A "profanity-laced screaming match" at the White House involving CIA Director Leon Panetta, and the expected release today of another damning internal investigation, has administration officials worrying about the direction of its newly-appoint intelligence team, current and former senior intelligence officials tell ABC News.com.
.
In addition to concerns about the CIA's reputation and its legal exposure, other White House insiders say Panetta has been frustrated by what he perceives to be less of a role than he was promised in the administration's intelligence structure. Panetta has reportedly chafed at reporting through the director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, according to the senior adviser who said Blair is equally unhappy with Panetta.
"Leon will be leaving," predicted a former top U.S. intelligence official, citing the conflict with Blair. The former official said Panetta is also "uncomfortable" with some of the operations being carried out by the CIA that he did not know about until he took the job.
As Instaglen correctly notes, with respect to operations being carried out by the CIA that Panetta is "uncomfortable" with, aren’t these operations authorized by the President? What is the CIA doing that Panetta would be uncomfortable with?
This is especially curious in light of the fact that Attorney General Eric Holder has just hired a special prosecutor to examine nearly a dozen cases in which CIA interrogators, Panetta’s own men, may have violated anti-torture laws.
And to make things curiouser and curiouser, the Obama administration has stated they do not plan to suspend the policy of extraordinary rendition initiated under the Bush administration and which received intense criticism from human rights groups.
As it stands then, we wouldn’t blame Panetta one bit for declaring “a pox on all your houses” and getting the hell out of Dodge. His own men will be under the white-hot spotlight of a Justice Department investigation as the administration will use this as a bashing Bush by proxy but he will still be expected to maintain morale and discipline among his troops in the dark and dangerous world of intelligence gathering while fighting a turf war with the DNI and all the while having reservations about administration-approved policies currently being executed by his own agency. That doesn’t sound like a whole lot of fun.
Exit question: Given the situation laid out in the paragraph above, precisely how screwed are we?
Posts
5 comments:
Meanwhile we are entering a dangerous phase in Afghanistan and could very well lose. You think we might need good morale at the CIA to get that job done?
If I were Panetta, I'd liquidate all my financial holdings before I bailed. I'd sell my real estate, stocks, the whole thing. If he leaves and tells people how bad this is all going to be, I could see retributions against everything he holds. With cash in hand, he'd be able to start anew somewhere far away from the reach of Washington, DC.
Didn't Obama say he would let this matter go a few months ago?
Is this politics to shore up his base, a distraction from his plummeting health care support, or just plain cum-upins to his conservative foes?
Answer: All of the above
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, you have some from the Clinton camp, none too happy and possibly conspiring for a move.
I made a previous prediction about the press. That while they like to be king-makers, they also like to watch them fall. It's still too early in the game, but the honeymoon appears to be over.
Hey who needs Intel agencies after all? Sounds like shiny metal objects for people to look at instead of dealing with new issues. I bet Obama has a bag full of shiny metal objects and, like Pixie Dust, he throws them out whenever he needs that little "boost" in the polls.
Panetta should scram.
'Dawg, Obama did indicate it was time to "move on" but left himself wiggle room by leaving the decision up to the Attorney General. Of course, it was Obama's decision, ultimately.
Post a Comment