It's being widely reported that the
reason for the bizarre appointment of Leon Panetta to lead
the CIA was his opposition to aggressive interrogation, whereas
other more experienced candidates were in some way linked to the
Bush administration's interrogation policies. Whatever the moral
and practical arguments are against such interrogation methods,
it seems awfully dangerous to apply such a rigid litmus test on
that one issue, and take a risk on somebody with no intelligence
background. The Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraq War arose out of
major intelligence failures, demonstrating the glaring need for
somebody competent in charge of the CIA who actually has real
world experience in these matters, not just a Democratic Party
loyalist who has a cozy relationship with the incoming president.
