TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
06.01.2009
Bayh Backs Panetta

The high-profile Democrat (remember the Obama-Bayh ticket?) and Intelligence Committee member lauds the choice, as well as the man whom Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller are said to have preferred. His statement:

“Leon Panetta is an outstanding public servant, and I intend to support his nomination for CIA director. We should respect the judgment of President-elect Obama and his commitment to do what’s right for our country.

At the same time, I have very high regard for Steve Kappes, the deputy director of the CIA. I’ve been in some extremely sensitive meetings involving matters of life and death with him and have been impressed by his competency. I hope we can convince both Mr. Panetta and Mr. Kappes to work together at the CIA for the sake of our country’s national security.”

 --Michael Crowley

Posted: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 12:16 PM with 3 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

drdannyu said:

I don't know what goal Feinstein and Rockefeller think they're achieving by sniffing their disapproval of Panetta.  (OK, I suppose the principal of expressing disapproval when one disapproves is laudable, but I mean politically-speaking.)  Panetta is going to get in, and I can't imagine that either of them will actually put up a fight when it comes to confirmation.  Earning the soon-to-be president's ire by blocking an appointment of this nature will hardly serve their purposes.

January 6, 2009 12:37 PM

ironyroad said:

Why does everyone now have to add a y?  The word is "competence," a perfectly plain and understandable English term.

January 6, 2009 2:05 PM

propositionjoe said:

Spot on, irony. In fact,  "a competency" is a noun. In historical terms, a competency was a piece of land or other property that allowed a person to be economically independent. For example, colonial indentured servants were sometimes awarded a competency upon completion of their labor contracts so that they could become independent, functioning members of society. Long live pedantry!

January 6, 2009 5:01 PM