Panetta a spy? Then lets make Martha Stewart the head of Homeland Security. She's the queen of homemaking and 'homemaking' shares four letters with 'Homeland'.

If Panetta was good enough for California and Bill Clinton the one of the Best Presidents America ever had – He's good enough for me.

I way past time that someone from outside the loop be brought in to bring some integrity back to the CIA.

The selection of Panetta demonstrates the lack of talent from which the Democrats have to pick. Obama caved in to the liberals who demanded that he not pick someone who has ever worked at the CIA

Just like you wouldn't let a person with a degree and lifetime of work in social economics take up the role of the treasury chief, similarly Panetta should not be the choice for the head of CIA.

Since when is the director of a CIA supposed to have been a spy? What ignorance! Restoring some credibility and intelligence to the CIA which heretofore has been an oxymoron as there has obviously been a lack of intelligence in the adminstration for a decade is refreshing and necessary.

This is the same Panetta that let all the US secrets out during the Clinton Administration. The same Panetta who also allowed Chinese Nationals to work at US atomic labs.

Great choice!

You know what – there is one and only one reason for this choice...

Obama wants to bring about a radical shift in intelligence "thinking" and the only way to downplay the isolated and overconfident CIA is to get an outsider to do it....

I lived in the Congressional District that Leon Panetta represented for many years. He was totally engaged in the needs of his constituents and has an impeccable sense of decency and ethics. When he moved up into the White House with Bill Clinton, I was not the least bit surprised. I believe that this is what the CIA needs – an outsider. So-called insiders didn't do us a lot of good...remember 9/11??

Leon Panetta may be a nice man and that’s great for him and his family....but when I go to sleep at night I know that my “nice” golden retriever isn’t going to keep me safe. She’s going to lick the thief and wag her tail. Would I feel better at night knowing that my pit bull is watching over me…..yes! Same thing with the CIA….do you want a golden retriever standing watching over this country or a pit bull.

By the way, I don’t care if the CIA takes the moral high ground…..the terrorist don’t…why should I only ask them nicely if the know of a plot against our country…..maybe if I splashed some water on them, they would start talking.

Let's face it. The CIA needs to be overhauled and Leon Panetta is a great organizer who will be able to do that without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Melissa in Columbus, GA

I think an outsider can work...Obama needs an adminstrator in this...an organizer...and one with vision.....keep in mind there will be levels below him that will act on his behalf , those with insider knowledge and know how. I can't understand why so many are frighten by this.

Panetta is an admirable individual who has achieved much. Those who will criticize him will say that he was a player in the Clinton political machine, to which he owes his current public status. However he achieved much on his own and has exhibited continual ability to stick to his beliefs. While perhaps weak on an intelligence background, which I do see as a negative, his time as Chief of Staff during several years of Bill Clinton’s first term provided him valuable leadership experience. Panetta is a mixed bag. Can he be successful? I think so, for all the reasons listed above.. We need a CIA director who will work well with other agencies and branches of intelligence. I think Panetta can provide that. Will he? We’ll see.

I was in this business for 31 years and speak from personal experience. I have heard nothing but positive comments about Mr. Panetta and his morals and ethics. He will surround himself with expertise and that should serve him well. My only concern is the best way to destroy an organization is to tell everyone in it that what they have done in the service of their country is immoral and illegal. Who can be the judge of that when most of us do not know what they have really engaged in? Do not believe every thing that has been printed.

Some people watch too many movies and episodes of 24. The CIA Director is not a field operative or a spy. He manages the agency, he doesn't do the fact gathering or analysis. That's what the professionals are for. Leon Panetta has a stellar record of management at OMB and the White House and is less partisan than most with acknowledged integrity. He has the stature and maturity to defend the agency when needed, something a lot of past Directors caved on when the White House wanted someone to blame.

ok mr. john p avalon....the next time you or any member of your family
needs surgery i will send a good truck driver that has integrity and management ability to act as your surgeon.

