man Ron gives him a thumbs up. What more do you need?

Mike s. -- Panetta was a member of the Iraq Study Group. Are you denigrating all members of that group or only Panetta? What is your view of Lee Hamilton, who likes the choice of Panetta?

Military veteran, worked as a staffer in DC before being elected to Congress ---and defeated a Republican incumbent to become a Congressman.

I spent 7th-12th grade in the Carmel school district, a K-8 school in Carmel Valley when we first moved there, and then 4 years at Carmel High School. I have long followed his career and am a big Panetta fan. He was Clinton's Chief of Staff, and he was a member of the Iraq Study Group. He has no real ties to what has gone on in the CIA or elsewhere the last 8 years, and he is known as an excellent manager. So why shouldn't he be considered CIA director?

In the last 8 years, all you needed to run the CIA was a car battery and a set of jumper cables with a special testicle adapter on one end. I assume Dick Cheney will send Panetta a set as part of his congratulatory message.

Hopefully Obama and Pantetta will abandon torture (oops, sorry, "special interrogation measures") and return the US to credibility in the world.

It seems to me Josh Marshall at TPM has it right. Feinstein was sent a message when she realized things were happening directly related to her committee without her input. What else could she do but run to the MSM and whine about it. Then, just to show she has some power, she supports Burris becoming Senator, against the wishes of Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

I'm looking forward to see what else Obama has up his sleeve. He forgot to talk to her? Right. Everyone involved in these discussions "forgot" to talk to her.

Oh, and the fact that Wyden was part of a discussion eases my concern that Obama would replicate Dubya's policy of ignoring Congress altogether. Obama chose wise advisors to address the issue. Feinstein was not considered same.

Great choice. You have to choose from what's on the table. Consider the options.

Dear Mike small s. We wouldn't have so many enemies except for the fact that you boys Bush Cheney et all kept on torturing and murdering scores of innocent people for the last seven years. Of course their families want to do us harm, wouldn't you in a similar situation?

Making enemies may be the only one true talent George the Murderer and Dick the Cheney possess.

Panetta will do better.

I hadn't even thought of Panetta until the news broke, but I find it a good choice. DiFi's claim of inexperience is complete horseshit, the couple of "pros" we've had in the last several decades made a hash of it and it isn't required to run the place.

Managerial skills are a considerably different thing than intelligence gathering and data analysis and Panetta is serious management material and the business he'll manage is scarcely out of his realm of experience as CoS for Clinton.

As for Mike s. - pal, I consider you a lot larger threat than Arabs or Muslims. Ah well, not being Bushites we'll just have to let you breath.

Bushites

<h2>It's not "Bushshites"? I thought there we two "s"s. So hard to tell the difference.</h2>