Bush changes order of succession on 12-22-2005

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   
www.whitehouse.gov...


the new order as defined by his executive order linked above:

(a) Deputy Secretary of Defense;
(b) Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence;
(c) Under Secretary of Defense for Policy;
(d) Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics;
(e) Secretary of the Army;
(f) Secretary of the Air Force;
(g) Secretary of the Navy;
(h) Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller);
(i) Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness;
(j) General Counsel of the Department of Defense, the Assistant Secretaries of Defense, and the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation;
(k) Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Material Readiness and the Director of Defense Research and Engineering;
(l) Under Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; and
(m) Assistant Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and General Counsels of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.



the old order:

(1) Deputy Secretary of Defense.
(2) Secretary of the Army.
(3) Secretary of the Navy.
(4) Secretary of the Air Force.
(5) Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
(6) Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
(7) Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
(8) Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.
(9) Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
(10) Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
(11) Director of Defense Research and Engineering.


is bush preventing a coup or planning something else?


very odd order, and interesting timing, don't you think?




posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
He basically just flipped the order of the undersecretaries in relation to the branch specific secretaries. The most logical solution that pops out to me would be that he achieved a line that goes pretty deep before you get to a branch specific secretary, thereby eliminating the potential of a single branch to appear "superior" or "better" than the other. I would also think that the undersecretaries not assigned to a specific branch might have a better overview of the departments goals as a whole, vs someone who has focused on just the Navy or the Army's involvment and goals.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Timely Action

Well, Secretary Rumsfeld is in Iraq.

Maybe the President knows something we don't?



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Well, i got to say, this president certainly keeps us busy trying to figure out whats what.


Me? I think its something sneaky.





new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join