- ‹ previous
- 1054 of 7909
- next ›
The Curious Retention of Robert Gates
Barack Obama's national security team--at this early stage--presents more questions than answers. His selection of Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state has been a much-chewed-over topic of pundit puzzlement. And with the Monday morning unveiling of his senior defense and foreign policy aides, Obama made official another curious decision: his retention of Robert Gates as secretary of defense.
There's an obvious reason for Obama to keep Gates at the Pentagon. Having a George W. Bush appointee in charge will give Obama political cover as he proceeds with his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq. But there are several potential problems with this move. I've consulted two former Pentagon officials--who are critics of standard operating procedure at the Pentagon--who decry this move. (Neither wanted to be quoted, for they might now or later be in contention for a job in the Obama administration.) "It's probably the dumbest thing Obama's done," one said.
They identified three possible pitfalls. First, Gates is a lame duck. There has been no indication how long he will stay in the Pentagon's top post, but it seems Gates will remain there on a quasi-temporary basis. Consequently, Pentagon bureaucrats who don't want to see their prerogatives challenged--if Gates wanted to do such a thing--could try to wait him out. Second, Gates is no agent of change when it comes to the Pentagon budget. In the Bush years, the regular military budget has increased by 40 percent in real terms (not counting so-called "emergency" supplemental spending bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan)--partly because of hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns. During the campaign, Obama talked about the need to cut "billions of dollars in wasteful spending" from the military budget. But Gates has yet to demonstrate he is truly interested in reworking the Pentagon's out-of-control budget. Keeping Gates in place sends the signal that Obama, who faces a host of hard jobs, is not eager to take on the Pentagon at the start of his presidency. "There are so many problems at home," says one of the critics, "Obama may not want to do anything fundamental about the Pentagon."
Finally, what about Gates' team? Many of the senior jobs at the Pentagon are still held by Bush/Rumsfeld appointees. If Gates stays in his job, do they stay in theirs? Or will Obama move to replace these assistant secretaries and other officials, thus creating something of a fractured band at the Pentagon of Gates/Rumsfeld people and fresh Obama people? Even if Gates is willing to salute the new president and head in a new policy direction, other holdovers at the Pentagon might not be as eager to follow a new set of orders.
With two wars under way, it might be tempting to have the secretary of defense hang around. But after President Richard Nixon was elected in 1969, while the Vietnam War was continuing, he did not retain President Johnson's man at the Pentagon, Clark Clifford. Instead, Nixon brought in a new defense secretary: a Republican member of Congress named Melvin Laird. And Laird didn't do a bad job. He cut--yes, cut--the military budget. During his years at the Pentagon, the number of US troops in Vietnam declined dramatically, and Laird ended the draft.
Retaining Gates is convenient for Obama. Now a Bush official who supported the surge and who maintains good relations with General David Petraeus will be handed the assignment of pulling US forces from Iraq and ending--or winding down--the war there. That may help Obama avoid a political battle over his Iraq policy. But in his two years as George W. Bush's defense secretary, Gates, who does appear to be a competent and nonideological official, has not accomplished much in Afghanistan--a war that Obama increasingly cites as a top priority. Nor has he done anything to rein in the wild budgetary ways of the Pentagon. By sticking with Gates, Obama is ducking a fight or two--but to bring change to the Pentagon, one or more fights might be necessary.
UPDATE: On Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that many of Gates' top deputies at the Pentagon are expected to leave their jobs.
Digg
Reddit
Twitter
Facebook
Buzz Up!
StumbleUpon
MySpace
LinkedIn
Delicious
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Gates is a pragmatist who can play hardball, he plays to win?which means to achieve a state of stability and he knows what is going down on the ground?he knows what it means to be an operative (in the sense of a foot soldier) and knows what it means to run a central command (he has gone the distance in terms of moving from the bottom to the very top of an organization that is hard to advance in)?Afghanistan is a war and the need to maintain balance in Pakistan and contain further degeneration of the situation between Pakistan and India is critical?he is on top of this issue probably more so than even Rice. I think that Gates is misunderstood from what I read here.
