kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jan 7, 2009 15:01:49 GMT -5
Agreed, general refers to job responsibilities and not to a rank, but further confusing the situation is that the Surgeon General is considered a vice admiral in the uniformed public health corps and that's why they wear those uniforms. Not sure if Dr. Gupta needs to become a vice admiral, though. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_K._GalsonUnless the person also holds an assistant sec'y' position in HSS like David Satcher did, then he or she is a Rear Admiral. And yes, they get to wear a uniform. |
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,606
|
Post by hoyatables on Jan 7, 2009 16:06:27 GMT -5
Does the Surgeon general get to wear a uniform? Ok, this is a giant pet peeve of mine. The "general" in attorney general and surgeon general is an adjective, not a title. It describes practice area. I remember watching Alberto Gonzales testifying before Congress and cringing when members addressed him as "General Gonzales". and this is why the plural is attorneys general or surgeons general. hoyatalk -- good for basketbal, politics, and grammar since 1996. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 7, 2009 19:50:56 GMT -5
well it's hard to pick someone more qualified then Leon Panetta, who was present at daily security briefings during the Clinton year, and helped to shape security policy during that time. No evidence to support his helping shape security policy (re intelligence), otherwise why would some Democratic Senators like Diane Feinstein be so concerned that he lacks experience in the area of intelligence? |
|
DrumsGoBang
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
DrumsGoBang - Bang Bang
Posts: 910
|
Post by DrumsGoBang on Jan 8, 2009 8:25:24 GMT -5
Because she probably wanted some weed smoking hippy that was all about peace and love.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,913
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jan 8, 2009 9:14:04 GMT -5
well it's hard to pick someone more qualified then Leon Panetta, who was present at daily security briefings during the Clinton year, and helped to shape security policy during that time. No evidence to support his helping shape security policy (re intelligence), otherwise why would some Democratic Senators like Diane Feinstein be so concerned that he lacks experience in the area of intelligence? Short Answer: Diane is pi$$y because she is the incoming Chair of the SSCI and was not consulted about the pick (presumably she would've been told before it was publicly announced, but it was leaked early). Meanwhile, some others, including Senator Wyden, were asked for input. This is particularly galling for Feinstein because Panetta is actually from California. It's all about staking a claim as a hands-on and authoritative Chair (something that Rockefeller, who was not terribly well-suited to the job, was not). |
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,913
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jan 8, 2009 9:19:02 GMT -5
I agree, Sanjay Gupta is much more qualified to be Surgeon General than Leon Panetta is qualified to head the CIA. I would point out that Panetta is far more qualified/experienced than George H.W. Bush was when he was tapped to run the CIA. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 8, 2009 11:03:11 GMT -5
I agree, Sanjay Gupta is much more qualified to be Surgeon General than Leon Panetta is qualified to head the CIA. I would point out that Panetta is far more qualified/experienced than George H.W. Bush was when he was tapped to run the CIA. In what way? I'm not saying Panetta is not qualified (I'd say he's not the right choice, but not for a lack of qualifications), but to say that he's FAR MORE qualified or experienced than GHWB? That's a stretch at best. Neither can boast any legitimate -- or at least extensive -- intelligence background, while both boast extensive political and public service background. You could say that Panetta has a bit of an edge on intelligence as a WH COS, but not every COS is Leo McGarry. As has been pointed out, there's really no evidence that his COS term involved extensive work in intelligence areas. GHWB would be more of a statesman, with his UN and Chinese experience, while Panetta is more of a domestic policy craftsman. I'd say both are qualified, neither really much more than the other. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Jan 8, 2009 11:05:39 GMT -5
No evidence to support his helping shape security policy (re intelligence), otherwise why would some Democratic Senators like Diane Feinstein be so concerned that he lacks experience in the area of intelligence? Shocking that after torture, extraordinary rendition, Abu Ghraib, FISA, all manner of warrantless wiretaps, and Plame that they would choose someone from outside the culture of the CIA to run it. |
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,913
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jan 8, 2009 11:28:45 GMT -5
I would point out that Panetta is far more qualified/experienced than George H.W. Bush was when he was tapped to run the CIA. In what way? I'm not saying Panetta is not qualified (I'd say he's not the right choice, but not for a lack of qualifications), but to say that he's FAR MORE qualified or experienced than GHWB? That's a stretch at best. Neither can boast any legitimate -- or at least extensive -- intelligence background, while both boast extensive political and public service background. You could say that Panetta has a bit of an edge on intelligence as a WH COS, but not every COS is Leo McGarry. As has been pointed out, there's really no evidence that his COS term involved extensive work in intelligence areas. GHWB would be more of a statesman, with his UN and Chinese experience, while Panetta is more of a domestic policy craftsman. I'd say both are qualified, neither really much more than the other. Bush's public sector experience at that point was: Congressman for 2 terms, Ambassador to the U.N. for 2 years, Nixon's hand-picked Chairman of the RNC, and Chief of the U.S. Liason Office in China for 14 months. Panetta was, starting in 1966, a legislative assistant to the Senate Minority Whip, assistant to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Director of the Office for Civil Rights, Executive Assistant to the Mayor of New York, a nine-term congressman (including Chairman of the Budget Committee), Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and, finally, Chief of Staff to the President. I think it's pretty clear who has the more extensive public service experience. Not every Chief of Staff is Leo McGarry, but the job necessarily entails a lot of both foreign policy work and reading a lot of intelligence. Even if Panetta was more of a domestic policy guy, I think there's a lot of transferable skills involved in managing a major agency. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 8, 2009 12:07:21 GMT -5
Oh, come on now. Legislative and executive assistant positions? Do any of those things you listed before Congressman really count? Just because it's public sector experience doesn't necessarily mean it's relevant experience.
