PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Security Reorg: Patraeus to CIA, Panetta to Defense


Amnorix
07-01-2011, 07:32 AM
As you may know, some senior officials are being reshuffled, with current CIA Director Panetta going to Defense, while four star general extraordinaire David Patraeus is taking over for him at CIA.

In doing so, Patraeus will be closing out his military career, which by any standard has been phenomenally successful. He may, in fact, go down in history as one of our best ever, given the difficulty of the circumstances. I hope his tenure at CIA is as successful as his military efforts have been, congratulate him and thank him for his military service to our country, and hope that he continues to serve in whatever roles best suit his extraordinary talents.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/30/petraeus.cia/index.html?hpt=hp_bn4

Dave Lane
07-01-2011, 07:40 AM
Nicely done I like this.

mlyonsd
07-01-2011, 07:45 AM
I doubt Patraeus would ever suck at anything he did. Panetta - he has huge shoes to fill.

Amnorix
07-01-2011, 08:03 AM
I doubt Patraeus would ever suck at anything he did. Panetta - he has huge shoes to fill.

I agree. The fact that he appears to have done well at CIA is a good thing in terms of establishing his credentials. Presumably, the WH ran Panetta by Patraeus and/or Gates to see if they thought he'd be a good fit.

If Patraeus wants to, and does well running the agency and dealing with the politicians, I can easily see him becoming SecDef in the future, as George Marshall did after WWII. One of the huge benefits to any President in such a situation is the MASSIVE credibility such a figure brings to the post when they testify before Congress.

Patraeus could also be instrumental in dealing with the military budget cuts that are looming. Even the Republicans have started to give way on this isssue in the current budget talks. It is inevitable. It's no longer an "if", it's now "when" and "how much".

KILLER_CLOWN
07-01-2011, 09:13 AM
Deck chairs on the Titanic.

BucEyedPea
07-01-2011, 09:21 AM
Deck chairs on the Titanic.

:thumb:

vailpass
07-01-2011, 09:30 AM
How scary is it that obama is in charge?

Amnorix
07-01-2011, 11:13 AM
How scary is it that obama is in charge?


Not scary at all.

patteeu
07-01-2011, 11:21 AM
How scary is it that obama is in charge?

Quite. Let's put an end to that in 17 months and hope he hasn't done too much damage.

Amnorix
07-01-2011, 12:12 PM
Quite. Let's put an end to that in 17 months and hope he hasn't done too much damage.

Feel safer with Bachmann, will ya? :p

BucEyedPea
07-01-2011, 01:00 PM
How scary is it that obama is in charge?
VERY!!!! what's also scary is that another NeoCon, Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), has entered the race too.

VAChief
07-01-2011, 04:41 PM
Not scary at all.

Left over the top hyperbole...unpatriotic

Right over the top hyperbole...divine guidance

stevieray
07-01-2011, 04:51 PM
...divine guidance

religious dicrimination...and the other is character assassination.

so it is basically the same thing, no?

fan4ever
07-01-2011, 05:43 PM
I'm a little confused; isn't this the guy who the Dems thought was misleading them about the "surge" just a few years ago? I remember specifically Obama, Biden, and Clinton being very skeptical about his reporting. I remember him being called "General Betray-us" by some of the libs out there as well.

How times change.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-01-2011, 09:11 PM
I'm a little confused; isn't this the guy who the Dems thought was misleading them about the "surge" just a few years ago? I remember specifically Obama, Biden, and Clinton being very skeptical about his reporting. I remember him being called "General Betray-us" by some of the libs out there as well.

How times change.

Yup and unlike the Obamaknobslobbers i still feel this way.

Chiefshrink
07-02-2011, 11:37 AM
Not scary at all.

Of course not from a "useful idiot" like yourself:thumb:

Chiefshrink
07-02-2011, 11:46 AM
Deck chairs on the Titanic.

Not so fast. I really think Petraus will be calling "all the shots" including Defense because you know Panetta will be calling him up all the time asking what he should do. And I like he is now in charge of the CIA as a conservative because now he will be able to run a alot of covert operations behind Obama's back in order to protect us. This will also fire up morale in the CIA as well. Good move and I bet dollars to donuts Petraus has been jockying for this position for some time because he knows that in order for our military to be more successful we need our CIA to be able to do their job. Osama was already an easy foregone conclusion that Panetta made the call on because Obama sat on his hands for months when it could have been done long ago.

But Panetta will not be as covert like Petraus will:thumb:

Sorry if this offends you BEP but we have to protect our country.:thumb:

BucEyedPea
07-02-2011, 01:33 PM
Sorry if this offends you BEP but we have to protect our country.:thumb:

I agree, only that's not what is being done. Don't let the NC's manipulate you with their exaggerations, half-truths and lies. They will come for you Christians later.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-02-2011, 06:31 PM
Not so fast. I really think Petraus will be calling "all the shots" including Defense because you know Panetta will be calling him up all the time asking what he would do. And I like he is now in charge of the CIA as a conservative because now he will be able to run a alot of covert operations behind Obama's back in order to protect us. This will also fire up morale in the CIA as well. Good move and I bet dollars to donuts Petraus has been jockying for this position for some time because he knows that in order for our military to be more successful we need our CIA to be able to do their job. Osama was already an easy foregone conclusion that Panetta made the call on because Obama sat on his hands for months when it could have been done long ago.

