Spy vs. Why?

Leon Panetta was tapped by Prez-Elect Obama to be the head of the CIA. Despite Sean Hannity's point that Panetta says he didn't know about the whole Lewinsky mess while White House Chief of Staff (y'know, right under his nose), there is significant griping from high-ranking Dems (Feintein, Rockefeller) that Panetta doesn't have any sort of security background. And yeah, okay, maybe he doesn't, but a good point was finally made today by Rachel Maddow on Countdown, that appointing someone who Senate leaders (who signed off on torture, wire-tapping, etc.) don't like doesn't really matter. 

They get to have their say when it comes to hearings and the like, but no, BO doesn't need to actually run things by these people who worked with the Bush Administration on these controversial issues. 

I was unclear about how I felt over here about the Panetta pick, but now I think I'm in favor of it. I don't like career spy guys, and the position is basically bureaucratic. It's important to have someone giving BO the right info, not someone who is prone to "intel failures" due to differences in opinion over what's important.