Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

3 Bumps

Panetta to head Pentagon?

Really? Defense Secretary? Panetta is not qualified in the position he is in much less for Defense Secretary. Thoughts?


Link text

Answer Question
 
itsmesteph11

Asked by itsmesteph11 at 10:01 AM on Apr. 27, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (113,405 Credits)
Answers (9)
  • It might be more HELPFUL if he actually put a military person in charge of defense. But, this is Obama..king of the boo boo's.

    Petraeus is taking over the CIA. I wonder if the liberals will have problems with him "double dipping"?
    yourspecialkid

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 10:15 AM on Apr. 27, 2011


  • But that would take way too much common sense YSK! Does anyone but me remember when Bush was president and nominated Petraeus how he was hated and a full page ad taken out in the NY Times denouncing him? And now he's fine because it's Obama appointing him? SMH


    And Panetta in charge of the Pentagon? The article I read said because of his "budget" experience.


    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.


    http://www.wtop.com/?nid=209&sid=2360915

    DSamuels

    Answer by DSamuels at 10:35 AM on Apr. 27, 2011

  • Oh they want him for the budget alright...they are looking for someone to gut it. Yes, there are things that could be done that would save money..but gutting it is not the answer. How about if they start by not penalizing the different "depts" for coming in UNDER budget?

    yourspecialkid

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 10:53 AM on Apr. 27, 2011

  • I read this earlier and still can't quite accept such idiocy. Panetta as Sec. of Defense?!? Actually, that goes beyond idiocy.

    YSK, you;ve made that point before ~ and I agree with it 100%. It happens at all levels, and not just in the military. It's the problem that creates all of the rest as far as spending and waste within the military, but it is the one glaring exception when the pencil pushers and bean counters are told to cut back.
    Farmlady09

    Answer by Farmlady09 at 11:30 AM on Apr. 27, 2011

  • Oh they want him for the budget alright...they are looking for someone to gut it. Yes, there are things that could be done that would save money..but gutting it is not the answer.

    I completely agree about gutting the budget. If you cut too much you then risk the lives of the people (soldiers, CIA agents, etc) doing the work. Then of course there will be outcry from the very people who hate the military and CIA when the inevitible happens. What a conundrum!
    DSamuels

    Answer by DSamuels at 11:41 AM on Apr. 27, 2011

  • Thank you Farmlady. It just drives me nuts. People wonder why there is always new office furniture and big screen tv's...they just put a huge tv/monitor thingy in a meeting room at my husband's work. There was nothing wrong with the "old"..a couple of years..one.

    yourspecialkid

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 12:11 PM on Apr. 27, 2011

  • A military person in charge of defense? What a novel idea! Look back over the past six presidencies and the current one; not one career military person appointed as SecDef, all the way back to '75. It's as if military experience doesn't matter for the office.

    The roll call:

    Panetta was a second lieutenant in the US Army.
    Gates was a second lieutenant in the US Air Force.
    Rumsfeld was a peacetime naval aviator, and then a reservist who retired with the rank of Captain.
    William Cohen had NO military service.
    William Perry enlisted in the Army in WWII and went on to the Army Reserves.
    Les Aspin was an Army officer for two years.
    Dick Cheney got draft deferments.
    Frank Carlucci was a naval officer for two years.
    Caspar Weinberger entered the Army in WWII and rose to captain on MacArthur's intelligence staff.
    Harold Brown had no military service.
    And that takes us back to Rumsfeld.
    gdiamante

    Answer by gdiamante at 2:35 PM on Apr. 27, 2011

  • I'm sorry gdiamante..I don't think being a second lt really qualifies you to be the Top Gun. The military needs to be run by someone with REAL military experience..long term military experience...imo.
    yourspecialkid

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 2:46 PM on Apr. 27, 2011

  • YSK, I don't disagree with you... but review that list again, looking back to the Nixon era. Five Republicans and three Democrats in the White House in that period... and you can see the records of those they appointed. The highest rank is captain, and not one was career military.

    That's why I said it was a novel idea to appoint a military person as SecDef. No President seems to have considered it. Or maybe they did and rejected it?
    gdiamante

    Answer by gdiamante at 12:09 PM on Apr. 28, 2011

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN