Reply With Quote
So who is taking over the CIA?
So who is taking over the CIA?
LOL...
Good question. Someone should search that.
You game for that?
Not really. It was mostly curiosity. I'm sure we'll hear it soon enough. Paneta doesn't start his new job until the end of the month anyways.
It's going to be Petraeus.
So a military guy is going to run the CIA, and the CIA guy is going to run the military.
He's a democrat. I wonder if he's going to tell Obama "cut and run". Aren't you upset about that WC?
The only reason he didn't face resistance is because Defense is the repugs bread and butter, and if they obstructed this nomination it would have been a high profile disaster and played right into the narrative that they are obstructionists, which they are.
Well, I haven't given it much thought.
Some people who I disagree with policy as politicians actually do well in other jobs. Take Hillary for example. I hated her as a senator, but she fills the role of Secretary of State much better than I imagined. It is a position requiring a more friendly outlook to world policies than some have to offer. Though I will never agree with her politics in general, I do think she fits that job well. Panetta might be a good Secretary of Defense, but I really don't know his position on military action. At the same time, the realities of the job often molds a person into it somewhat.
Let's just say I'm not ready to criticize that pick as you may think. I'll take a wait and see approach.
Not necessarily. Maybe they have the same feelings I do. Besides, it appears they have done the confirmation process with integrity. Only attempting to block nominees the see problems with.
Why would Panetta be unqualified for the job? Have any reasons? I don't. Even though I don't agree with his arguments, he is well versed in such things.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 06-23-2011 at 08:00 PM.
Nothing eases me more than a secretary of defense that worked with debits and credits, on top of serving a total of 2 whole years in our military.
lol integrity
lol viva ankle biting
Republican integrity is an oxymoron at this point.
Go look at some of Obama's other nominations, WC.
Take Elizabeth Warren for example, the republicans have basically said they don't care who's nominated to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, they're going to obstruct it because they disagree with the office altogether. So basically, they don't even care who's running for what anymore. If they don't like even an office, that's justification enough for them to obstruct. Integrity my ass.
They've made a mockery of the whole process.
Yes, three is the magic number of years to serve.
Or zero.
Democrats have made a mockery of the new position by creating the law and position with party-line support.
Why do democrats thing we need to always make the bureaucracy bigger and bigger and bigger?
Which Republican made it smaller?
I don't know. Thing is, they aren't so active in making government larger.
The record doesn't show this to be true.
They aren't so active in shrinking it, that's for sure.
Haven't we had enough? Isn't enough, enough already?
Why do you guys not even give the ever expanding bureaucracy a second though?
It doesn't matter who does it. they both do. It becomes a lesser of two evils until American voters get the collective heads out of their asses. We need to eliminate almost all who are in congress now, and start over.
My God.
I did it again. This is my last post here on this tangent. Want to continue, revive an old related thread, or start a new one.
Yes, three is the magic number of years to serve.
Or zero.
Ya know, this is really ancient news, guys. The announcement about the nominations was made weeks ago.
Congress approves Panetta because he is a former congressman and knows how to get along with the Hill.
Petraeus to the CIA is the more surprising move, IMHO, and suggests an agenda on Obama's part that is wayyyyy too subtle for me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
