Feinstein And Rockefeller To Obama: We Liked Bush’s Appointees More
Feinstein And Rockefeller To Obama: We Liked Bush’s Appointees More
Yesterday, word leaked that President-elect Obama had selected Leon Panetta to head the CIA. Panetta was selected for “his managerial skills, his bipartisan standing, and the foreign policy and budget experience he gained under President Bill Clinton,” the New York Times reported.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee praised Panetta as a “strong choice” who “has the skills to usher in a new era of accountability at the nation’s premier intelligence agency.” The Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), said he believes Panetta “would serve the intelligence community, the President, and the country well.”
Shortly after the news leaked, however, the incoming chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), issued a statement complaining that she was not “consulted” about the Panetta selection and condemning his appointment:
“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.”
Similarly, the outgoing chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), said through a spokesperson that he was “puzzled by the selection.”
But when it came to approving of Bush nominees who defended torture, illegal wirteapping, and the Iraq war, Feinstein and Rockefeller never complained. Consider their voting records on key Bush appointees:
| Appointee | Feinstein’s Vote | Rockefeller’s Vote |
| Tom Ridge, Homeland Security | Not Voting | Yea |
| Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security | Yea | Yea |
| Condoleezza Rice, State Department | Yea | Yea |
| Donald Rumsfeld, Defense Department | Voice Vote, No Objection | |
| Michael Hayden, CIA Director | Yea | Not Voting |
| Porter Goss, CIA Director | Yea | Nay |
| Michael Mukasey, Attorney General | Yea | Nay |
Further, Feinstein and Rockefeller both originally supported the Iraq War and both have wavered in their opposition to the Bush’s torture policies.
In justifying her vote to confirm Porter Goss as CIA director in 2004, Feinstein said, “I believe the President should have the prerogative to appoint who he wants to be the DCI, or for any other senior position, subject only to the requirement that the person be qualified for the job.” Indeed, as Matt Yglesias writes, “it’s worth noting that not only has it never been the case that the CIA Director must be a career intelligence professional, it’s also long been the case that past service as a White House Chief of Staff has been viewed as a wide-ranging qualification for future public office.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Feinstein And Rockefeller To Obama: We Liked Bush’s Appointees More»
– - Panetta has been criticized by both the Democrats and Republicans. That must mean he’s the right guy for the job.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:12 amShe is too wrapped up in her own importance. She can vote against him if she wants. That is her role to advise and consent. NOT TO PICK! Slap her down!
January 6th, 2009 at 11:19 amDear Diane and Jay,
January 6th, 2009 at 11:19 amIt’s called CHANGE. Your old ways of appointing your buddies just haven’t worked. Get over it, shut up and go back to work.
Thanks in advance.
These Dems are war criminals – give them to the Hague along with Bush and company.
Anyone who voted to go into Iraq is a war criminal.
Anyone who voted to torture is a war criminal.
Anyone who authorized wire tapping of Americans is a traitor.
Where is the outrage?
911=Inside Job
Dems are complicit in this crime against humanity.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:19 amHaven’t we had so-called “intelligence professionals” running the show for the last 8 years? Look where all that “expertise” landed us. Time to take a different track.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:22 amGet over it, you patrician dogs.
Feinstein is diamterically opposed to individual freedom and John D. Rockefeller III has no business being in the Senate whatsoever.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:22 amgood story, ryan… thanks!
so, could diane be schweating a bit here?
January 6th, 2009 at 11:22 amLet’s be a little more fair here – Feinstein’s comments sound like a reporter caught her off guard. She explained that she didn’t have any information and gave a stock qualification. Then she ran off to her office to find out what the f*** was going on.
And if you look down at the original TP news item on Panetta, you’ll notice that most of the TP peanut gallery was “a little puzzled” by the selection as well.
That doesn’t mean Panetta shouldn’t get the job. It just means that this nominatoin kind of comes from out of left field.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:23 amIn justifying her vote to confirm Porter Goss as CIA director in 2004…
and THAT’s the guy who actually proclaimed that he was not qualified for the job…
January 6th, 2009 at 11:24 amToo bad a President-elect or even a President lacks the power to take away that (D) from a member of Congress who betrays the party.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:24 amdifi supported bush’s torture program. panetta doesn’t. difi betrayed her oath to defend and protect the constitution of the united states. panetta hasn’t.
jay rockefeller’s a coward.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:25 amIf it makes Feinstein angry it has to be good.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:34 amFeinstein is a DINO
Democrat In Name Only
and, a dinosaur
Thank you, TP, GREAT POINT!! The Dem leadership Congress needs to be held accountable for never standing up to Bush and the GOP. They let us ALL down.
And now, all of a sudden, when they no longer have to fear the right-wing media machine backlask in attacking Obama, now they suddenly standup to the president. When he represents their OWN PARTY!
No backbone. No leadership. NO DEAL!
January 6th, 2009 at 11:34 amDiane and Jay, elections have CONSEQUENCES. Get it? The people have spoken in large part due to the people you approved for Bush. Either move forward or get out of the way.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:48 amJust noticed the Feinstein quote was a press release?
Is it standard practice for a President or President-elect to consult with Senate committees in private before announcing nominees? Because Feinstein seems to think so. I thought they nominate someone, and then the Senate committee holds hearings on it. But between this and Reid/Burris fiasco, I’m starting to wonder if these people have the foggiest notions as to what the legal parameters of their jobs are.
Oh, Dianne, Jay, don’t make Rahm break out his brass knuckles… he will f*** you up. Somebody should at least show them the memo explaining how they don’t have to be loyal to Bush any more.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:01 pmEven not considering Senator Feinstein’s comments regarding the Obama CIA pick, I believe that the voting history chart shows that Senator Feinstein has some major explaining to do regarding her support for the Bush criminals. Porter Goss’s record as a Republican hack was clear at the time of his CIA nomination from his days as a Florida congressman (he was on the Intelligence Committee and a co-sponsor of the Patriot Act). Michael Hayden refused to come clean about his support for the warrantless wiretapping during his confirmation hearings. And Michael Mulkasey refused to say whether he considered waterboarding torture. Yet Feinstein still saw fit to confirm these slimeballs.
And now she wants to express concern about Leon Panetta, a good Democrat and the most honorable and capable holdover from the Clinton Administration?
January 6th, 2009 at 12:06 pmjosh marshall is thinking like many of us:
[...] I’m not certain what I think about this appointment yet. But on first blush, the nature of the opposition makes me more inclined to support it.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:12 pmvia C&L blog roundup (check out RUDE PUNDIT’s take on burris)
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/01/really_a_mystery.php
ElBruce Says:
Is it standard practice for a President or President-elect to consult with Senate committees in private before announcing nominees? Because Feinstein seems to think so.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
_____________
I would imagine it is standard practice, particularly when the President/-Elect and the committee chair are of the same party. I’d think that the President’s people and the chair talk offline before the official announcement to see if there are any potential red flags. But perhaps not.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:13 pm‘In a 2004 interview Michael Moore’s producers filmed but didn’t use in “Farenheit 9/11,” Goss said: “I couldn’t get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified.” Goss said that he lacked the “cultural background” and “technical skills” the agency now requires.’
So much for Feinstein’s argument.
link
January 6th, 2009 at 12:15 pmFeinstein is on the following committees (among others):
Select Committee on Intelligence (Chairwoman)
Subcommittee on Defense
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights
These first two committees would give her an inside look into many of Bush/Cheney’s illegal doings. The last two committees give her opportunities to bring these many crimes to light. She willingly looked the other way and managed to financially profit off the war in Iraq. She supported Bush’s war despite inside knowlege of their being no evidence of WMDs. She supported Bush’s FISA Act, was a cosponsor of the USA PAtriot Act and heavy supporter of Mukasey.
A few of the committees that Jay Rockefeller belong to:
Select Committee on Intelligence – Chairman
Subcommittee on Oversight of the Terrorist Surveillance Program (Vice Chairman)
Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation
He was a staunch water carrier in the lead up to the Iraq invasion, a leader in the fight to grant immunity to the telecoms, voted with Republicans to suspend Habeas Corpus.Rockefeller’s vote gave a retroactive, nine-year immunity to U.S. officials who authorized, ordered, or committed acts of torture and abuse.
Despite having knowlege of Bush’s torture program and the destruction of taped interrogations he opposed a special counsel or commission inquiry into the destruction of the tapes.
