I'm not sure I get this either, although I'm glad Obama is not putting even more of the intelligence apparatus under retired military officers. There might be this upside for the CIA: The National Intelligence Director has sort removed the 'Central' from the CIA. Panetta is an old Washington hand with lots of experience working the bureaucracy from all angles. Maybe the insular CIA can find a bright side in that. I also like the idea of not having a CIA lifer in that post, since these things are way too sensitive not to be supervised by politically accountable civilians instead of spooks and generals used to hiding in the shadows.

Liberty and justice for all.

My home

Critical as I am of many of Obama's cabinet mistakes, this one is somewhat surprising. I agree with LL that this, if nothing else, is a true departure from the norm.

"Director" is basically head pencil pusher.
This is a choice that might work well with the anti-Neocon factions in the CIA (they do exist).
Also a man who has a proven record of rejecting injustice as Panetta did during the Nixon admin's effort against the Civil Rights movement.
They told him to drop it, he told them to drop dead.

This may be Obama's ears and eyes in a seriously corrupt, failing agency that has been crippled by BushCo and the PNAC.

Naturally, the effectiveness of this particular pick will only be determined in time, but I feel better about it than many other of his appointments.

Another benefit is that he's about as anti-torture as a CIA nominee can get. I think he's great.

I spent twenty plus years of my professional life working in the intelligence community (though not at CIA, and I am no longer affiliated with it, and damn happy about that fact.)

I can tell you that,while there are many plusses to having an outsider head up the CIA, the intelligence community is very insular, and not friendly to outsiders. Panetta's welcome will not be a warm one.

However, it will be nice to have a DCI who does not bear a disturbing resemblance to.... this guy. .

"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers

Choosing Leon Panetta means the buck on what is and is not "actionable" or even "reliable" intelligence will necessarily have to stop at least one rung below "the man." He has zero background in the field - and intelligence is a field requiring specialized knowledge same as geology or medicine or engineering. Given how easy it is to misdiagnose the intelligence you get, it's probably closer to medicine than the other two. He's going to have to take the word of those who do have that background in the field because he doesn't have the experience necessary to evaluate their judgment. He can't even do a "sniff test" on the information presented him. I just have a hard time seeing him being the right man for this job at this time. After the last 8 years we need adults running the show for a while, and when it comes to the field of intelligence, I can't really see Leon Panetta as one of the adults. He's going into this particular job wearing diapers. He has all the qualificatios for CIA director that I do. Maybe.

Supposedly Panetta was originally angling to become Commerce Secretary, oddly enough -- back when he was the Representative from Monterey Co., one of his major accomplishments was re-writing the Coastal Zone Management Act. And beyond that, he was chairman and commissioner of the Pew Oceans Commission, and currently co-chairs the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative. NOAA (which is something like 65% of Commerce's budget) is a big deal to him. He's maybe the only person of his stature for whom Commerce Secretary is a plum job rather than a semi-insulting consolation prize. So what better pick for Commerce than Richardson with all of his foreign policy experience, and for CIA than Panetta, with his expertise in marine and coastal policy?

Poor choice and if Senator Feinstein, on the Senate oversight committee for the CIA, is not all that enthused, why should the rest of America be excited about it? Obama is sticking a politician who will pass the buck and seek to look good instead of running the CIA and making it an effective intelligence organization. This is the first bad pick for national security and he would do well to rescind it. Besides, with Hillary at State, her husband's former Chief of Staff at CIA, does Obama not see how this could be a major problem for him?

The problems at CIA currently stem from it's politicization and it's willingness to be put in that position.

Those are things Panetta can change based on his relationships and credibility outside of the Agency.

For too long intelligence (note I wrote "intelligence" not "intelligent") bureaucrats have promoted the belief that understanding intelligence requires some mystic powers that only Ivy League educated WASPS possess.

As John Kenneth Galbraith said when it comes to bankers and financiers that by creating "a fraudulent air of mystery," it gives those who we believe to posses such knowledge, whether they are bankers or intelligence officials, a "monopoly of knowledge," which both groups will use to their advantage and interests, not necessarily ours, or what we believe the country's to be.

"or any other actions is NOT a legitimate part of what an intelligence gathering agency should be about."

I think the biggest problem with all the paramilitary stuff done by CIA is that it pulls time, energy, and resources away from the intelligence gathering objectives.

And that's not even beginning to consider what happens when the Agency is involved in one of those paramilitary activities that leads to a very public, international incident.