An outsider is not qualified to head the CIA? Gosh, whatever you do, don't tell that to George Herbert Walker Bush. He was an outsider when he was named to the post, and now the damn place is named after him! Don't believe me? Take a drive past the entrance on Chain Bridge Road in Virginia.

We need someone who will use common sense and not "go along to get along"

Good Choice Obama!!! Ba'Rock on!

Where I work, the weakest praise you can give regarding a manager is that he's a 'nice guy'. OK, so he's decent and ethical, does that mean he's got the experience and relevant management skills to re-make the CIA? I doubt that hearing they're getting a Director that has no experience in the intelligence community is going to boost morale. By the way, the CIA was a mess long before Bush took office. Also sounds like Mr Panetta will soon find himself marginalized by the DNI.

The mere fact that Obama's own advisors who have experience in intelligence and counterintelligence like Brennan were not considered shows that the Bush manner of dealing with the terrorist threat is actually working despite all the liberal rhetoric. Panetta is a wonderful manager but not the right choice during a time of war. Unfortunately, because the current administration has done such a good job of protecting Americans since 9/11 ( the result of Clinton's weak foreign policy), the democrats seem to have forgotten the threats posed by our enemies. Obama would be wise to remember that the 9/11attacks were planned and placed in motion during the Clinton years and during their approach to intelligence gathering which including continually creating barriers in communication out of a paranoia that started with Watergate. Unfortunately, the result was a large loss of American civlian life. Let's hope we do not revisit that path just to pacify our own fringe politicians who are overly concerned about our "image" in the world and not the reality of our enemies.

Greg

After having been involved in the craft of intelligence for most of my adult life, I know that this much: If I am working for someone as an analyst, I would like them to understand what constraints technical and human factors affect my ability to be effective. If Mr. Panetta has no background in this art, how can he know what these constraints are? How can he effectively lay out goals for an intelligence gathering organization? How can he effectively advocate? Most likely he won't. This is a misstep and should be reversed.

Lets face it, its not like the so called experts that have been running the place for the past 20 years have done such a stellar job. Lets give Panetta a chance to see what he can do. Anything I have read or heard about the guy says that he, and we, deserve that.

The CIA is sorely in need of a high-profile leader who can restore public trust in the agency after people like Tennant and Goss. Panetta is perfect, and his nomination does Obama great credit.

I worked on several matters with Mr. Panetta when he was a House member and I can tell you that he is an extraordinarily capable and honest man. He can not tell a lie. He is also not so arrogant that he would make important decisions without consulting those who are more knowledgeable and experienced.

Since he was in the House, he has held a number of important jobs including that of White House Chief of Staff. What could be better experience than that?

This is nothing new, all of these Presidents (Republican and Democrat) put their political buddies in positions that should be held by well trained non-political career workers. Some do well but most either don't do well or take 2 years to get the "hang of it." With the war on terrorism and threats to this country, I'm not sure that we can afford 2 years for Leon to get the hang of it. I hope that we can protect the country from the next attack.

What the CIA needs is a person who will do what's best for this country regardless of the political fallout. Panetta is not that person. Remember that he was part of the gang that could not, or would not, shoot straight and eliminate Bin Laden for fear of a lawsuit. Where did that get us ?

If you want to stick you heads in the sand and believe that there are not bad people out there who want to do us harm, go ahead. As for me, give me someone who is eager to keep us all safe heading up the CIA regardless of what it takes.

Guess what? CIA chief isn't the same job it was pre 9/11. CIA chief is now subordinate to Homeland Security. Sure, it's still an extremely important position, but it's not the pivotal position for national defence it once was. I'm fine with the Panetta appt.

The intelligence agencies need someone who can bring all agencies together. Mr Panetta will not need to be out there spying – he has the ability to select the very best people to do that – after all the CEO of a hospital does not need to be a brain surgeon.

Panetta has a lot of experiance and (most important) SUCCESS with managing people. Why would that make him unquailified? I guess its that we have had so many years of incompetent failure that we have lost the notion of what it takes to succeed.
Anybody with actual experiance and a history of effective effort is welcomed after eight years of arrogant, incompetent, incurious failure. Panetta would be a plus.
Change – "bring it on! "

It is obvious that Panetta is not qualified to be head of the CIA – particularly in the dangerous world we live in. Any attempt to pretend otherwise is puttling lipstick on a pig!