It’s pretty easy to see why these two @ssclowns should be nervous about the prospect of actual oversight and having someone diametrically opposed to Bush’s crimes and policies in a position to unravel the past eight years of broken laws and traitorous acts. What kind of complcities might someone like Panetta uncover? Don’t even get me started on Nancy Pelosi’s part in ignoring her Constitutional duties either! America has no place for capitulating Blue Dog Dems and the rest of the ineffectual party leadership that we have had for the last several years. They are all dirty and deserve to be stripped of their leadership roles and perhaps some jail time if they are proven to have abetted the Bush/Cheney crimes. Their collective lack of any real oversight and blind eyes to obvious impeachable crimes speak volumes to their own bloody hands in this sad chapter in American history.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:19 pmPanetta’s job will be to be the lipstick on the pig.
or, if you like, a sock-puppet…
He’ll be there to put a ‘face’ of accountability on the CIA, but he won’t interfere in any meaningful way with operations.
Hyar kum de o’ bahss, same lahk de new Bahss…
January 6th, 2009 at 12:22 pmwe know rocky is a crook based on his involvement in telecom immunity and his singing off on the bushwa he was handed for a war.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:24 pmwe know the difi is seriously disturbed to find that she is really a republican hack. Her actions in the last 8 years prove she has changed sides and is keeping that from her constituents.
Anything that disturbs them also disturbs their neocon handlers. Both are clearly owned for the illegal activities that the wiretaps have provided cheney. I wonder how long the blackmail has been going on?
Well really, who cares …
January 6th, 2009 at 12:27 pmThis seems typical. The politicians complain when they are cut out of the loop, but could care less about rampant lawlessness. I guess the President can do whatever he wants as long as he rubs the right bellies.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:29 pmtokin librul Says:
Think so huh?
Then there’s this:
What do you base your assumption on?
January 6th, 2009 at 12:37 pmChalmers Johnson in an excellent interview describes ’spot on’ the Congress of the United states. Watch it on YouTube it is very relevant to today’s events and what is to come…
January 6th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Diane Feinstein has been in the back pocket of the Bush Administration for years. She strongly supported Connie Rice her friend for Secretary of State knowing she had no experience. While California had it’s worse Wild Fire Diane got on Air Force One to make a deal with Bush for her husband to get a big US contract in turn Diane would quickly confirm Michael Mukasey as the White House needed to continue to cover up the crimes being committed. When the rats start sing on the rats you can be sure there will be some big Democratic names released. Speaker Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, Harry Reid and Chuck Shumer are just a few that have made backroom deals for profit from the Bush Administration over the pass 8 years.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:47 pmFeinstein and especially Rockefeller are just worried that their complicity in torture and wiretapping policies will be fully exposed.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:50 pmFeinstein and Rockefeller – why don’t you guys just face the fact that there is a new game now and the same old tactics you used before were part of the problem.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:55 pmObama is seeking persons who will be part of the remedy for the roles you played in approving the cabal of criminals nominated by Bush&Co.
This could be my favorite pick so far . . . anything that ticks off the Democratic Bush enablers, especially on this topic, has got to have merit. Happy hunting.
January 6th, 2009 at 1:11 pmDiane and Jay need to STFU. Obama won, he gets his picks. Jay Rockefeller who could have blown the whistle on a lot of this stuff over the past eight years is puzzled? Damn right he is puzzled and has been puzzled; why does he get a say?
January 6th, 2009 at 1:21 pmHere is Feinstein & Rockefeller’ # call and express your disgust.Ask ‘em to resign for the role they played with BushCO in the torture on innocent civilians.
January 6th, 2009 at 1:25 pmRockefeller:202- 224-6472
Feinstein:202-224-3841
I can’t wait to be rid of Feinstein. So sick of her BS.
Love Boxer, though!
January 6th, 2009 at 1:36 pmNote to Feinstein And Rockefeller: you’re not the president (elect).
Get over it and get on board, or get out of the way.
January 6th, 2009 at 1:37 pmPigs everywhere. Can we destroy the DNC already and start something new that works? Sorry Paultards, we’re not going to buy a blimp and do the airshow circuit with you.