It is true Gates has had a controversial career (but he has no ground to feel ashamed of his career?as a CIA operative he did his job and unlike the rest of the Bush clown show is intelligent and represents a well informed internationalist). He certainly isn't a Rumsfeld styled thug or say the belligerent Bolton or the preemption lunatic Wolfowitz?Gates is a realist whose attitude towards Iran when he got his position as Secretary of Defense was in accord with the Hamilton Baker plan (well he was a member of the Hamilton Baker study group and resigned from that group when he was given the position of Secretary of Defense). In this sense Gates represents most of the international political attitudes that were expressed by Obama in his campaign.
I mean like Chill Out and give the new President elect a chance to take office(I mean like I think it's fun to take jabs at Obama (make fun of his appointments) but I think we have elected a good man to the presidency who will serve us all well) before chopping his head off. Gates is an excellent man to have in play while the transition of power occurs and is the correct type of person for the job considering the state of the world. Perhaps more important is in Europe where Gates commands a high degree of integrity?even though he did get hot headed because he couldn't get more troop commitment to Afghanistan?but unlike Rumsfeld Gates is both liked and respected.
The situation in Afghanistan is a rather complex chess board where if the US brings the Taliban back into the equation then friction will increase with Iran but a failure to bring the Taliban back into the equation will simply worsen the problems along the Afghan-Pakistan border?if Pakistan feels as though it is getting squeezed they could cut off the Khyber pass and then our troops are essentially cut off or we could also find the Pakistani Air Force taking out drones that enter Pakistani air space. So in my opinion the person running the Pentagon must be competent in regards to intelligence, diplomacy and warfare and Gates has those sorts of credentials. We must achieve stability in Afghanistan but we mustn't lose Pakistan as an ally and we mustn't lose hope that India and Pakistan can achieve normalized relations so that the 70 year conflict over Kashmir can be solved (this is as critical to regional stability as is the Palestinian Israeli conflict is in the Middle East. But it is a conflict that requires dealings with Iran, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan and China (Russia should also be included). As said it is a complex chess board where the players have nuclear weapons and thus one must proceed with caution and like North Korea needs a team effort (multilateral negotiations).
Thanks, tanks...
Gates is a pragmatist who can play hardball, he plays to win?which means to achieve a state of stability and he knows what is going down on the ground?he knows what it means to be an operative (in the sense of a foot soldier) and knows what it means to run a central command (he has gone the distance in terms of moving from the bottom to the very top of an organization that is hard to advance in)?Afghanistan is a war and the need to maintain balance in Pakistan and contain further degeneration of the situation between Pakistan and India is critical?he is on top of this issue probably more so than even Rice. I think that Gates is misunderstood from what I read here.
It is true Gates has had a controversial career (but he has no ground to feel ashamed of his career?as a CIA operative he did his job and unlike the rest of the Bush clown show is intelligent and represents a well informed internationalist). He certainly isn't a Rumsfeld styled thug or say the belligerent Bolton or the preemption lunatic Wolfowitz?Gates is a realist whose attitude towards Iran when he got his position as Secretary of Defense was in accord with the Hamilton Baker plan (well he was a member of the Hamilton Baker study group and resigned from that group when he was given the position of Secretary of Defense). In this sense Gates represents most of the international political attitudes that were expressed by Obama in his campaign.
I mean like Chill Out and give the new President elect a chance to take office(I mean like I think it's fun to take jabs at Obama (make fun of his appointments) but I think we have elected a good man to the presidency who will serve us all well) before chopping his head off. Gates is an excellent man to have in play while the transition of power occurs and is the correct type of person for the job considering the state of the world. Perhaps more important is in Europe where Gates commands a high degree of integrity?even though he did get hot headed because he couldn't get more troop commitment to Afghanistan?but unlike Rumsfeld Gates is both liked and respected.