It is my belief that the state of the world, calls for someone more experienced in intelligence matters. Mr. Panetta may have excellent management skills, but I would ask for more in the current state of world affairs.

Is Panetta or Piñata?

What a said day, another blow to the CIA and any covert action unit operating in today's war on terror, won't be long before Obama begins to dismantle the military like Clinton.

Leon Panetta will be great as DCI....... simply because he is an outsider!

The CIA MISSED 9/11!

The CIA allowed Bush to get away with the WMD LIES.

The CIA needs to be cleaned up and refocused.

What a sad day for the covert action units in the CIA. In particular another blow will be dealt to the Military as Obama will begin to cut defense spending and lead the US Military back to the poor stat it was in Under Clinton.

Former Senator Chuck Hegal, from Nebraska, was my personal choice for CIA Director. Given Panetta's background I can only assume Obama is profoundly critical of the CIA as an institution and simply wants it to be impotent or, at most, marginally vital.

I have known Leon & Sylvia Panetta since approximately 1976. Both personally and politically. NO person could be a better choice, literally, for Any position. His integrity, incredible intellect, and respect from everyone he has ever encountered, have proven beneficial to this country for at least 30 years already. President Bill Clinton recognized this special man, and utilized his talents. Go Leon!!!

Are we to believe there is NO ONE with both intelligence experience AND good management skills? The only one available with high-grade management skills is Panetta? Gimme a break. Panetta might be a great guy, but saying he understands the intelligence business because he was a consumer in the Executive branch is like saying he understands the restaurant business because he eats pizza. It's a stupid assertion. I like Obama, have nothing against Dems or Panetta, but this is a bone-headed call.

Lacks intelligance experience? That didn't pevent us from electing George W!

It is sad to see that the CIA will for the next 4 years will be lead around in the dark by someone with out a flashlight. Lanetta while a capiable congressman and Chief of Staff simply is unqualified to wade into the water of the intelligence community. As much as people bemhoan the CIA it is an intergral and very successful organization and key to our national security. And to all those who say it is not successful think about it this way you only hear about its mistakes never is victories so 20 mistakes in 10 years could really mean 200 right calls you will never know. I can only hope Panetta does not turn into another Adm. Stansfield Turner who argueable was the worst DCI in the CIA's history.

Mr. Panetta is a great selection, we need a outsider because it is still dis functional. We do not have anyone with experience within the system.

Give the guy a break. Intelligence types tend to have a bloated opinion of their own self-worth. Maybe Leon Panetta does bring the managerial skill and person

Give the guy a break. Intelligence types do seem to have an unwarranted opinion of their own self worth. It's the old "I know something that you don't know" that you might remember from your youth. Maybe Leon Panetta does bring the personal integrity and managerial skill that is needed to make the Central Intelligence Agency worth all the money that we hve invested in it.

As a person who has met Mr.Panetta and grew up in the small town in which he primarily resides I would have to say I applaud Obama's choice. You will never meet a man with more integrity than Leon Panetta. After an administration filled with deceit I would think the public would be more open to an honest, extremely intelligent man who has the extraordinary organizational skills to get our intelligence community back on track. Bravo!

What gaffes me about this entire line of questioning is who are any of us to decide whether he is or is not right for the job. Certainly someone who is elected and must remain popular or leave office may not be the best one to do this. Working in this particular field requires more than just managerial abilities, but the Director is the Head Spy; If you need to surround yourself with people to cover your 6, then the Director will be in a losing position when he deals with his counterparts abroad. There are some posts that the fickle american public have no business in, because you have not one clue what its like to put your life on the line or other lives on a check you must cash.

