Dianne Feinstein Not Too Pleased With Panetta Pick

Source: Washington Independent

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who’s about to take the reins as chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, doesn’t appear to be too happy with Leon Panetta’s prospective appointment to head the CIA. Here’s what her office just sent me:

“I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA Director. I know nothing about this, other than what I’ve read,” said Senator Feinstein, who will chair the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in the 111th Congress.

“My position has consistently been that I believe the Agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time.”

Read more: http://washingtonindependent.com/23827/dianne-feinstein...

SHE:

Voted for the war on Iraq

Voted in committee for FISA amendment to grant retroactive immunity to telecoms companies

Voted for this in the Senate Intelligence (!) Committee and then voted to end debate on the amendment foreclosing promised filibusters by more principled Democrats.

Voted to confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General

Mr. Mukasey wouldn't provide a straight answer on water-boarding then (or even now)! Quisling Feinstein justified her vote for Mr. Mukasey on the grounds that any other nominee might be even worse.

Voted to confirm Condoleeza Rice as Sec. of State

This despite Ms. Rice's dismal performance as Director of the NSA in the previous 4-years. Ms. Feinstein justified her vote for the incompetent Ms. Rice on the grounds of personal acquaintance with Ms. Rice.

Voted to confirm Michael Hayden as Director of the CIA
This despite Mr. Hayden having previously architected, implemented, and run the program for NSA's illegal wire-tapping of American citizens.

So much for her professional intelligence

are not at all that different than those of the previous administration. :shrug:

Her husband made a lot of money because due to Bushies war.

Thanks for Michael Mukasy, DIFI.

And by the way are enjoying all that money you made over the bodies of 4000 American service people in Iraq?

She shouldn't have to have heard it on the news.

Bad form.

I wouldn't make her out the victim.

it has to be good news that she's upset about this appointment.

Most things that displease her please me.

Panetta's a Washington insider who's a CIA outsider.

That's probably Obama's best strategy for an extremely touchy appointment. After all, he can't exactly say he's going to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind, now can he?

But it's not exactly the CIA that has needed to be scattered to the wind, for four decades now, but something else--god only knows who and what--that has operatives within the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Dept. of Justice, the U.S. military (including NORAD), and now, strongly reinforced within those agencies, after eight years of Bushwhacky, planted throughout our government, and bolstered by operatives in private contractor corporations that are multinational in nature, and have not even tenuous loyalty to the American people or our Constitution.

We need to bust that cabal. I don't know if Leon Panetta can or will do it (or even wants to), or if Obama has any notions of doing it, but I tend to think that it's up to us--to We, the People. The actions of our so-called representatives in government, and the actions of our party leaders, at the federal and even state levels, spell one thing to me: F. E. A. R. And I don't think it's fear merely of the CIA.

I also tend to think that where we must start is in undoing the latest control mechanism of this cabal--the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines, with the 'TRADE SECRET' code owned and controlled by far rightwing corporations (some with ties so scary they would make your hair stand on end). Our reps need to know that we can re-elect them, and/or toss them out. They don't know that now. And I think some of the FEAR we see the results of--in actions of Congress, or Obama appointments/policies--comes from their knowing who controls the secret code that can be used at any time--and was most certainly used in 2002 and 2004--to directly defy the will of the people (and was probably used in subtler ways in 2006 and 2008, for instance, to shave about 5% off of Obama's mandate, to deny him a landslide and place yet more restraints upon reform). The power of Diebold & brethren is not the only thing they fear--and it is not the only motivator (corruption is also very much in play, in some cases)--but it is one of the few things we can still do something about, since control of the voting system still resides at the local/state level.

There are two other MUST-DO'S to starting the process of restoring our democracy: 1) eliminating private money from political campaigns, and 2) busting the corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies. But neither is possible--and we can't even begin to do them--without transparent vote counting and the election of better representatives. Transparent vote counting is the key to everything--and that is why we don't have it any more.

We want these bastards, who have been fucking up our country for four decades now, to be rooted out, evicted, disempowered--and prosecuted and imprisoned, where possible--and prevented from ever gaining a foothold in our country again? It is not going to happen without transparent vote counting--vote counting that everyone can see and understand. That is step one. Peel back the corporate veil that has been drawn over our vote counting.

