You Know, I Knew I'd Find One of Obama's Appointments To Dislike,

and this is definitely one of them. Can someone explain to me what experience Leon Panetta has, that makes him fit to head the CIA?

Mr. Panetta has a reputation in Washington as a competent manager with strong background in budget issues, but has little hands-on intelligence experience. If confirmed by the Senate, he will take control of the agency most directly responsible for hunting senior Al Qaeda leaders around the globe, but one that has been buffeted since the Sept. 11 attacks by leadership changes and morale problems.

Given his background, Mr. Panetta is a somewhat unusual choice to lead the C.I.A., an agency that has been unwelcoming to previous directors perceived as outsiders, such as Stansfield M. Turner and John M. Deutch. But his selection points up the difficulty Mr. Obama had in finding a C.I.A. director with no connection to controversial counterterrorism programs of the Bush era.

I guess that's the issue, but you what, I think we need someone with at least some experience, right? Jane Harman would be a good choice, but she is seen by certain Lefties as being Bush-lite on wiretaps. Obama has been making a lot of sensible and pragmatic choices, and it was only a matter of time before he threw the Left a bone, but did he have to do it on this? It's the friggin' CIA we're talking about.

UPDATE: There appears to be the makings of an argument in favor of Panetta at work, that his experience as Chief of Staff, Congressman and manager will serve him as CIA chief. I was flipping channels and caught Bill Kristol of all people basically justifying the choice, and arguing that if the idea is to find a person with no ties to the Bush era, then it's the Left that'll end up being disappointed.

Who knows. I find the choice making more sense today than yesterday, but not by enough for me to be comfortable with it. Oh, and this from Andrew Sullivan is kinda mockworthy, and I think Althouse has a point here:

How is it obvious that Obama has found someone with the right skills? Where do these judgments come from? Do you think some people just have "good sense" and then they automatically know what is "never right" and what is "much less effective"? Whatever happened to deep knowledge and real-world experience? Now, you're willing to go on assertions of good character and a cocky belief in the soundness of what your instincts tell you is obvious and right? That attitude is positively... Bushian. And I remember when Andrew Sullivan loved exactly that about Bush.

ADDED: After thinking it over some more, and reading the comments, this pick sounds a lot less crazy now than it did a few days ago. I'm still concerned, but I'm willing to let Obama make the case.