We need to start sleeping with one eye open and our guns under our beds. This country is going to be attacked and when that happens I would like a pit bull at the helm of the CIA not a cockapoo. I am sure Mr Panetta is a brilliant man but head of the CIA??? And this appointment is because the far left bloggers are directing Obama. What next will they intimidate him into. God help us, our Presidency is going to be controlled by far left loons like Georgo Soros and the ravings of Rev Wright and perhaps Ayers will build a bomb or two. But trust me that will be okay with the left wing bloggers they want to throw a tea party for the terrorists and welcome them with open arms and borders. God help our great Country and save us from these lunatics.

we really want to know

where is his integrity about Clinton scandals ?? after all, he was chief of staff.

at best he will be puppet of obama nothing else.

It's amateur hour in the US! Maybe he can get back the security documents from Sandy Berger when he puts him in charge of clandestine operations.

Maybe Jon Stewart should be Cia cheif...he's a Democrat and has the same intelligence background Leon Panetta has ! Neither one of them is qualified. I have no problem with a Democrat being CIA chief but can it be someone that has a legitimate background ?

Remember that a Democrat holdover from the Clinton years was at the helm of the CIA during the build up of Al Qaeda and its big prize on 911. Tenet was a SSCI staff director under Boren, and there was more politicization of intel during the early 90s than people care to admit. Under Tenet's direction at CIA, staff was not allowed to do what needed to be done to protect Americans. Tenet met Clinton TWO times during their tenures. Panetta will do the same type of job that Tenet did, and will not allow CIA operatives to do the job that needs to be done to keep the US and US interests safe. He doesn't want to make the captured combatants uncomfortable (Army Field Manual) during interrogation. Being uncomfortable comes with the territory of combat. Be afraid, be very afraid. The blanket of security provided for the last 7 and half years will become threadbare rapidly. CDR, USN (ret)

The Director of the CIA is NOT just the manger of the Agency. He briefs the President daily AND has the say on what the President hears. It's a little bigger job than JUST manager.

I think that the pick of Panetta is the best decision because; the CIA needs to have some house-cleaning following the past 8 years....

Lets go over the facts. The American people voted in Obama for president because we wany change. If you don't vote in new blood after the persident, you wasted your vote on him. If you don't change the officials running this country, There will be no change and politics as usual. Obama will be dead in the water without a boat.

Leon Panetta another re-tread from one of the most failed presidents in history.

Let's remember the CIA is "a dirty but supposedly necessary business" to protect our interests around the world. It is also a far more complicated matter than most Americans have knowledge of, and probably rightfully so.

I'm cool with this choice. Lately I was read that we have 37,5 % people in our government that are Jews. Is this true???

People!!! the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result!! How 'Intelligent' have they been??? This is the very 'CHANGE' we should all welcome!!

The CIA does NOT "need a makeover" from a so-called "outsider". American foreign policy decision makers need a makeover – more specifically PROSECUTING LEAKS & PUTTING COVERTNESS BACK INTO INTELLIGENCE. The CIA has, for decades, carried out missions, usually in the shadows, that have protected and promoted this nation's interests, both directly and indirectly. The public is NOT obliged to know what classified operations that agency undertakes in foreign countries – whether it's waterboarding, secret prisons, Guantanamo, or rendition. The sad reality is that the NOBAMA administration will only weaken this country's ability to protect itself, in exchange for social popularity here and abroad – sounds familiar – CLINTON!

Once again ready to serve your country; thank you Mr. Panetta.

The CIA has become an ivory tower and severely needs a house cleaning. If we had a competent CIA we wouldn't have been attacked on 911 and we wouldn't have invaded Iraq with a bogus reason. People defend Rice and the CIA when it comes to 911 but protecting us from that kind of attack was supposed to be their JOB. The CIA is a rouge element and I think they should see some daylight. At least when they were Navy Intelligence they stayed out of US politics and with their mission. It may be time to eliminate the CIA and make them subject to oversight if they cannot clean up this mess.

Panetta is a great pick to clean up this corrupt, rougue organization. The U.S. needs an outsider to make some REAL changes to the CIA.
It's AMAZING that after all of Bush's unqualified political appointees to critical governmental organizations (remember Brownie at FEMA?), the Democrats are only now taking a firm stance against a nomination. WHY DIDN'T THEY STAND UP TO BUSH LIKE THIS? Cowards.