Really, I don't think it's the CIA per se. I'm no fan of the CIA, god knows, nor of any secret operations in a democracy. But I think "the CIA" is too easy an umbrella phrase for all the horrors that have been perpetrated. And I think the Plame outing demonstrated that there is an opposing tide--against manufacturing wars--within the CIA (or there was). In other words, we have a stickier, deeper, more difficult problem to solve than this identifiable secret agency. Bush Jr.'s regime has made this problem more visible (which may be why Bush Sr. acted to curtail Cheney and Rumsfeld--which I think he did). But it is now--for a while (probably a short while)--going to slither back into its snake holes and lay in wait. Merely attacking the CIA--even ripping it open and scattering it to the wind--won't affect this cabal at all. I'm not sure if it would have in 1962 either (but action then might have caught it at earlier stage of development; JFK's assassination certainly weighs in on that side--that action by JFK could have stopped them). And I'm not even sure that "the Bush Cartel" is an accurate phrase. Bushes, Bushites and Texas oil men may just be the front men, operatives and financiers. A cabal is by its nature occult, and this one, I think, is very occult. It has virtually everyone in our government by the short hairs. It (and not "We, the People") empowers our leaders; it punishes them, sometimes severely, for "going off the reservation"; it prevents anyone who is a true representative of the people from gaining power or keeping power, or, in the case of tokens, of doing anything with the limited power they are permitted to have.

These are the effects of a cabal. We see them every day. It couldn't be any clearer that our so-called reps in government are NOT acting in our interest, and it seems clear to me, anyway, that this is because they are, a) corrupt, or b) afraid (or some combination of both, involving blackmail). And why would they be afraid of a regime that is leaving office? This recent Financial 9/11 that the Bushwhacks pulled off was the clincher for me, as to the fangs of some powerful cabal--of unknown name and membership--being planted in the necks of everyone with any significant power who is supposedly representing us. A more traitorous act than this "bailout," and the phony crisis that was created to pull it off, I have never seen. Even Obama--EVEN Obama--trotted forward and bowed down to it. And that his landslide was cut in half--by those who give the orders to Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia--to further hamper any effort by him at reform, is probably why he acquiesced to it. I do think he knows the score. I don't think he has the power to do anything about it (for now, anyway). And he may be deluding himself that "working with" our corporate masters will somehow result in democracy being restored.

Do we want democracy or not? Do we want a country of, by and for the people--or not? It's not up to Leon Panetta. It's not up to Obama--or to any other corporate-vetted, corporate-approved leader. It's up to us. Our main mechanism for asserting that rightful control--transparent vote counting--has been taken away. That is why Obama is moving way, way over to the corporate/Republican side of the table. He could win primaries in caucus states where the votes are not counted by Diebold & brethren, and get momentum there, and become a contender. But he could not win in the all Diebold & brethren general election without their acquiescence. They have the capability--the EASY capability--to tilt any election. They didn't tilt this one all the way to McCain. Why not? What could have stopped them? Who could have stopped them? Nothing and no one.

I think Obama is a good guy--very intelligent, with a good heart. I think he made some deals that would piss most Americans off, if they knew about them, but he made them out of necessity, by his own lights, in order to gain the power to do some good. I really can't fault him in that, because I see the extent of our loss of sovereignty as a people. We are the peons of an empire, and our consent is not particularly important to the installation of a new emperor--whether good or bad. The best thing we could do for our new emperor--if we deem him worthy--is to fight for and achieve transparent vote counting in our local/state venues, to assure his re-election. As long as he can Diebolded, he is more theirs than ours.

Torturing prisoners is a festering abomination in our government. But--as far as we can determine--the CIA did not initiate it. It was initiated by the most naked agents of this cabal--Cheney and Rumsfeld. And Cheney and Rumsfeld are going to walk. So what is the usefulness of going after underlings, who were subject to their orders, who may have engaged in torture? It is not useful at all if Cheney and Rumsfeld or other agents of the cabal can easily be re-installed? And torture is only the tip of the iceberg as to festering abominations. I certainly want torture ended, but I also want the potential for more torture, and more mass murder, and more mind-boggling thievery, to be ended. And that isn't going to happen until we restore transparent vote counting, and thereby begin real reforms.

my negative reaction to this pick.

2 thumbs up from me for pissing her off. :thumbsup:

She needs to be driven out of CA.

How could I criticize Feinstein without criticizing Obama on this.....and she seemed more upfront about it. Obama also voted to confirm Rice and he didn't show up for the vote on Mukasey.