I could just as easily say that George Bush had a lot more extensive exposure to intelligence briefings and information as a Navy pilot during a war than Leon Panetta ever did in any job he had before (or maybe even during) Congressman. Or that being president of an oil company is relevant experience for running a major government agency.
We are certainly quibbling at this point. I realize that. My point was, they were both experienced and qualified. I simply disputed the "far more" part, and I still do, but it doesn't mean I think Panetta is LESS qualified or experienced.
As I said, I think this is a bad choice, but that is not because of any qualification issue.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,913
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jan 8, 2009 12:29:26 GMT -5
This is sort of a tangent, but I wouldn't underestimate the important of assistant-type positions. Biden's top assistant gets to replace him in the Senate because he's essentially been doing many of the same things for the last few years, and being an assistant/adjutant to a flag officer in the military, or to a senior executive service-ranking civil servant on the civilian side, is often considered to be a fast-track up the career ladder.
Also, Bush's naval career wasn't that much longer than Panetta's stint in the Army.
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jan 8, 2009 13:57:21 GMT -5
Both Ford and Reagan asked Edward Bennett Williams to run the CIA. His credentials: failing out of the Air Force Academy and criminally defending people like Jimmy Hoffa. I'm an EBW fan, but for all the boys on the right, I know you love you some Reagan, and one of his choices was far less qualified than Panetta.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 8, 2009 14:22:28 GMT -5
I don't think this is really an argument we're having. More like filling time until 1 p.m. tomorrow.  Aside from the fact that I think any Georgetown graduate is automatically qualified for just about any position we want, ( ;D )I do agree that EBW is not exactly the ideal choice to run an organization like the CIA. I'd never say Reagan was perfect.....just perfect-er. ;D I do think you're underestimating EBW's credentials just a tad, though. His government legal experience, while never actually a government official, was pretty distinguished and extensive. |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jan 8, 2009 16:33:15 GMT -5
I don't think this is really an argument we're having. More like filling time until 1 p.m. tomorrow. Aside from the fact that I think any Georgetown graduate is automatically qualified for just about any position we want, ( ;D )I do agree that EBW is not exactly the ideal choice to run an organization like the CIA. I'd never say Reagan was perfect.....just perfect-er. ;D I do think you're underestimating EBW's credentials just a tad, though. His government legal experience, while never actually a government official, was pretty distinguished and extensive. As a qualification of my employment, I must chime in to say that EBW is awesome!!!!!!!!eleventy!! |
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,488
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jan 9, 2009 13:10:18 GMT -5
Al Franken is a comedian?
I guess as much as that Bonzo guy was an actor. "I can't feel my legs!"
Welcome to Minnesota, the home of Senator Stuart Smalley and former Governor Body.
It just goes to show we Californians aren't the only ones living in Toontown.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 9, 2009 13:49:51 GMT -5
Minnesota should have to forfeit a SEanate seat for six years. Chuckleheads.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 9, 2009 15:03:36 GMT -5
I wouldn't exactly brag about being part of Bill Clinton's National Security team. Frankly, I'm shocked Lightfingers Berger wasn't tapped.
|
|
DrumsGoBang
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
DrumsGoBang - Bang Bang
Posts: 910
|
Post by DrumsGoBang on Jan 9, 2009 15:11:26 GMT -5
Why not? What was wrong with his Nation Security team?
It's not a valid argument if you don't back up your point.
|
|
DrumsGoBang
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
DrumsGoBang - Bang Bang
Posts: 910
|
Post by DrumsGoBang on Jan 9, 2009 15:15:39 GMT -5
I don't know what is happening to me. I used to be the guy that would just post "FUNIONS". Now I'm debating national security appointments.
I'm getting to old. Damn you time!!!!!
I think I'll join the Green Man post. "Wild Card!"
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 9, 2009 15:33:44 GMT -5
USS Cole, Khobar Towers, WTC I, offer of Bin Laden refused, need more?
His NSA advisor convicted of stealing documents from the 9/11 Commission?
|
|