If anyone had a grasp of what the FBI has let slip to cover our security you wouldn't give the last 7 years so much credit.

I have no personal axe to grind with Panetta or Obama for that matter. Did not vote for Obama but he is my president and I am open to seeing what he will do.

What I think is crazy is everyone who is monday morning quarterbacking the CIA. If all of you think being an analyst, case officer, or any other intel related position at the CIA is so easy, sign up and go do the job yourselves. I have known many of them in my life and they are the most dedicated, patriotic people you will ever meet doing the absolute best job they can. When you can start reading minds and intentions of terrorists get on with it and help keep us all safe. Otherwise, shut up and be thankful for the job they do each and everyday.

I agree Mr Panetta is not qualified for the any position in the intelligence agencies. There MUST be other qualified candidates.

What happened the CHANGE we were promised by Mr Obama?
This reeks of Clintonesque.

I am a lifelong Democrat who lives in Monterey County, California and have, in the past, voted for Mr. Panetta. For CONGRESS!

When I heard that Panetta was going to be head of the CIA I said to myself, "what??" and I was trying to figure out the reasons that Obama and Biden gave Feinstein as to why they thought Panetta would be good to head the CIA and why after hearing them that Feinstein agreed with them. I don't know if these are the reasons, but Anderson you laid it out pretty well and put it in perspective for me and made me see that maybe ... just maybe Panetta is a good choice after all.

I'm happy with Obama's decisions, let's see how he does. dg

The problem with Mr. Panetta as I see it is that he may be inclined to see his new job as basically investigating and changing the CIA in an attempt to change Bush era policies and tactics and not as gathering critical intelligence to combat our emenies. If he believes that the CIA is the problem rather than a solution then we will be far less safe with him in charge.

Just another political hack by an administration already overrun with political hacks. Welcome to The Socialist Police State of Omerica.

Now, where are your papers?!?

Honestly, can anyone commenting here say, with confidence, that the CIA has served our country...ever?

Indeed, the CIA is quite possibly a massive mistake, inspiring people around the world to hate the United States and have lasting suspicions about our national ethics.

Some people commenting here express concern about Panetta's ability to head the CIA, worrying about the "peril" that a lack of "intelligence experience" might invite. But the assumption that the CIA has been protecting America should be questioned.

In fact, the CIA might have privately pushed fake intelligence to friendly foreign agencies, and then very publicly cited that fake intelligence (seemingly coming *from* those foreign agencies) to support our president's case for starting the war in Iraq. In any case, the CIA allegedly HAD NO CLUE that Saddam had no WMDs. ZERO. So much for information gathering. However, I have a more cynical theory: the CIA was complicit in deceiving the American public...

So, I would be all for dissolving the CIA. They have done worse than fail the American people; they have greatly increased the violence and terror in the world and against America. They trained Osama Bin Laden. I think in a very real way, the CIA set in motion the events that led to 9/11.

I can't wait to hear the excuses when the next 9/11 happens on Panetta's watch.

"We had some of the key players in custody but they called their lawyers and refused to talk to us on 5th amendment grounds. Sorry about those US citizens who died in the attack but they can rest easy in peace knowing that the rights of the terrorists were respected."

When the premise is the the CIA is broken and needs to be over hauled then choosing Mr, Panetta is arguable to some. In a time of war, and we are at war, whether some agree or not. Why do we take this risk of over hauling our inteligence agency?
By what measure has the CIA failed us?
Mr Obama takes a huge risk as he appoints another person with little experience to a position which is center to our fight against these terroist.
If in fact we are attacked again, Mr Obama and Mr Panetta will have to explain why.

The deputy director of the CIA is way more important than the director. The director is basically the Chairman of the Board. No hands on experience just deals directly with the President. The Deputy Director makes all of the real Tactical decisions, such as where to put spys and what missions will be carried out. The Director basically is the President's man to make the Strategic decisions.

Barack Obama repeatedly stated that he is hell bent on making sure that he has the best qualified personnel to be part of his advisory groups, leadership teams, etc. From the looks of it thus far - cronyism, Clinton Part Deux is all that he'll be able to muster.

I seriously hope he succeeds, even with all the Clintonites in his cabinet. But with a 'Clinton' as part of his cabinet - all he's really going to end up being is a placeholder for the ascendancy of the 'Clintons' in 2012. The 'hope' – whatever there was – is fading and fleeting; it is not as audacious as he advertised.

The American People have had it with the illegal torture & warmongering already. The People have spoken. I am very happy with the Panetta appointment. There must be a different "tone" in this Country, to gain respect in the rest of the world again. Yes, that is important, or why even have the word diplomacy in the English language? We are supposed to be Civilized. Enter the 21st Century....Finally!

Restore Confidence? The professional intelligence officials that were put in place after 9/11 have kept this country safe when their counterparts in other countries, like Great Britain have not.

Thank you to all those who serve, have served, and their leaders in the silent services, who have kept us safe these last 7 years.

Not supporting Panetta is not a democrat or republican issue, it is a safey issue. He is a good man and public servant. He is not though the best person for the job.

So, I guess this means that as a U.S. citizen - I need to expect an eventual bailout of the CIA Director later on when the sh*! hits the fan because we got attacked under his watch. Oh wait, he lacks the experience to begin with so we all need to give him a break.

What is the problem. He is credited with being a very good manager in the positions of responsibility he held under Clinton. The top man is not actually going to be a spy. He will be overseeing and managing from the executive level, setting policy and providing accountability.
So he might be exactly what is needed to get the agency in better shape. The agency is loaded with operational experience and the day to day field operations will be implemented by the experienced directors and managers currenlty within the agency. Give this guy a chance and see how it unfolds.

So let me see if I get this straight. If you have solid intelligence experience, but you were somewhat supportive of Bush's policies then you get questioned by netroots activists and have to withdraw from consideration? However, if you have ZERO intelligence experience but carried water for one of the most morally reprehensible Presidents in the past 30 years, then you are good to go?

And I hate to break it to you, but it wasn't the failure of the CIA in falling to predict the attacks of 9/11. It was the actions of people like Jamie Gorelick in establishing the wall between the FBI and the CIA that largely caused that to happen.

It is purely ignorant to say that the DCI is a manager and doesn't require intel experience.

Let's see what the next few years bring. Of course, I am sure it will still be blamed on the Bush Administration.

QUOTE "If Panetta was good enough for California and Bill Clinton the one of the Best Presidents America ever had – He’s good enough for me."

Good married presidents don't go around getting blow jobs from young girls.

The appointment of Panetta to DCI will force the Agency to implode. You could argue that he will bring about fundamental change in their way of business or he will be ostracized by his own people. Either way the future of the Agency looks bleak.

Panetta's it because no one else wants the job under an Obama administration that is going to weaken the US military and intel services.

Change we can believe in? Man, that's a joke. Welcome to amateur hour at the US!

Leon Panetta is a excellent choice to head the "CIA" . He has morals, values, excellent character traits and leadership qualities, a high level of education and intelligence, and impressive business credentials. Anyone with an ounce of brains can see he is the perfect choice. Having years of experience in a position does "NOT" make one good at a job. There are many in this world who are horrible at their job, yet they have managed to hang onto it for many years by backstabbing and setting others up to fall who might take their place who are more qualified in everyway.

Being good at any job and at leadership is more a matter of inborn character traits and moral upbringing, which creates those who are raised to be ethical, moral, rightous, honest, full of integrity, these traits are rare in people today. which is why most who are currently in trouble with the law or government for fraud...if you will note...have been in their positions with their companies for many years, quite experienced and seasoned employees, yet quite unethical. I admire this man and I admire President Obama and his choice. Leon Panetta is a "GOOD" person and that is the best qualification anyone could ask for in a employee, and exactly what this country needs, a good example of a true "Leader", especially in a position of public service.