The situation in Afghanistan is a rather complex chess board where if the US brings the Taliban back into the equation then friction will increase with Iran but a failure to bring the Taliban back into the equation will simply worsen the problems along the Afghan-Pakistan border?if Pakistan feels as though it is getting squeezed they could cut off the Khyber pass and then our troops are essentially cut off or we could also find the Pakistani Air Force taking out drones that enter Pakistani air space. So in my opinion the person running the Pentagon must be competent in regards to intelligence, diplomacy and warfare and Gates has those sorts of credentials. We must achieve stability in Afghanistan but we mustn't lose Pakistan as an ally and we mustn't lose hope that India and Pakistan can achieve normalized relations so that the 70 year conflict over Kashmir can be solved (this is as critical to regional stability as is the Palestinian Israeli conflict is in the Middle East. But it is a conflict that requires dealings with Iran, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan and China (Russia should also be included). As said it is a complex chess board where the players have nuclear weapons and thus one must proceed with caution and like North Korea needs a team effort (multilateral negotiations).
The 'curious' lack of "Change" is not so curious to many of us.
No matter how many times Barack shouted "Change" during the campaign, his actual voting record in Congress gave little reason to believe that much real "Change" would be in the offing, if and when we elected him.
Don't say that Greens, Libertarians and studious Free Thinkers didn't predict it, and try to warn you, because MoJo's blog comments are packed with just such cautionary predictions.
But who wanted to hear?
Damned Few! And certainly none who write for Mother Jones, all of who spent months and months trying to convince their readers that a Barack Obama presidency was just the sort of "Change" we all needed, and couldn't expect to survive without!
I too find the retention of Gates (as well as the naming of Clinton as SOS) quite odd for a candidate who always claimed that he was against the US action in Iraq. Did he do that only to get himself elected? Why would he then immediately hire two people who were not only for the action but one, Gates, who was for the surge too. What happened to Obama's principles? Since the Bush administration recently signed the SOFA with Iraq, and since US forces are being drawn down in Iraq, it looks like Bush will wind up getting the credit for the troop withdrawal from Iraq as well. It's unlikely that Obama will be able to go in and tear up the SOFA agreement only months after it was agreed.
If anyone had been keeping track, they would have known that having run for Congress on a pledge to "..at some point ... say no to George Bush's war funding", Barack had at every single opportunity, said Yes to George Bush's war funding.
People seem to have intentionally let that fact slide in one ear and out the other, without ever allowing it to hit the brain. We just So wanted to believe he was the anti-war guy...
His voting record, if studied, would leave you no room to claim "surprise" on anything that's going down today.
I don't think it'll be too long before we're reminded, in some unpleasant fashion, about his V.P.'s affection for "Liberal Intervention" in foreign countries' affairs.
We progressives won't be shafted completely by Obama - it's a good bet that he'll appoint better judges. Krugman said it before the election - Obama is a moderately liberal Dem. For real change try statehood for Iraq. Don't need no constitutional amendment, like you would need if you wanted to dismantle "our" 2-party poligolopoly. All you need is an Iraqi constitution (exists last I heard, probably written by a buddy of GW) and a congressional sponsor. Do I hear someone thinking Mike Kucinich? Just add 25 million Iraqis to the electorate and we'll get some real changes going on!
Don't need no constitutional amendment, like you would need if you wanted to dismantle "our" 2-party poligolopoly.
Curious concept, since the Constitution wasn't changed to produce our single-party-with-two-nominally-different-wings monopoly. And when the Constitution was adopted in 1788, the national government functioned without organized political parties. The first party wasn't organized until the 1790's, and didn't achieve any political power until 1800.
No Constitutional amendments were passed to cause it to function in sole control of "two" parties. And we could still function if both piles-of-crooks disbanded tomorrow.
And just who the hell is "Mike" Kucinich?
bmeisen predicts: We progressives won't be shafted completely by Obama - it's a good bet that he'll appoint better judges.
Step back a few months and have a look at all the things Obama supporters thought were "good bets" during the electioneering. Browse MoJo's old articles for their comments.
You'll see those "good bets" have all been coming up snake-eyes in recent days.
Just to be clear, Obama will be a better president than Bush (how could he be worse?). But It is clear that he represents continuity with Bush's policies.
What I don't get is why _Mother_Jones_ now sounds like the voice of the establishment? Why does it seem like since Obama is a Democrat he doesn't have to be progressive?
Guess what? On Jan 21st, "Torture" becomes official Democratic Policy.
