dagblog - Comments for "Petraeus as CIA Chief: A Neo-con’s Wet Dream and/or the Road to the Presidency?"

Sur le pont d'Avignon,L'on y

we are stardust — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 03:00:27 +0000

In reply to Hey, I'd give a medal to

Sur le pont d'Avignon,
L'on y danse, l'on y danse,
Sur le pont d'Avignon
L'on y danse tout en rond.

Les beaux messieurs font comme ça
Et puis encore comme ça.

Sur le pont d'Avignon,
L'on y danse, l'on y danse,
Sur le pont d'Avignon
L'on y danse tout en rond.

Les belles dames font comme ça
Et puis encore comme ça.

Sur le pont d'Avignon,
L'on y danse, l'on y danse,
Sur le pont d'Avignon
L'on y danse tout en rond.

Nice job on the deconstruction, Pug. Made me laugh.

Hey, I'd give a medal to

Obey — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 02:53:23 +0000

In reply to And Obey; you've forgotten

Hey, I'd give a medal to anyone who refused to bomb Avignon. Lovely little town.

;0)

And Obey; you've forgotten

we are stardust — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 02:29:58 +0000

In reply to What I meant was that the CIA

And Obey; you've forgotten that what we often do is give medals and promotions for cock-ups; maybe the American way of saving face. Think Paul Bremmer; think Yossarian, whose crew got awarded medals for killing fish, as Yossarian described the aborted bombing of Avignon: he dumped all his bombs into the ocean before reaching the target, so all the other bombardiers followed suit.

Bugger; I can't find the scene.

Here's Glenn Greenwald on

we are stardust — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 01:47:00 +0000

In reply to Petraeus as CIA Chief: A Neo-con’s Wet Dream and/or the Road to the Presidency?

Here's Glenn Greenwald on Ratigan speaking to Feinstein's objection to General Michael Hayden to head the CIA, and okey-dokey with Petraeus there.

I tend to agree; my take is

we are stardust — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 01:38:38 +0000

In reply to What I meant was that the CIA

I tend to agree; my take is that he really is in a more powerful position now in a way, which was really prompted me to write this up. The military seem to run the show for Democratic Presidents especially, now; maybe some way to try to outlive the 'Dems as weak on defense' theme, which given how many Democratic Presidents have started most of the wars in the past few decades is pretty silly, but...there it is...

I think Petraeus,et.al. can have pretty much free run of the dark army; and that does worry me in the long run. I expect some more of the neo-cons to show up as helpers in the effort, really.

And you know plenty; quit being so goddam modest! ;o)

What I meant was that the CIA

Obey — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 01:13:49 +0000

In reply to "As an institution it has

What I meant was that the CIA - after the 9/11 kerfuffle, after the slam-dunk Iraq embarrassment, after the Goss sabotage of the analysis division, after the 2004-reforms demotion to second-tier status, after Hayden's militarization - is a shell of its former self. It's now just another branch of military intelligence. Who cares who runs it. I don't really see how its a promotion for someone like Petraeus unless he sees it as a way to transition into civilian political life. But he doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would be comfortable with electoral politics to me. I keep thinking of how awfully uncomfortable Wesley Clark looked trying to flip pancakes somewhere in Iowa. For military guys, the whole political clownshow is just too demeaning. So I don't really see him running for anything.

But what do I know...

;0)

Nick Turse is reporting at

we are stardust — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 21:04:43 +0000

In reply to Petraeus as CIA Chief: A Neo-con’s Wet Dream and/or the Road to the Presidency?

Nick Turse is reporting at the Asia Times on one of the reasons Obama and Clinton have been relatively mute about Saleh's troops killing 130 so far protestors in Yemen. It turns out the US provided them with a nice package of arms and helicopters, including the same Hueys we used in Viet Nam.

"All told, over the past five years, the US has provided more than $300 million in aid to Yemen's security forces, with the dollars escalating precipitously under the Obama administration. In 2008, under president George W Bush, Yemen received $17.2 million in baseline military assistance (which does not include counter-terrorism or humanitarian funding).

In 2010, that number had risen to $72.3 million while, overall, Yemen received $155.3 million in US aid that year, including a "$34.5 million special operations force counter-terrorism enhancement package". These funds have provided Yemen's security forces with helicopters, Humvees, weapons, ammunition, radio systems and night-vision goggles.

Additionally, US special operations troops (along with British and Saudi military personnel) have been supporting, advising and conducting training missions with some of Yemen's elite forces - including the Republican Guard, Special Operations Forces and the National Security Bureau - which are commanded and staffed by Saleh's sons and other close relatives.

As his part of the bargain, Saleh allowed the US to launch missile strikes against suspected al-Qaeda camps in Yemen while instructing his government to take credit for the attacks (for fear that if their American origins were made clear, there might be an anti-American backlash in Yemen and the larger Arab world), according to classified State Department documents released last year by the whistleblower group WikiLeaks. "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours," Saleh told then-Central Command commander General David Petraeus following strikes in December 2009."

Turse reports on the cover story they had ready about the civilians killed...and the deal the US brokered with Saleh to turn over power for a little bit...and the ammunition that the Bahraini forces are using against the protestors there, along with the go ahead from Gates for the Saudi tanks to crush the rebellion.

Our client states and dictatorial 'allies' are pretty bad company, and not so much in favor the the Democracy we claim to be spreading around the globe.

I think you mean that CIA is

we are stardust — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 20:45:02 +0000

In reply to I'm not sure why Petraeus,

I think you mean that CIA is supposed to be a civilian post, which fact is glaringly not true with this move.

Yes, Obama should have replaced Gates: and Bernanke, not chosen Geithner and a whole stable-ful of Justice people; he chose Ray La Hood for Commerce (he oversaw Clinton's impeachment)once Judd Gregg turned him down. Man loves bi-partisanship. But for me, it's not Petraeus's party affiliation so much as his history, and his incredible political nature, his lies about the wars... Gaah!

I'm not sure why Petraeus,

Michael Maiello — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:24:38 +0000

In reply to Petraeus as CIA Chief: A Neo-con’s Wet Dream and/or the Road to the Presidency?

I'm not sure why Petraeus, who is a Republican, by the way, is getting appointments outside of the military from a President from the other party. In the military, fine. External politics don't matter so much when it comes to who gets promoted.

But the CIA is a civilian political post. The Democrat who was elected president should pick a Democrat to run it. For the same reason, he should have replaced Bob Gates at Defense immediately, with a Democrat.

You can't tell me that there aren't Democrats out there more qualified to head the CIA than Petraeus. And if Panetta is qualified to be the civilian head of DOD now, he was also qualified for the job back in 2008.

Oh, good; sometimes my IE

we are stardust — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:04:14 +0000

In reply to Just repeating the link,

Oh, good; sometimes my IE won't show videos or photos. I guess I think it's more likely that our drones and covert ops in Pakistan make it more likely that some groups would help themselves to the nukes. And Clinton, et.al. are on record as keeping themselves out of any negotiations between Pakistan and India over Kasmir. Maybe a revitalized Egypt or Turkey could help. ;o)