January 6th, 2009 at 1:46 pmHmmh…I wonder if this could have something to do with Feinstein’s husband’s(Blum) connections? Try some of these links on for size:
Go to the Feinstein Trail
Go to the Blum Trail
Go to the Trail Head
Go to the Calfraud Opening Page
January 6th, 2009 at 1:51 pmBlum Hated by Labor
Feinstein, Blum, China, Cosco
Union Fund Loses Money under Blum’s management.
Cosco
China Gate Smoking Gun
Opic – U.S. government sponsored Overseas Private Investment Corporation
Clinton, Blum, Lincoln Room
.
January 6th, 2009 at 1:56 pmWhy do so many Democratic elected officials crave the approval of Republicans? And spurn the approval of their own damn party, who they basically scorn?
Feinstien, Rockefeller, Nelson, Peterson, etc, etc.
For the life of me, I do not understand this. But it’s why we have primaries!
January 6th, 2009 at 2:04 pmFeinstein has other interests other than the American people
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2192
January 6th, 2009 at 2:06 pmSens Diane and Jay can kiss my assh.
January 6th, 2009 at 2:16 pmFeinstein: “I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA Director.”
As Abe Lincoln said: “To test a man’s [and woman's] character, give him [or her] power.” And Feinstein had been tested and has failed. This is nothing for pure politics and power ego for Feinstein. And she certainly has been a disappointment as a Senator and an outspoken critic for the Bush Administration especially in the U.S. Attorney firings.
I think it is appalling for her to bellyache over not being “informed” about Obama’s pick for CIA Director when she herself chose a nimrod and inexperienced CIA Director Porter Goss. Remember Porter Goss, Diane? Remember the Dusty Foggo case and how Foggo was chosen for his job in the CIA by Goss?
There is a lot more to Feinstein’s story to why she doesn’t want Panetta as CIA Director. Feinstein better be careful about making a big stink of this since she and Chuck Schumer caved and voted for the worst AG: Michael Mukasey.
January 6th, 2009 at 2:20 pmIdle threats. The rest of her cohorts will protect and shield her from all criticism. These politicians live in a smug bubble, away from us mere mortals.
January 6th, 2009 at 2:32 pmFeinstein and Rockefeller have both been embarassments in their Senatorial advise and consent roles and, Rockefeller, also, especially in his passive oversight of the intell community.
January 6th, 2009 at 2:39 pmcue the trolls complaining about how even Democrats hate Obama’s nominees in 3…2…1…
January 6th, 2009 at 2:46 pm….and let’s not forget Diane’s vote FOR Bush’s rip-off Medicare part D.
¶ AIO
January 6th, 2009 at 2:55 pmFeinstein needs to hang it up. After being caught dealing for contracts for her husband at the expense of our military, she needs to STFU. Ever seen this article in the MSM? Another failure to hold bad people accountable.
http://www.metroactive.com/feinstein/
Feinstein is a disgrace.
January 6th, 2009 at 3:05 pmFeinstein and Rockerfeller should be at the top of the list of dinosaurs slated for political extinction. These two cowards utterly caved in to Bush’s torture regime. If they are against Panetta, then I’m for him.
January 6th, 2009 at 3:14 pmwhiny brat rhf, please shut up.
January 6th, 2009 at 3:22 pmDiane Feinstein is my Senator here in San F. I would not vote for this woman no matter what. She is known here as the Joe Liberman of the Democratic party.
She is a Republican. She has been nearly always a Bush supporter. And she will be up for re-election one day but not soon enough. She is arrogant and dismissive of most Democratic issues. I do not know why she just does not change party’s.
Like Nancy Pelosi also from this area, they should both be tossed out. I am never surprised by anything she says or does. She is rich and corporate through and through. When she leaves the Senate, she will sit on the boards of many corporations. And with her rolodex of contacts she will make even more money then her family has now. This is who she is.
January 6th, 2009 at 3:34 pmrhf, it isn’t just this one instance. Feinstein has built up a long list that has turned me against her. She seemed OK as the mayor of San Francisco, I guess, but she has really tanked over the years as a Senator.
January 6th, 2009 at 3:40 pmCareful, I smell a Hillary freak out coming…
January 6th, 2009 at 3:49 pmi have read, only a few times, that the panetta appointment had not been finalized and it was leaked somehow… andrea broke the story, i think…
it got out before that call got made, i guess…
January 6th, 2009 at 3:57 pmJust no pleasin you is there rhf? You rail against Obama for being in bed with these people and now you rail against him for not listening to them.
You can’t have it both ways little man.
January 6th, 2009 at 4:14 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
You truly are a nutcase, rhf. I must be doing something right to be deserving of your ire. I think the entire TP community has written you off by now. Please, by all means remain stuck in your Hillary time warp. It’s only 2009.
January 6th, 2009 at 4:16 pmDiane Feinstein is my Senator here in San F. I would not vote for this woman no matter what.
Spoken by a true Californian. I have many friends that live in the Bay area that completely unhappy with Feinstein. And she has completely changed. She may have the rolodex of contacts of her corporate affiliates and her buddies in the Senate to protect her, but come the 20th, she will be dealing with Obama and not Bush. So, I have a feeling that all of the Senators and Congressional leaders that are still set in their ways will have a wake up call and put on notice that the party is over for having their way. And certainly Feinstein’s decisions that she voted for that went in favor of Bush’s personal agenda will come back to bite her.
January 6th, 2009 at 4:30 pmConsidering their past votes for Bush’s selections, do they NOW understand why they weren’t consulted??
Even if they weren’t consulted, why not just STFU about it. These D.C. dinasaurs just love giving republicans ammunition that democrats are divided. It’s not like Obama nominated a mailman from Iowa, Jeez . .
January 6th, 2009 at 4:45 pmObama apologizes to Feinstein for his CIA surprise
1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday that President-elect Barack Obama apologized to her for not notifying her ahead of time that Leon Panetta was his pick for CIA director.
His name leaked to the press before Obama informed Feinstein, a California Democrat and incoming Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, who will oversee Panetta’s nomination hearing.
January 6th, 2009 at 4:57 pm[...]
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9VKSxg3vlTYL9fO-cAILwUZbM-gD95HSCU01
rhf makes a fair point here. I don’t entirely agree with it, but it’s well reasoned.
We can complain about vairous Senators all we want, but let’s face it – none of them are Lieberman, or even close. As such, it’s up to Obama to massage the vote and kiss some butts on the Hill if he expects to be allowed to “think outside the box” with picks like this.
I think Panetta may be a good idea. I think Feinstein and Rockefeller should quit being crybabies and get on board with the Democratic party as it attempts to fix the country. But I also think that Obama should have “handled” them better.
There really isn’t a good good-guy vs. bad-guy story here to get all that up in arms about. From the mild complaints that Feinstein and Rockefeller have given, it’s not at all clear that Panetta wouldn’t make it through confirmation anyways.
January 6th, 2009 at 5:15 pmNow that we are cleaning out the RepubliCons, it is time to start cleaning out some of the Dinos.
January 6th, 2009 at 7:22 pm>What’s she’s saying is that Panetta is NOT QUALIFIED
curious as to why you think that should bother her, given than she voted for Porter Goss for the same position, a man who ADMITTED publicly he was unqualified for the post but accepted it anyway..
January 6th, 2009 at 8:00 pmPanetta was my Congressman for several years. He’s integrity personified, also smart and articulate.
January 6th, 2009 at 8:14 pmRather than walking arm and arm with bu$$$$h, she should have been smearing shit all over his face and then spit at him head to toe.
You wash my back,.. I’ll wash your back,.. Fascist Corporatist Pig. You put money in my wallet,.. I’ll fatten your’s. You enrich me,.. I’ll enrich you,.. fruck the common man
http://thumbsnap.com/v/GGUKvOvq.jpg
January 6th, 2009 at 10:03 pmI believe (I may be wrong) that 9/11 might have been an inside job orchestrated to gather public support to further invade the middle east and erode our rights to make it easier for marshal law. The Bushs’ and Bin Ladens’ connections to the CIA and the Saudis is just too fishy for me. I’m not even sure if Al Qadai really exist or if its just a propaganda tool. With that said, there are PLENTY of experienced CIA officials who are against torture, illegal wirteapping, and the Iraq war. If there is a foreign threat of “terrorism” I would hope that the first priority of the CIA director is to protect the American people, then worry about how we’re percieved around the world. It is too easy for one nut-case to commit havoc, add the fact of the real possibility of a wack job getting his hands on a WMD and it scares me. I hope Panetta succeeds…
January 7th, 2009 at 8:05 am