DanZ
JG asks: (how could he be worse?)
We'll just have to wait and find out.
Allow me to recommend Lewis Black's "Red, White & Screwed" comedy routine.
He comments: "Every election I say 'it can't possibly get any worse, but every time, it does'."
Then he expressed a wish that Democrats & Republicans would just take a break in 2008, and not run any candidates.
Alas..., it was not to be.
Why is it that so-called "progressive" news outlets completely ignored any progressive political news unless it was connected to the Democrat party?
If they had, it would have been clear what the difference between the Obama agenda and "change" really is. I posted half a dozen of them here frequently... FISA, ME policy, faith-based initiative, campaign financing, impeachment, and so on...
But the Obamabots were so close-minded, or perhaps blinkered, that they only saw the necessity to change to Democrats with the understanding that it HAD to be better, no matter what.
I guess there's a certain truth to that. But it's really not going to be any sweeping change, which is what was advertised, promised, and what is needed. On the issues above, which are core Constitutional issues, foreign policy, and human rights, I don't look for any major, breathtaking improvements. I believe that the creaking, leaky hulk of what's left of the American ship of state is adrift and will not change course in any way until it hits the rocks and sinks.
It's not all Obama's fault. In order to get elected he had to work within the system, which has been contrived by the kleptocrats to make sure that the Punch and Judy Show in Washington between the DNC and the RNC goes on in perpetuity. The news media LITERALLY blacks out 3rd party candidates... even "progressive" media.
So if we can't get progressive ideas into the public consciousness.... well, you get what you got.
-Wexler
Only trembling naifs fear overcriticizing the Elites. Don't worry--if you're not sure what they are guilty of, they do!
Adhering to "Follow the Money," Gates is probably integral to some big money defense deals that are ongoing or in the works.
Obama really wasn't much of a complainer before or during his campaign; he was just a gamesman, a player. Every President has been coopted as a prerequisite to their candidacy. Only "pie-in-the-sky" fools believe the Elites allow real mavericks, change-agents, outsiders, etc., to join their exalted ranks.
Obama has been instructed to keep Gates until the Iraq venture has been played out.
David,
Maybe you were one of many who projected onto Obama what you WANTED him to stand for. No?
If Obama represents continuity with the Bush policies, then he cannot be better president than Bush was.
We've been had.
One of the interesting things about the left during the campaign is that while they strongly supported Obama, they didn't give any thought to which leftists he could appoint to carry out these left wing policies. For example, if not Hillary for SOS , then who?
Who is the better Secdef appointment if you don't like Gates? I note that Mr. Corn and other leftists. never says who Obama should have appointed to these positions. They merely are disappointed that Obama picked the people did.
The lefty bloggers should have had a whole shadow cabinet of folks picked and should have been advocating for them., instead of just standing on the sidelines and hoping that Obama would pick some (unknown) left leaning person. Oh well. Maybe next time.
David, if Obama wants change, he could have put Alexander Cockburn in the cabinet.
Paul, if Obama wants change, he could have put Dennis Kucinich in the cabinet, or even Ron Paul, given that he's pledged to tap Republicans for high level positions.
I think we're only in for the "window-dressing" kind of change, and not the "real substantial" kind of change, and so far, nothing has happened to make me change that opinion.
Yes, you guys are correct. Think about this: Nobody who isn't 100% handled and manipulated by the "powers that be" is going to be able to go from thinking about running for a Senate seat to being president of the U.S. in under five years. Nobody. This guy is a puppet. If he was going to do anything besides continue broadly the same Cheneyite policies then he would still be a junior senator from Illinois that nobody's heard of.
If someone doubts this they need look no further than the advisers he has surrounded himself with on the campaign trail, in the transition and as cabinet appointments. It seems like the prerequisite for being an Obama adviser is being a member of either the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission or Skull & Bones; or being one of the "New Democrats" who tirelessly strive to complete the transformation of the Democratic Party into the Republicans, a process that started with the ascent of the Clintons.
These groups I mentioned (C.F.R., Bilderberg Group and Trilateral Commission) are composed of the super-elite ultra-rich bourgeois power brokers that pull the strings in the sad puppet show that is American (and British, etc.) politics. These groups of course are chock full of neo-cons and unreconstructed fascists like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Richard Perle, Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Henry Kissinger...