But Panetta will not be as covert like Patraus will:thumb:

Sorry if this offends you BEP but we have to protect our country.:thumb:

If we were interested in protecting the country we wouldn't be destroying the economy and starting wars on multiple fronts with no objective in sight.

VAChief
07-02-2011, 09:12 PM
I agree, only that's not what is being done. Don't let the NC's manipulate you with their exaggerations, half-truths and lies. They will come for you Pharisees later.

fyp

Chiefshrink
07-03-2011, 01:12 PM
If we were interested in protecting the country we wouldn't be destroying the economy and starting wars on multiple fronts with no objective in sight.

With all due respect, "Jesus said IF you follow me you WILL be hated. And God knows our enemies and so do his flock, including you:thumb: Have we as a country made mistakes foreign policy wise? Sure. But we will always be "hated" regardless of those mistakes like it or not. Beirut bombing, WTC "93" Cole bombing and 9/11 is a perfect example.:thumb:

Amnorix
07-03-2011, 09:41 PM
Not so fast. I really think Petraus will be calling "all the shots" including Defense because you know Panetta will be calling him up all the time asking what he would do. And I like he is now in charge of the CIA as a conservative because now he will be able to run a alot of covert operations behind Obama's back in order to protect us. This will also fire up morale in the CIA as well. Good move and I bet dollars to donuts Petraus has been jockying for this position for some time because he knows that in order for our military to be more successful we need our CIA to be able to do their job. Osama was already an easy foregone conclusion that Panetta made the call on because Obama sat on his hands for months when it could have been done long ago.

But Panetta will not be as covert like Petraus will:thumb:

Sorry if this offends you BEP but we have to protect our country.:thumb:

You have very weird notions of how things work.

I love how you assume Patraeus is a conservative. I'm sure you're aware that many high military officials have been moderate and even supported Democrats. Not a majority, I wouldn't think, but certainly not zero either...

patteeu
07-03-2011, 10:28 PM
You have very weird notions of how things work.

I love how you assume Patraeus is a conservative. I'm sure you're aware that many high military officials have been moderate and even supported Democrats. Not a majority, I wouldn't think, but certainly not zero either...

Yeah, I think it's unlikely that he's a movement conservative and even more unlikely that he's going to be doing covert stuff (that Obama wouldn't approve of) behind the POTUS' back (nor should he).

Chiefshrink
07-04-2011, 10:13 AM
Yeah, I think it's unlikely that he's a movement conservative and even more unlikely that he's going to be doing covert stuff (that Obama wouldn't approve of) behind the POTUS' back (nor should he).

If he were not a conservative I assure you he would not of pushed Bush for the 2nd surge in Iraq. Understand there are 3 types of commander personalities that make it to the top.

1. "Yes puppets" who will mirror anything the CIC wants and loves the political game because it advances their political career more quickly. Defending our country is 2ndary to them.(a la Clark)

2. "True hawks" who have a hard time not showing their disgust for politics and just want to fight to win the war who wear their feelings on their sleeves and thus have a difficult time staying there on top because of this.(a la McCrystal)

3. "Hawks in hiding" who are disciplined and smart enough to play the political game but not for their careers but to defend our country (a la Petraus). They have the ability to move those "McClellan type"(those generals and politicians who are political nervous nellies who avoid conflict at all cost to protect their real agenda which are their political careers-and why Lincoln replaced George because he wouldn't fight in the Civil War). They are very good at manipulating and getting those "nervous nellies" to move without wearing their "hawk feelings" on their sleeves.

I assure you Obama knew Stanley was a pure "Hawk" when he appointed him but did it to appease us conservatives in the beginning. However it is also why Obama ignored him for nearly 6 mos because of his request for additional 60K troops not to mention Obama always sits on his hands when big decisions are needed because "politics" always "trumps" country.

Bet dollars to donuts McCrystal finally called Petraus and said, "Hey can you get this "Marxist Mofo" to give me additional troops before it starts looking embarrassing for us"? Damn guarantee you Petraus was the one who finally convinced Obama for the additional troops although it will never be known thus never reported.

So which one of these commander types are you patt?

Chiefshrink
07-04-2011, 10:23 AM
You have very weird notions of how things work.

I love how you assume Patraeus is a conservative. I'm sure you're aware that many high military officials have been moderate and even supported Democrats. Not a majority, I wouldn't think, but certainly not zero either...

Weird notions?? Really?? Then you do not know your CIA/Military history since WWII. Goes on continually on a regular basis in each administration regardless of Dem or Repub administration.

Some Presidents do know what is going on but do the "winky wink" and look the other way and some Presidents are totally oblivious because they refuse to fight, period, thus the "hawks" in the CIA must go "stealth".

Naivete' will eventually get you killed:thumb:

patteeu
07-04-2011, 11:43 AM
If he were not a conservative I assure you he would not of pushed Bush for the 2nd surge in Iraq. Understand there are 3 types of commander personalities that make it to the top.

