[saturninus.ribb]

Agreed. That makes no sense to me. Not that it will make much difference in the cluster**** of a "war on terror" our country (and several others, yes, I know) is fighting.

-Arrian

[Serttyfd]

Strange choices.

I love this

A U.S. official who confirmed Panetta's move to the Pentagon said the White House chose him because of his long experience in Washington, including working with budgets at the intelligence agency, as well as his extensive experience in the field during his time as CIA director. The official said Panetta had traveled more than 200,000 miles, to more than 40 CIA stations and bases and more than 30 countries, including Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yes he's worked with budgets and flown on planes. Very experienced.

It was a joke to make him CIA director in the first place. This is just ludicrous.

[BegeMoT]

Petraeus is a smart guy, and he definitely did a good job in Iraq, especially given the circumstances and the mess it was in when he took over. I suspect he'd make a perfectly good CIA director, but it honestly would make more sense to appoint him to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

[Dayreive]

I love this



Yes he's worked with budgets and flown on planes. Very experienced.

It was a joke to make him CIA director in the first place. This is just ludicrous.

He probably is getting sent to Defense specifically because he's a "budget guy".

I think Starvadis is going to get the Chairman of the JCS job, which is a better choice than Patraeus. Patraeus is not very good on "grand strategy", although people think he is because he happens to have taken COIN to a high art.

[Zaebal]

Panetta is basically a poor man's Rumsfeld -- an old Washington hand without the defense background. I have nothing against him, but think that he's a bad substitute for Gates, who was a good and hefty Secretary of Defense. To win the budget battles, you have to have some credibility in defense issues.

I'm mystified as to why Petraeus would take a demotion to CIA. Right now, he's untouchable.

Rummie had a stronger defense background than Panetta, and he was a disaster. I'm sure though biggest reason he's going to Defennse is because he's a "Budget guy".


I suspect Petraeus is going to CIA so someone intimately familiar with two of our major wars is running the main Intel Agency.

[Ad0i89Od]

Yes, because this is such world shattering news that CHANGES EVERYTHING

[ResuNezily]

I think Patraeus didn't get the defense dept job was twofold: he could do a good job at the CIA (which is sorely needed) and because Obama doesn't need a popular figure possibly disagreeing with him on military policy issues.

[Zugaxxsn]

Yes, because this is such world shattering news that CHANGES EVERYTHING

Nice hyperbole. So you're saying he did not intend that outcome?

[daasayse]

Nice hyperbole. So you're saying he did not intend that outcome?

I'm not going to try to prove a negative. I'd you like you support your statement thought.

[Abebpabeniemo]

Does anyone think that the Osama business had anything to do with this?

[ultimda horaf]

Petraeus is getting CIA because Obama does not know the difference between counter-insurgency and counter-intelligence.

[actioliGalm]

Or maybe he didn't support the raid and Obama figured a weenie like that was better off as SECDEF and got someone to run the CIA that would be all over approving missions like this.

Yeah right! There we were thinking Ming was the sarc-ee bastard.

[mobbemeatiedy]

Now Obama can point to Panetta as being a "Successful" leader with great "Understanding" of the issues in defense while they gut the military budget to save Obamacare.

Our situation is such that gutting defense is required to save Medicare, leaving aside Obamacare.