So no, real meaningful change does not appear likely to be forthcoming. Pres.-elect Barack O'Bilderberg's purpose is to be a new, happy smiling face on basically the same Cheneyite policies.
I think it was a good move. Gates will only stay 2 years. I believe he has been running the show( been the president) since Bush one told Bush two the way it was going to be. Have we all forgot, Gates was the person who said loud and clear, there will be no war with Iran. The Baker commission wanted the U.S. to significantly disengage from Iraq. Gates will help Obama remove U.S. forces from Iraq and in the months ahead the wisdom of this continuity will be clear.
On a more positive note gates is not merely strong on defense he is also a person who aggressively seeks varied information sources and is open to new ideas. This is a welcome contrast to Rumsfield who once he had a thought in his head did his best to ignore any contrary facts.
Read Gate's autobiography, where he details his assignment by then VP G.H.W. Bush to form an "Islamic Fundamentalist Brigade" in Afghanistan, to understand how Obama perceives "change."
There is another name for this "brigade", and the first one to name it wins the " it's obvious Obama won't change a damn thing" award.
Who could he appoint? Paul to the Fed and Kucinich to replace Gates, like mentioned above, would be "change."
McKinney to head a REAL 9/11 investigation would be "change."
Krugman to Treasury would be "change."
Bair to the Fed Chairmanship would be "change."
Michael Moore to form a Health care system would be "change."
Appointing Spitzer as A.G., to investigate where the first damn $350 Billion Paulson has scammed went would be "change."
Clinton, Gates, and all the rest? Status Effing Quo. Get used to it, you asked for it, CHEERED for it, and all the "mainstream progressive websites and blogs" dismissed us when we warned ya.
Rather unfair criticism of Gates. He wasn't there to reform the Pentagon (that was Rumsfeld's job -- how did you guys like him, by the way?) but rather, Gates was hired to bring the war in Iraq to a successful conclusion. So far, he is succeeding at that task. Now, with U.S. forces soon to be freed from Iraq, they can be redeployed to Afghanistan.
The Clifford analogy is inapposite. Clifford was the architect of LBJ's failing Vietnam "strategy" (if one could call it that.)
And methinks you give far too much credit to Laird. After all, it was Nixon and Kissinger (ahem) who withdrew soldiers from Vietnam. No credit where credit is due?
Sneezer writes:
No Constitutional amendments were passed to cause it to function in sole control of "two" parties. And we could still function if both piles-of-crooks disbanded tomorrow.
We could still function but it wouldn't be much more democratic than the current system. Without a constitutional amendment at the federal level some change could be accomplished if proportional voting was adopted by the majority of states. The states would have to amend their constitutions to accomodate a threshold that would regulate party representation in the legislatures. The resulting chaos at the national level - there would be hundreds if not thousands of parties competing - would have to be resolved by an amendment of the federal constitution which would introduce proportional representation and establish a threshold that would regulate party representation in the Congress. The threshold would be something like 5% of the votes in a given congressional district or state.
And thanks - I meant Dennis.
The person making the biggest mistake in all this is Gates. Obama will have a cover for any military missteps - "It was all the Bush guy's fault". Gates should step down and let Obama have it. Obama wanted to be CIC - he bought it, let him own it.
In order to make the world fair and just, one does not need a leader, but freedom from the state and government.
Until the day progressives realize that the state is the real enemy, they will either feel betrayed by their leaders (option A) or will have to sell their souls to those leaders (option B).
Would you rather admit that Obama belongs to the military complex (option A) or elaborate on how Gates is not so bad (option B)?
Look how the pro-life Republican Christians have become pro-death war-mongers. Do progressives want to follow the same road? If they continue to support Obama and its hawkish administration, they sure will look like the same.
Let's see how Obama sells war to the American people. Worse, let's see how the American people and the progressives buy war.
Let's see how Obama sells war to the American people. Worse, let's see how the American people and the progressives buy war.
Obama started selling it on the day he selected Joe Biden to be his running mate.
