I'm a little surprised, but it has the potential to be a good pick. The question really is what the CIA director is expected to do - if the job is to be an efficient administrator, then intelligence experience is not necessarily required.
I think that what separates most people isn't what they stand for, but 1) how they would rank those interests, and 2) how they would achieve their goals. Now comes the hard part of governing, where everyone is presumably in the same boat but we will not have access to much of the information dictating the actions of our elected officials.
This story angers me for a number of reasons. First, it sounds as if Burris sought the death penalty for an innocent person while running for the governorship, and so I don't think he should be appointed. On the other hand, I see no legal basis for Senate Dems to block his appointment and I'm amazed that Reid decided to make a circus out of this, of all issues, at a time when there are so many other pressing problems. I'm very disappointed by Reid and company.
I don't necessarily see any point in his speaking up at this time. Either he generally agrees with existing U.S. policy, in which there would be no point in speaking up, or he disagrees with existing U.S. policy, in which case speaking up may actually cause Israel to ramp up its efforts before his inauguration. It seems to me that there are more factors at play here than people care to admit.
But if and when it is no longer a state issue, Reid will have egg on his face if Burris insists on being seated. I think the elected/appointed distinction is pretty flimsy - Reid's playing with fire, apparently on a hunch that his bluff will never be called.
I don't pretend to have a very good understanding of the conflict and so I find it hard to weigh in. I suspect that many here are in the same boat. And, since this conflict has raged for so long, and the peace process has produced so few tangible results, an outsider may wonder what good bloviating would do, anyway.