Betrayal and a bid for the CIA

I don't know how many of you out in ciberspace were paying attention to the General McCrystal episodes in 2009/2010.  Here's the recap.  In 2009, General Stanley McCrystal, then top commander of US forces in Afghanistan asked Pres. Obama for a troop increase.  When Obama put him off, it was leaked to the press, forcing Obama's hand and making him make a very public decision that cost him a bit of approval rating (essentially pissing him off).  Fast forward to 2010.  McCrystal did an interview with Rolling Stones Magazine critisizing the president (can you get any more public).  Of course, Obama's ego couldn't handle this and he asked for McCrystal's resignation from his post and retirement.  Now, my personal theory in this is that between the troop increase debatical and the Rolling Stones interview, General McCrystal put in his retirement paperwork.  Here's the thing about being a general in the Army; you can ask to retire, but the Army/Commander in Chief (President) is not required to grant that if they feel you are still needed.  So, here you have McCrystal tired of soldier's lives being lost due to the president's unwillingness to follow the recomendations of the person most likely to know what is needed (after all, that's what he was put there for.  Obama just gets updates, he isn't there).  So, McCrystal asks to be done with it and Obama says no.  What to do?  How about an interview guaranteed to make sure Obama has little choice but to replace him?  Go McCrystal.

So what does this have to do with the CIA?  Well, during these going-ons with McCrystal, his supervisor was General David Patraeus.  When McCrystal was asked for his resignation, General Patraeus backed up the president and willingly stepped down a slot to take over his posistion.  Now, why would he want a demotion?  Obviously, Obama wanted him there because Patraeus knows how to keep his mouth shut and do what he is told.  Patraeus, in return, is now, in 2011 making a bid to be head of the CIA.  As of the end of June, he cleared the senate 94-0.  I'm not saying that he doesn't have the experience.  I'm not saying that he isn't good at his job.  I am, however, concerned that Patraeus has shown himself to be a yes-man instead of speaking up for those below him. 

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but I'm noticing a trend here.  President Obama is the first American President to have spent so much time in congresses business.  Remember, our goverenment was set up so that Congress, the President, and the Judicial branch are seperate.  Checks and balances here.  What keeps happening is the President weighing in on every bit of business congress has.  The president's job is not to write bills, that's congress.  But he is.  The president shouldn't be weighing in on Judicial rulings, but he often has.  "Well, my opinion is...."  When the president runs everything he isn't a president, he's a dictator.  So now you have what looks like will soon be the head of the CIA, Patraeus, who has shown himself to be another Obama yes man.  Anyone else getting worried?