A man who his own close advisors describe as a "Liberal Interventionist", comfortable with the idea of spreading "democracy" by force, through military interventions.
I was thinking maybe we could give Obama a chance first? He's not going to do everything we wanted right off the bat. Lots of other things going on right now, like the economic situation and all. He's not even in office yet, and the fairweather fans are already jumping ship. Howboat we write our leaders and hold them accountable for their actions instead of lampooning them and then "waiting" for the next guy all the while whining about the one in office. He's gonna be better than Bush, I think, but we will just have to wait and see.
I was thinking maybe we could give Obama a chance first?
We've given him a chance.
We've elected him.
Now, we begin to see, rather clearly, which way he intends to direct his administration's efforts, and it's not the direction many of his most ardent supporters expected it would be.
So: Protest Now, apply pressure NOW, or wait till the continuation of Bush's policies is a fait accompli, and protest then?
Which one do you think will have greater benefit?
He's not going to do everything we wanted right off the bat.
Right. Just like Clinton didn't do everything progressives wanted right off the bat, after we supported him. Or within 8 years of his election, for that matter.
Matter of fact, progressives got damned little of what we wanted in return for our support, and a sh!tload of what we didn't want.
You forgot two very important factors in your review. First the deputy being appointed is an Obama loyalist and has a record of cleaning house in order to organize it. Second, Gates actually has a Commander and Chief now; not just in name. I think many of you will be eating crow in about 9 months. It will domonstrate how big your mouths are in comparasion to your brains. President elect Obama has not done one thing in the conventional sense from the time he first entered politics to this day - why do you analysis him in the same way you would an atypical politician? Duh
...why do you analy(ze) him in the same way you would (a) typical politician?
Because if he were anything other than exactly that, he never would have had a chance of running for a senate seat as a Democrat, let alone be their candidate for president.
Gates is being used. There needs to be some continuity in the Iraq planning and, I believe, his choice to remain where he is provides a couple of positive attributes:
1. He knows the turf
2. Who better than a champion for the war to serve a different purpose and end the war? It provides credibility with Petraus, the Iraqis, and the American hawks.
My freind wish you know that
europa has chenged american
goverment.Europa is your enemy
they know how work throu shadow
this is what you must notice.I am living in eupopa I have strong risen for my words.
Europa? The Enemy?
East Asia is the Enemy! East Asia has ALWAYS been the Enemy, and YOU'RE an Agent of Goldstein!!
"Giving the Democratic Party a chance", and not speaking up as progressives is what has us stuck in this duopoly!
Year after year! Generation after generation! Gawd, people wake up! Did you think that Obama was "progressive" because he wasnt around to vote for the Iraq war? Or was it when he denounced Bill Ayers, or when he called for more war on terror? When he said he wouldnt pass single payer heatlh care (this is about more than "health care reform", it is about a general attitude)? When he said he wouldnt reverse the tax cuts in a recession? When was it?
bmeisen--Hundreds of thousands of parties and "chaos"?? Canada? UK? EU? Our Constitution is not even set up for the two party system. They have just consolidated all power. We have to take it back! If we have to have a constitutional convention, so be it! A parliamentary system--it's better than this! It's been done folks! So has single payer health care--but all I hear from neo-liberals, is , "its a conundrum"--no its not! You just dont WANT to do it! For those of us with "not so much" supporting these middle class and upper class neo-liberals is becoming an exercise in mashochism...tax cuts? Rebates? Stimulus? Tax cuts to BUY health care? WE GET NONE, folks! Do y'care??
Why so much "hay" now over how NOT to "change" now?? Good luck blaming this on the working classes and the poor next time! (Yes, we're still here--when you get a chance...but its' getting pretty crowded! Come on down!)
We'll all be here if we cant get out of this military -industrial hell hole..
And since when is MoJo supposed to be the voice of the Dems? I am angry as hell that people were told to hush, and are still being told to do so, on "liberal" websites.
This is bull****, and , unless you are a conservative, you know it!
Yes you can,t believe.They are
working thrue shadow.All terror
cells are in europe.
KDelphi: This is bullsh!t, and, unless you are a conservative, you know it!
