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.