News was reporting that Leon Pannetta was leaving CIA for Department of Defense, and Petreus was going to head the CIA. No links yet.
Thoughts, other than a frothing siezure by Hans?
LOLWUT
Can't they just clone Gates so he can remain SECDEF forever?
Yeah, I heard the news.
Did you know that GEN Petreus himself gave me a commendation for waking my Brigade's number 2 High Value Target back in 2007?
He is way too popular.
What's gonna happen when he calls his Legions on to Washington?
Or do you doubt that if one day he runs for the Presidency he is going to get my vote, and the rest of the army as well?
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2011, 07:50:11 PM
He is way too popular.
Or do you doubt that if one day he runs for the Presidency he is going to get my vote, and the rest of the army as well?
I didn't think war criminals had right to vote.
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2011, 07:50:11 PM
What's gonna happen when he calls his Legions on to Washington?
You drill a hole in hole in his skull, and save the day. :hug:
Quote from: Legbiter on April 28, 2011, 08:07:54 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2011, 07:50:11 PM
What's gonna happen when he calls his Legions on to Washington?
You drill a hole in hole in his skull, and save the day. :hug:
GEN Petreus is a good guy.
Believe me, I can tell when a GEN really cares about the men-at-arms or the small-folk.
WTF does Panetta have on Obama to land an even higher profile job for which he has zero qualifications. Oh well, I know some folks who will be happy he's moving on.
Quote from: derspiess on April 28, 2011, 09:13:56 PM
WTF does Panetta have on Obama to land an even higher profile job for which he has zero qualifications. Oh well, I know some folks who will be happy he's moving on.
Come on. High profile positions are all political appointments.
You don't have to know shit about the job.
Your secretary does.
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2011, 07:50:11 PM
Did you know that GEN Petreus himself gave me a commendation for waking my Brigade's number 2 High Value Target back in 2007?
Why would you get a commendation for waking someone up? And why would you wake a high value target, where you trying to tip him off? And how did you get to be in position to wake him anyway?
Quote from: derspiess on April 28, 2011, 09:13:56 PM
WTF does Panetta have on Obama to land an even higher profile job for which he has zero qualifications. Oh well, I know some folks who will be happy he's moving on.
every time a CIA director has moved on, I've known people who have been happy! :lol:
That's the nature of bureaucracy. Panetta is no great leader, from what I have heard, but he seems to be a great manager, and that certainly is what the CIA needed. I think he is going to the Playpen because he is extremely competent and well-respected on both sides of the aisle, and in his position that probably counts for more than military experience. After all, Rumsfeld had prior military experience but not the competence or respect, and his failure in the playpen is attributable to those factors, i think.
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2011, 06:51:03 AM
but he seems to be a great manager,
Based upon what?
Quote from: derspiess on April 28, 2011, 09:13:56 PM
WTF does Panetta have on Obama to land an even higher profile job for which he has zero qualifications. Oh well, I know some folks who will be happy he's moving on.
He has the most pertinent qualification - the ability to handle a large complex budget and make required cuts.
Quote from: derspiess on April 29, 2011, 09:11:59 AM
Based upon what?
His success at his current and previous jobs.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 29, 2011, 09:16:56 AM
He has the most pertinent qualification - the ability to handle a large complex budget and make required cuts.
He does have experience with budgets, I'll grant. But making cuts??
Quote from: derspiess on April 29, 2011, 10:10:39 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 29, 2011, 09:16:56 AM
He has the most pertinent qualification - the ability to handle a large complex budget and make required cuts.
He does have experience with budgets, I'll grant. But making cuts??
Might have been before your time. There was a President named Clinton, and Panetta was his budget director (and later Chief of Staff). Clinton had a budget surplus, due mostly to downsizing government (total government expenditures dropping during Panetta's terms from 22% of GDP to 18% of GDP).
I know it is hard to believe that government spending could be cut, but it has happened. And, frankly, there isn't anyone else at this level in the US government (or who has experience at this level) who has any experience in budget-cutting. Other people just don't believe in it.
That's how you define budget-cutting? :huh:
Quote from: derspiess on April 29, 2011, 11:29:50 PM
That's how you define budget-cutting? :huh:
Why not, since when did GDP growth matter?
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 30, 2011, 12:00:36 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 29, 2011, 11:29:50 PM
That's how you define budget-cutting? :huh:
Why not, since when did GDP growth matter?
It matters - a lot.
But it doesn't equal budget cutting either.
Quote from: derspiess on April 29, 2011, 11:29:50 PM
That's how you define budget-cutting? :huh:
Do you really expect me to respond to the Yicratic method forever? Do you actually have a point you want to make?
Let's say the defense budget was currently only $83 billion and had been that way since 1945.
There would there would be a sense in which one could say that the defense budget had never been cut since the height of WW2.