I suspect many of the conservatives know this too.
I think particularly the fiscal conservatives learned it when they thought they were electing one of their own in G.W. Bush, and got the biggest deficit spender in the history of the world.
There are even some "non-interventionist foreign policy" conservatives still around, and they certainly didn't get what THEY voted for, either.
I am iranian and living in europe and also poletical cartoonist.
Actually, Dr. Know-Nothing Webster, KDelphi (you may notice that's Capital K, Capital D) originally wrote bullshit. It was censored for the adult readers here at MoJo.
I did not, as an exclamation mark I used is not the letter "i".
Subtle, I know, but you can learn the difference if you really try.
What you wrote was bullshit.., twice over.
Or maybe a double load of bullsh!t.
We can not live without hate.
Even in democracy.How sad.
Gates is a pragmatist who can play hardball, he plays to winwhich means to achieve a state of stability and he knows what is going down on the groundhe knows what it means to be an operative (in the sense of a foot soldier) and knows what it means to run a central command (he has gone the distance in terms of moving from the bottom to the very top of an organization that is hard to advance in)Afghanistan is a war and the need to maintain balance in Pakistan and contain further degeneration of the situation between Pakistan and India is criticalhe is on top of this issue probably more so than even Rice. I think that Gates is misunderstood from what I read here.
It is true Gates has had a controversial career (but he has no ground to feel ashamed of his careeras a CIA operative he did his job and unlike the rest of the Bush clown show is intelligent and represents a well informed internationalist). He certainly isn't a Rumsfeld styled thug or say the belligerent Bolton or the preemption lunatic WolfowitzGates is a realist whose attitude towards Iran when he got his position as Secretary of Defense was in accord with the Hamilton Baker plan (well he was a member of the Hamilton Baker study group and resigned from that group when he was given the position of Secretary of Defense). In this sense Gates represents most of the international political attitudes that were expressed by Obama in his campaign.
I mean like Chill Out and give the new President elect a chance to take office(I mean like I think it's fun to take jabs at Obama (make fun of his appointments) but I think we have elected a good man to the presidency who will serve us all well) before chopping his head off. Gates is an excellent man to have in play while the transition of power occurs and is the correct type of person for the job considering the state of the world. Perhaps more important is in Europe where Gates commands a high degree of integrityeven though he did get hot headed because he couldn't get more troop commitment to Afghanistanbut unlike Rumsfeld Gates is both liked and respected.
The situation in Afghanistan is a rather complex chess board where if the US brings the Taliban back into the equation then friction will increase with Iran but a failure to bring the Taliban back into the equation will simply worsen the problems along the Afghan-Pakistan borderif Pakistan feels as though it is getting squeezed they could cut off the Khyber pass and then our troops are essentially cut off or we could also find the Pakistani Air Force taking out drones that enter Pakistani air space. So in my opinion the person running the Pentagon must be competent in regards to intelligence, diplomacy and warfare and Gates has those sorts of credentials. We must achieve stability in Afghanistan but we mustn't lose Pakistan as an ally and we mustn't lose hope that India and Pakistan can achieve normalized relations so that the 70 year conflict over Kashmir can be solved (this is as critical to regional stability as is the Palestinian Israeli conflict is in the Middle East. But it is a conflict that requires dealings with Iran, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan and China (Russia should also be included). As said it is a complex chess board where the players have nuclear weapons and thus one must proceed with caution and like North Korea needs a team effort (multilateral negotiations).
how about waiting until jan 21 before entering a judgement of condemnation.
I knew from the first that Obama was a phony, empty suit puppet. Bill Clinton was correct when he called Obama a "fairytale". I want to know who is Obama's puppetmaster.
Ralph Nader supporters are shouting, "We told you Obama is a fraud".
Obama is "Chauncey Gardner" (movie Being There)- you were mezmerized and believed he was what you wanted him to be. I have to say this--you Obama robots are so DUMB!!!
Unlike most of Bush's cabinet, Gates is actually competent. Obama will avoid a lot of blowback from the right wing over the Iraq withdrawal by keeping him on - it may prove to have been a very smart move.
The only change that was necessary was for the Secretary of Defense to tell the Pentagon what to do and not the other way around as Don Rumsfeld allowed. Gates asserted himself and took charge of a runaway Pentagon when he fired the Head of the Air Force and its top civilian consultant-He was the boss, not the Pentagon. I can think of no other Administrator who both parties actually agree can handle the various aspects of this job as competently as Bob Gates and I am tired of excuses for a job not done that are a trademark of the Bush Administration!
However, the puzzlement over the man Gates , etc., etc., etc., unless America, rather sooner than later rids itself of the destructive forces that of Socialism/Communism and now in full blindness that of America, the most brutal and far-reaching Empire, the world has ever known, this nation will continue full speed ahead on the road to hell, for sure. History is only proof of such destiny, right? This USA nation of present, while its leaders still in complete dishonesty claiming to do all things in honor of the "marching orders" that of the Founding Fathers, it has willfully and completely gone in reverse, so to speak, and made itself now the monstrosity of corruption it is, presently, while its inhumane and horrendous war machinery is circling the globe and only creating more and more all the unsolvable problems that America claims it has the mandate to solve. Yes, my comment, fully based on the hopes and dreams of this young, Godly and brave man, period! George Washington said the following:"Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican liberty". "No pecuniary consideration is more urgent than the redemption and discharge of the public debt: on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of time more valuable". James Madison said the following: "Of all enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ for every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instrument for bringing the many under the domination of the few". Thomas Jefferson said the following: "The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, in the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale". "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none". Yes, of a more recent venture, these words: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, from those who are cold and are not clothed". By Dwight D. Eisenhower. "I am concerned for the security of our great nation, not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within". General Douglass MacArthur. If I missed anything in as much as I am only a legal immigrant of 53 years and did join the Republican party as a staunch conservative Christian! Yes, but having busied myself very soon after our arrival as family of myself, my wife and 2 year old daughter, Heidi, to learn quickly learn as to why and for what purpose this Nation was born under God's guidance, that I have uttered the above scathing comment. If someone disagrees, so be it! Nevertheless, I stand on firm ground! No more firm ground was ever erected.
Obama's message of "change" during the campaign was never adequately defined to spellout exactly what we should expect. I am not surprised at all by his actions and expected he would move to the "center" after election; partially to discount all those right-wing predictions of a socialist government come January 20th.
After 60 years of observing the political landscape, I have serious doubts that a truly progressive agenda is possible in this country. I do believe we will achieve some goals, such as withdrawal from Iraq and the beginnings of a universal health care system on a limited basis in his first term. With that accomplished I will sing his praises.
this is actually the second fight today that mojo is talking about our president-elect abandoning. i'm running out of reasons to tell the nader-voters.
Am I missing some point, or are you just replying? I am NOT being confrontational--I just sometimes have trouble with interactions that are not face-to-face. I tend to be mis-understood and to mis-understand, at times. ADD, I guess.
Why censor such a word, is a point...are there alot of children here? It is neither here nor there to me, in function , but , in form--I was amazed to be censored at PDA live blog for the word "crap", and, this is good--the bot saw a typo--I put, "wha tit" , I meant "what it"--it censored TIT!I mean, NOT TIT! You know!
An Irish guy was in there, He says, "Is this being CENSORED!Good lord, what are you guys doing?" I said yes, leads to phrases like Olynmpic medal winner "Mr. Homosexual".
No, I do not mean that MoJo is like that. I just think we must be careful, as anyone recently banned from a blog knows...it is a slippery slope, as they say..
Reminds me of Carlin's, "Tits, toots, toots, tits!". Its a FRIENDLY word! LOL.
KDelphi, you may have missed the fact that the self-appointed "naughty-word" monitor who signs as "Dr. Webster" popped up, after Mojo had changed your 'bullshit' to 'bull****', and pounced on ME, scolding me for having 'incorrectly' referenced your useage of bull****, and replacing it with 'bullshit', when what I had actually typed was 'bullsh!t' ( '!' replacing the letter 'i' ).
MoJo subsequently removed his entire post, and so the continuity was lost, and naturally, no one can tell what the hell I was talking about in my reply to good ol' Quackter Webster.