The only thing different from Feinstein is that he voted against Hayden. What is Obama's professional intelligence?

they are not as important as they think they are...i`m putting her on that list.

Democratic members of the committee

John D. Rockefeller, IV (D-WV)

Carl Levin (D-MI)

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD)

Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ)

Dont let the door hit you on the way out. Not too much dif between DiFi and Holy Joe, imho.

I can't believe a fellow Groucho would throw such a gopher ball. ;-)

is pissed off cause obama did`t call her. :cry:

i`m going to rethink barak`s pick for cia chief...

She'd be a Republican if she could

Don't forget she once said Bush was really a nice guy. I do agree with her however with regard to the need for someone with some intelligence background. Or just some intelligence.

I really have no hope for this country. Or for the incoming Clinton administration. Which of course will serve only to provide the basis for the Clinton campaign in 2012. "If you'd elected Hillary in 2008...."

and that both DiFi and Jay Rockefeller have been FAR too
accepting of RatBastard's policies on intelligence matters.
I agree with Walsh on this one -- if these two are com-
plaining, maybe that's a good sign that CHANGE IS COMING!

Commerce? Yes. CIA, no.

It shows Panetta is a good choice if
it makes her uncomfortable.

Panetta is not tainted by the illegal activities taken by CIA during GWOT.

has any cred to complain.

Although I don't live in CA so that could be a problem.

Why should she be informed prior to Panetta's appointment? I believe it is the Legislative's job to confirm nominees, not have a say in their choosing. If she doesn't want Panetta, then she can say so with a "No" vote. How do the people of California keep electing Feinstein (sorry if I'm incorrect about her state)? She is one of the worst of the lot of demopublicans.

but I refuse to vote for her too. If I wanted to vote for a republican, I'll vote for a republican. I detest Dems that really are repubs, and that's what Feinstein is. She's a disgrace to the Democratic party and ideals.

California is really not as Blue as it looks. There are a lot of Me-too's here in California that really couldn't give a rats ass about anything like loyalty. The truth is in the pudding. How could a Republican figure head like Arnold ever have been elected if that were not the case as just one example?

on the ballot (easy to fraudulently distribute votes). Our new, good Sec of State at that time, Kevin Shelley, had barely had time to put his name on the door, when that totally weird and absurd Recall thing occurred. By May 2004 (six months before the 2004 election), Shelley had sued Diebold for lying to him about the security of their voting machines, and demanded to see their source code. The "swift-boating" of Shelley began soon afterwards, and he was soon driven from office on entirely bogus corruption charges.

This may explain how Feinstein got re-elected. (She's as bad on 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting controlled by Bushwhack corporations as she is on everything else.) I don't want to excuse California voters from stupidity and laziness. We have been as stupid and lazy as a lot of other states on e-voting. But Feinstein's record has been so bad, and so blatant, that you'd think that, a) she would have aroused serious opposition (a serious challenge), and b) couldn't have won re-election, even with Diebold & brethren's help, or couldn't have won so easily. The Pukes ran a rightwing nut against her. What did they care? She votes nearly 100% Puke. I gave one of my rare votes to the Greens, rather than vote for Feinstein, because she is so obnoxious and the lack of choice made me so angry. But not many voters did that, or if they did, their votes were changed. She won re-election handily (in the "official count").

So, I don't know for sure, in Feinstein's case, whether voters were uninformed and duped (as they have been on e-voting, until recently), whether the corpo/fascist noise machine in CA was just too much for voters to overcome, whether she is just so powerful--in with the war profiteers and Bushwhacks--that no opposition was permitted to arise, and/or whether her buds in the election theft industry just stole it for her--or some combination of all of these. With Schwarzenegger, I am as sure as I can be that the Recall was rigged. (The first purpose was to prevent Enron and other Texas energy corps from having to give back some of the $80 billion CA surplus that they stole, and to keep that huge scandal from getting further traction.)

I suspect--but have no evidence for it--that it was the Recall that aroused Shelley's suspicions about the e-voting vendors, and that the witch-hunt against him was aimed at preventing him from finding out how rigged it was. As for 2004, Kerry was going to win in CA anyway, and did--although there is some very interesting evidence that as much as 10% of Kerry's vote in CA was fraudulently changed, to pad Bush's national popularity majority. But considering what happened next--after Shelley was tar and feathered, tied to the rails and run out of town--the installation, by appointment of Schwarzenegger, of a Republican Diebold shill as Sec of State, it's possible that covering the tracks of the Recall theft was the most important consideration in getting rid of Shelley (--not change votes from Kerry to Bush).

Non-transparent vote counting, with 'TRADE SECRET' code, owned and controlled by far rightwing corporations, has many uses, of course. Keeping a warmongering, traitorous woman Democrat in the Senate would likely be one of them.

only votes like a Democrat when it comes to women's choice issues. So if she doesn't want Panetta I'm inclined to think he might be good.

Leon Panetta has just passed the neocon blood test. With flying colors! Meaning he is not one!

Clip from South Park spoof

THE THING_Complete Blood Test Scene_Kurt Russell

I loath Feinstein. I wish that the people of California could get a good progressive Democratic senator in place of her.

The fact that Sen. Feinstein is pi$$ed about Panetta's nomination as Director, CIA means that the nomination is a good thing.

Yay, us!

Where an incoming President was supposed to send a fax or email to Diane Feinstein prior to making the announcement of a pick to head the CIA.

Now where was her outrage when Bush was ................... )fill in the blank)

be loyal to his Commander-in-Chief instead of the military-industrial-intelligence complex.

It's high time we got some new blood into these top slots. It's been nothing but revolving door appointments for decades.

Well I'm feeling better about Panetta already.

And it may do the CIA good to have an outsider not entangled in internal politics and linked to the policies of the last eight years in charge

She's a shameless DINO who is only interested in furthering the war profiteering of her husband and herself. If she doesn't like Panetta that tells me he must have some integrity. Even though he's yet another Clinton retread....

and you can have your little talk with Obama but it won't help the decision has been made.

Well then welcome to the job, Mr. Panetta! No one asked her	babylonsister	Jan-05-09 05:47 PM	#1
She means a "rubber stamp" for her views--which	hlthe2b	Jan-05-09 05:47 PM	#2
I was never pleased with her either	katmondoo	Jan-05-09 05:48 PM	#3
tularetom not too impressed with Dianne Feinstein	tularetom	Jan-05-09 05:52 PM	#4
You'd think Obama would have, at minimum, given her a 'heads up'.	MookieWilson	Jan-05-09 05:57 PM	#5
Exactly - poor form. eom	DURHAM D	Jan-05-09 06:04 PM	#10
Or a shot across the bow...	depakid	Jan-05-09 06:35 PM	#27
Oh, too bad for finestein..	zidzi	Jan-05-09 06:58 PM	#33
Being that she was one of the boy king's enablers & Panetta was outraged at the use of torture,	8_year_nightmare	Jan-05-09 05:57 PM	#6
She's a stealth Republican	Cronus Protagonist	Jan-05-09 05:58 PM	#7
Ditto here. nt	Kahuna	Jan-05-09 06:57 PM	#32
I'm now more convinced than ever that Panetta is the best choice for the job.	The Stranger	Jan-05-09 05:59 PM	#8
Exactly. Feinstein's annoyance is proof that Obama picked the right guy.	RufusTFirefly	Jan-05-09 07:52 PM	#42
Yup, he'd be smart not to say that.	Peace Patriot	Jan-06-09 05:43 PM	#62
Well, the choice is pushing the right buttons. :)	polichick	Jan-05-09 06:03 PM	#9
well, now I'm rethinking	choie	Jan-05-09 06:06 PM	#11
IN A RELATED STORY Leon Panetta not too fucking thrilled with Diane takin the reins of SSC of I!!!	happygoluckytoyou	Jan-05-09 06:11 PM	#12
She'll get over it.....	BooScout	Jan-05-09 06:14 PM	#13
Two more thumbs up here	Lebam in LA	Jan-05-09 06:45 PM	#30
Obama broke his word and voted for Fisa. Said not to worry because he 'd be in charge	terisan	Jan-05-09 06:17 PM	#14
Will there be confirmation hearings for Panetta, and will Feinstein	babylonsister	Jan-05-09 06:19 PM	#15
there`s going to be a few people who find out....	madrchsod	Jan-05-09 06:29 PM	#21
Feinstein will not rock the boat	Ichingcarpenter	Jan-05-09 06:42 PM	#29
Maybe she'll get really mad and quit in a huff	yojon	Jan-05-09 06:21 PM	#16
Or perhaps in a minute and a huff?	RufusTFirefly	Jan-06-09 10:51 AM	#58
yup! mrs war machine...	madrchsod	Jan-05-09 06:25 PM	#17
Feinstein is a DINO	Taverner	Jan-05-09 06:25 PM	#18
And...	Baby Snooks	Jan-05-09 06:26 PM	#19
What nerve, Fuck you Finestein, like your record is anything to brag about.	Jefferson23	Jan-05-09 06:28 PM	#20
Just saw Joan Walsh on MSNBC say that Panetta would change things ...	LSparkle	Jan-05-09 06:29 PM	#22
Panetta was a poor choice for the CIA . nt	Joey Liberal	Jan-05-09 06:29 PM	#23
With a record like that, a shameless and shameful Bush enabler, aider, and abettor par excellence	indepat	Jan-05-09 06:30 PM	#24
This because Feinstein is a neocon, complicit in torture and domestic spying.	antimatter98	Jan-05-09 06:32 PM	#25
DiFi gave the green light to torture lover Mukasey (as did Schumer)	IndianaGreen	Jan-05-09 06:33 PM	#26
That's about the best recommendation I could ask for.	sfexpat2000	Jan-05-09 06:41 PM	#28
Feinstein has made BANK over the war in Iraq and the "War on Terror"	underpants	Jan-05-09 06:49 PM	#31
It's dispicable..like she	zidzi	Jan-05-09 07:01 PM	#35
Feinstein head the Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, too. So far, she's	No Elephants	Jan-05-09 07:00 PM	#34
If Arnold ran for her seat as a Dem I'd vote for him.	Skink	Jan-05-09 07:03 PM	#36
Maybe it's time for her to retire when her term is over but I'm not voting for Arnold. n/t	kiranon	Jan-05-09 07:16 PM	#37
exactly,she is so fucking gross,almost worse than pelosi	natrat	Jan-05-09 07:21 PM	#38
Obama owes her nothing...	crimsonblue	Jan-05-09 07:26 PM	#39
Yes. She is one of CA's Senators. I won't vote for Arnold if he wants her seat	BlueCaliDem04	Jan-05-09 10:29 PM	#47
Actually a good taste of would-be California republicans that register as dems do	nolabels	Jan-05-09 11:58 PM	#54
My best guess: First all-Diebold & brethren election, the Recall, with 125 candidates	Peace Patriot	Jan-06-09 06:35 PM	#63
well then welcome aboard mr. panetta!	frylock	Jan-05-09 07:34 PM	#40
She's a closet rethuglican and war profiteer (thru her husband's firm), she	diane in sf	Jan-05-09 07:49 PM	#41
Democrats suddenly become tough when they get a chance to undermine members of their own party.	ryanmuegge	Jan-05-09 08:16 PM	#43
That's what DLCers do. (nt)	w4rma	Jan-06-09 01:52 PM	#61
K&R And to Ms. DF Tough Kashitzy.	sce56	Jan-05-09 08:27 PM	#44
It's DINO's like Feinstein who are going to cause Obama grief.	totodeinhere	Jan-05-09 08:39 PM	#45
Good! K & R nt	glitch	Jan-05-09 09:34 PM	#46
I think we've reached a concensus on this thread!	TheDebbieDee	Jan-05-09 10:32 PM	#48
Who would she rather see in the spot, John Poindexter?	PassingFair	Jan-05-09 10:33 PM	#49
Feinstein - you sold out the Bill of Rights. You're in the wings now and getting less relevant...	FreepFryer	Jan-05-09 10:45 PM	#50
I must have missed the day in civic class	davefromqueens	Jan-05-09 10:53 PM	#51
Will she (Bechtel) ever go away? n/t	bluesmail	Jan-05-09 11:06 PM	#52
There has to be a good reason PE Obama went with Panetta. Maybe he thinks he will	bertman	Jan-05-09 11:11 PM	#53
To me this is a vote of confidence!	CreekDog	Jan-06-09 12:35 AM	#55
A plus for Panetta	hawkowl88	Jan-06-09 02:03 AM	#56
I like Leon Panetta	socialdemocrat1981	Jan-06-09 05:02 AM	#57
If DiFi's against it, he must be a good pick	MsLeopard	Jan-06-09 01:19 PM	#59
too bad DiFi.	alyce douglas	Jan-06-09 01:25 PM	#60