1. "Yes puppets" who will mirror anything the CIC wants and loves the political game because it advances their political career more quickly. Defending our country is 2ndary to them.(a la Clark)

2. "True hawks" who have a hard time not showing their disgust for politics and just want to fight to win the war who wear their feelings on their sleeves and thus have a difficult time staying there on top because of this.(a la McCrystal)

3. "Hawks in hiding" who are disciplined and smart enough to play the political game but not for their careers but to defend our country (a la Petraus). They have the ability to move those "McClellan type"(those generals and politicians who are political nervous nellies who avoid conflict at all cost to protect their real agenda which are their political careers-and why Lincoln replaced George because he wouldn't fight in the Civil War). They are very good at manipulating and getting those "nervous nellies" to move without wearing their "hawk feelings" on their sleeves.

I assure you Obama knew Stanley was a pure "Hawk" when he appointed him but did it to appease us conservatives in the beginning. However it is also why Obama ignored him for nearly 6 mos because of his request for additional 60K troops not to mention Obama always sits on his hands when big decisions are needed because "politics" always "trumps" country.

Bet dollars to donuts McCrystal finally called Petraus and said, "Hey can you get this "Marxist Mofo" to give me additional troops before it starts looking embarrassing for us"? Damn guarantee you Petraus was the one who finally convinced Obama for the additional troops although it will never be known thus never reported.

So which one of these commander types are you patt?

I'm not a commander.

Your use of the word "conservative" to mean hawk seems misplaced to me. There are quite a few conservatives these days that aren't all that hawkish. As for Petraeus, I think he's shown himself to be a good soldier seeking victory rather than personal achievement, but I'm not gong to assume that he'd go rogue as CIA chief just because he doesn't see eye to eye with the CiC.

BucEyedPea
07-04-2011, 12:12 PM
True conservatives aren't even hawks.

Chiefshrink
07-04-2011, 01:29 PM
I'm not a commander.

Your use of the word "conservative" to mean hawk seems misplaced to me. There are quite a few conservatives these days that aren't all that hawkish. As for Petraeus, I think he's shown himself to be a good soldier seeking victory rather than personal achievement, but I'm not gong to assume that he'd go rogue as CIA chief just because he doesn't see eye to eye with the CiC.

Who said anything about going rogue? All I said is covert when truly defending our country.

Chiefshrink
07-04-2011, 01:30 PM
True conservatives aren't even hawks.

Oh yes they are when are country is being threatened but I get your Neo C point(playing war when we don't need to be).

Chiefshrink
07-04-2011, 01:35 PM
There are quite a few conservatives these days that aren't all that hawkish.

Who are these conservatives that would not defend our country?

I think your definition of a "hawk" is misplaced thus your definition of a true conservative as well:shrug:

Not trying to pick a fight:thumb:

patteeu
07-04-2011, 01:46 PM
Who are these conservatives that would not defend our country?

I think your definition of a "hawk" is misplaced thus your definition of a true conservative as well:shrug:

Not trying to pick a fight:thumb:

Using standard definitions, I'd consider Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul to be conservatives who are not hawkish on our current conflicts. I consider them conservatives even if I don't agree with their foreign policy ideas.

:shrug:

Amnorix
07-04-2011, 07:41 PM
Yeah, I think it's unlikely that he's a movement conservative and even more unlikely that he's going to be doing covert stuff (that Obama wouldn't approve of) behind the POTUS' back (nor should he).

Exactly. Career military men aren't usually known for being rogue operators (Ollie North notwithstanding).

Amnorix
07-04-2011, 07:43 PM
If he were not a conservative I assure you he would not of pushed Bush for the 2nd surge in Iraq. Understand there are 3 types of commander personalities that make it to the top.

1. "Yes puppets" who will mirror anything the CIC wants and loves the political game because it advances their political career more quickly. Defending our country is 2ndary to them.(a la Clark)

2. "True hawks" who have a hard time not showing their disgust for politics and just want to fight to win the war who wear their feelings on their sleeves and thus have a difficult time staying there on top because of this.(a la McCrystal)

3. "Hawks in hiding" who are disciplined and smart enough to play the political game but not for their careers but to defend our country (a la Petraus). They have the ability to move those "McClellan type"(those generals and politicians who are political nervous nellies who avoid conflict at all cost to protect their real agenda which are their political careers-and why Lincoln replaced George because he wouldn't fight in the Civil War). They are very good at manipulating and getting those "nervous nellies" to move without wearing their "hawk feelings" on their sleeves.

I assure you Obama knew Stanley was a pure "Hawk" when he appointed him but did it to appease us conservatives in the beginning. However it is also why Obama ignored him for nearly 6 mos because of his request for additional 60K troops not to mention Obama always sits on his hands when big decisions are needed because "politics" always "trumps" country.

Bet dollars to donuts McCrystal finally called Petraus and said, "Hey can you get this "Marxist Mofo" to give me additional troops before it starts looking embarrassing for us"? Damn guarantee you Petraus was the one who finally convinced Obama for the additional troops although it will never be known thus never reported.

So which one of these commander types are you patt?


:rolleyes: