Reply With Quote
Repugs have been more enthusiastic about Obama's selections than many Dems.
Gates will hold onto the top Pentagon job for at least the first year of the Obama administration.
FOXNews.com
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Defense Secretary Robert Gates will keep the top Pentagon job for at least the first year of the Obama administration, FOX News has learned.
There was very strong support for Gates among Democrats, said one Democratic source in the Senate whose boss was intimately involved in bringing Obama and Gates together to see if they were compatible.
Obama's decision to keep Gates follows speculation, encouraged before the election by Obama's aides, that Gates would stay on for an interim period.
A registered independent, Gates has served various Republican administrations. President Bush nominated Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld after the 2006 midterm elections, when the war in Iraq was descending into chaos and became a political liability for Republicans.
Gates will continue to preside over two U.S. wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, that Bush launched as part of the larger war on terror.
There are several issues on which Gates and Obama disagree, including missile defense. Gates supports placing a missile defense system in Europe, but Obama already has suggested that he won't sign off on it until the technology has been proven capable.
A formal announcement is expected immediately after the Thanksgiving holiday weekend as part of an unveiling of the new national security team, which is expected to include Sen. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state; Marine Gen. Jim Jones as national security adviser, Admiral Dennis Blair as director of national intelligence and Susan Rice as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elec...tes-job-obama/
[awaits board Republicans' ing about things not changing while ignoring the fact they are getting exactly what they want]
Repugs have been more enthusiastic about Obama's selections than many Dems.
For one year? Does Gates keep his own lieutenants? If so,there is actual continuity of government as between Bush and Obama regarding defense, for exactly one year.
With a 'hard left' inflection of course. Damn commies.
I don't have a problem with this. Gates was an unusual Bush hire... he seemed competent AND he wasn't a crony!
Gates is an ass kisser. He started the compromising at CIA of fixing up the intel to fit WH objectives, rather than providing apolitical hard facts and let the WH do the politics.
My guess is that Obama didn't want to put in a new Secy Defense now, and figures Gates will not get in the way of withdrawing from Iraq. Gates will go along, because he kisses asses.
There's a reason it's for "one year"....probably a long enough time to get out of Iraq and shift strategy to Afghanistan/Pakistan front.
Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if he actually stays on beyond that year.
Considering your approach to discourse, I imagine you feel the same way about almost every human being on the planet.... except St. Nader, right?
You're a ing idiot. Gates is pretty much the biggest bad ass to grace the Pentagon in at least two decades.
This is the first Obama move I've agreed with, as long as it isn't for the sole purpose of Obama selling Gates out if doesn't work out in a year or so.
I'm actually okay with this. Gates is not a moron, unlike his predecessor:
http://wonkette.com/390971/bob-gates...the-terrorists
What the ’s wrong with Bob Gates, the Defense Secretary no one ever talks about? Recently he’s been running his yap with all sorts of liberal Democrat treasonspeak — just like Barack Obama, a known member of Hamas and Hezbollah and the Weather Underground. Apparently he *doesn’t* want to bomb Iran or Syria, or even France! Not only that, he says it’s counterproductive to even consider bombing these countries that need to be bombed.First, at the Academy of American Diplomacy yesterday, Bobert said that we have missed opportunities to negotiate with Iran. Actual talky-talk! Then he said we need “leverage” with Iran, rather than just demanding they do . Jesus, why don’t you just put on yr freaking Turban o’Terror, Bob Gates-Qaeda?
Oh but that is nothing compared to what he told the good Americans at the Heritage Foundation a couple of days ago. Guy said that wanting to start new wars is a “disease.” Well if “bombing Iran” is what you consider AIDS, Mr. “Gates,” then consider us HIV-positive!“We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them,” Gates said. “If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can’t go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us.”
Would you like a Muslim Latte with your Arugula Salad, Mr. “I’m Gay And Talk To People”? Perhaps an Ahmadinejad Biscuit, covered in Al-Zawahiri Gravy? A Farrakhan Pot Roast with Obama Carrots?I have noticed too much of a tendency towards what might be called “next-war-itis” - the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict. This inclination is understandable, given the dominant role the Cold War had in shaping America’s peacetime military, where the United States constantly strove to either keep up with or get ahead of another superpower adversary….
But in a world of finite knowledge and limited resources, where we have to make choices and set priorities, it makes sense to lean toward the most likely and lethal scenarios for our military. And it is hard to conceive of any country confronting the United States directly in conventional terms — ship to ship, fighter to fighter, tank to tank — for some time to come. The record of the past quarter century is clear: the Soviets in Afghanistan; the Israelis in Lebanon; the United States in Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Smaller, irregular forces — insurgents, guerrillas, terrorists — will find ways, as they always have, to frustrate and neutralize the advantages of larger, regular militarys. And even nation-states will try to exploit our perceived vulnerabilities in an asymmetric way, rather than play to our inherent strengths.
Terrible take. The one year probation was a designation to cronyism if he wanted to keep his job.I don't have a problem with this. Gates was an unusual Bush hire... he seemed competent AND he wasn't a crony!
Yup. And Gates went along with the military cuts, the creation of ISIS, the Benghazi coverup. Hussein found himself a good crony in that one.
Still searching my history. You hold massive grudges.
"What the ’s wrong with Bob Gates"
Gates was in the IC in the early '80s when St Ronnie's assholes corrupted the newly compliant Repug-run IC, as head did in the 2000's, to provide not raw data as was the tradition, but "fixed up" data fitting political objectives (like Saddam had nuclear WMD so let's invade Iraq, and USSR, a bankrupt weakling, was hyper-powerful, so let's add $10Bs to MIC fraud, like Star Wars missile defense (still doesn't work) )
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
