Reading between the lines
The average person would look at this story -- a bit on a change in succession for the DoD's "doomsday" scenario -- and yawn, then resume downloading porn.
Brad Spangler, however...
In contrast to the lazy assertions that those who consider the possibility of a hidden agenda advocate a conspiracy theory, we’re being told in this case to uncritically accept a rather unlikely coincidence theory — that it’s just a coincidence that a policy review indicates that this would somehow be a wise choice and that the current holders of those three offices just happen to be neocon loyalists.
So what’s really going on? Hell if I know — but what it looks like ought to scare the shit out of you.
It looks like the President doesn’t trust the military. In particular, it looks like the President especially doesn’t trust the military in the event of a disaster wiping out several leading policy makers at the same time. I believe it indicates the President has potentially gone beyond being merely a little unbalanced and has slipped into the paranoia that Stalin and other dictators have suffered from. I hope I’m wrong. (bold emphasis mine)
Another odd thing about this: considering the common media portrayal of the US as being in perpetual grave danger, you'd think these kind of things would get more attention than this. Even if you take into account the implication that the libertarian equivalent of "Spidey Sense" triggers here, most of the public isn't going to put the pieces together, so it can be used for sensationalist purposes anyway. Why is it still buried despite that? Why is Yahoo -- and through another blog at that -- the first place I heard about this? Wouldn't it make more sense from the Statist Media viewpoint to hype this as somehow necessary to the security of the country rather than make it a sleeper?