Robert Gates confirms Obama admitted opposing surge for "politics"

[P@triot]

In his new book, Robert Gates confirms conversations between himself and Barack Obama in which the president admitted to him that he opposed the "surge" strategy simply for political purposes.

In other words, he was willing to let Americans die horrible deaths and not attempt to win the war in order to score political points for his own selfish advantage.

Absolutely, positively disgusting. And this is the selfish, arrogant, self-absorbed sociopath that the Dumbocrats worship and defend here on USMB.

Ex-Defense Secretary Gates Takes Aim At Obama In New Book : The Two-Way : NPR

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Been reading articles about the book this morning. Pretty damning book. He also states that low level administration officials would directly call or confront admirals & generals and that Obama allowed it. In other words no respect for the military or its chain of command.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

There was a time once in the history of this nation when traitors were hung. Today they get elected president or plan on running for president. And its even beginning to look like an entire political party thinks absolutely nothing of committing treason when its politically expedient. These revelations by Mr Gates should be setting off a firestorm but they're not. Perhaps the gravity of Gates' statements haven't sunk in yet, but I'm sure David Brock's mediamatters website is in full Defcon 5 mode right now over the Gates book's impending release. The old Propagandameister, Joseph Goebbels, never had it so good.

Upstairs in the White Houses private living quarters Obama's rumored to have an entire hallway covered with portrait sized photographs of him surrounded by crowds of his adoring Obamabots, some reaching out to touch him, some in tears, all appearing to be stoned or in some other trancelike state of intoxication.

Unfortunately when the clock gets close to midnight on 2016 and the Obama presidency, this treasonous son of a b!t@h, Comrade Cucksocker, will decide he really doesn't want to leave office because of the adulation he's received since becoming president. With the Senate already an arm of this impending dictatorship look for Comrade Cucksocker to start implementing ways to to circumscribe the House and subvert the rest of the Democratic processes this country used to enjoy before his arrival making his dictatorship complete.

Declaring victory then bugging out for political expedience, out Neville Chamberlains Neville Chamberlain. Of course, Comrade Cucksocker can count on the MSM's whole hearted support

NBC?s Brian Williams Knows Who?s To Blame For Resurgent Al-Qaeda In Iraq . . . George W. Bush? | Weasel Zippers

Democrats? criminally cynical handling of war and peace issues confirmed | Power Line

President Obama | Iraq | Robert Gates | Syria | Lebanon

 

[The Rabbi]

So what emerges is a portrait of an inept incompetent commander in chief driven largely by a political agenda and unable to control his own political advisors and appointees.
Gee, no one ever saw that coming.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Gates is blaming someone else for his failure.

 

[Truthmatters]

what did you people on the right say about Richard Clarke?

 

[Truthmatters]

Richard A. Clarke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Richard A. Clarke



http://www.richardaclarke.net/[dead link]

Richard Alan Clarke[1] (born October 27, 1950) is the former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism for the United States.

Clarke worked for the State Department during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.[2] In 1992, President George H.W. Bush appointed him to chair the Counter-terrorism Security Group and to a seat on the United States National Security Council. President Bill Clinton retained Clarke and in 1998 promoted him to be the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council. Under President George W. Bush, Clarke initially continued in the same position, but the position was no longer given cabinet-level access. He later became the Special Advisor to the President on cybersecurity. Clarke left the Bush administration in 2003.

Clarke came to widespread public attention for his role as counter-terrorism czar in the Clinton and Bush administrations in March 2004, when he appeared on the 60 Minutes television news magazine, released his memoir about his service in government, Against All Enemies, and testified before the 9/11 Commission. In all three instances, Clarke was sharply critical of the Bush administration's attitude toward counter-terrorism before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and of the decision to go to war with Iraq. Following Clarke's strong criticisms of the Bush administration, Bush administration officials and other Republicans attempted to discredit him or rebut his criticisms, making Clarke a controversial figure.

 

[Truthmatters]

why didn't you believe what he said?

 

[P@triot]

why didn't you believe what he said?

Who said I didn't? Please show me the post where I stated "I don't believe Richard Clarke".

So now that we've covered the 80's and 90's, can we get back to current events that are shaping our nation? Or are they just too difficult for you to swallow? Rather change the subject to 1972?

 

[P@triot]

Gates is blaming someone else for his failure.

Sorry chief - Barack Obama was in charge. He made the decisions - not Gates. The buck stops with Obama, even if you libtards don't want it to...

 

[g5000]

The higher up you go in the military, the more political it becomes and the less military it is.

Gates is a politician. I think we need to watch and see what his political aspirations are before we can understand the true motives behind his book, and determine whether he is telling whole or half truths.

A book is often a signal from a politician who is seeking a new career in DC.

Obama has been prosecuting the War on Islam differently than the way Bush did it. Bush threw armies at them while Obama uses drones.

Gates is an old school blood and treasure kind of guy, and probably misses the days of moving men around on the map.

 

[The Rabbi]

The higher up you go in the military, the more political it becomes and the less military it is.

Gates is a politician. I think we need to watch and see what his political aspirations are before we can understand the true motives behind his book, and determine whether he is telling whole or half truths.

A book is often a signal from a politician who is seeking a new career in DC.

Obama has been prosecuting the War on Islam differently than the way Bush did it. Bush threw armies at them while Obama uses drones.

Gates is an old school blood and treasure kind of guy, and probably misses the days of moving men around on the map.

Gates is probably the last partisan figure in DC. Attributing political motives is the last refuge of the clueless.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In his new book, Robert Gates confirms conversations between himself and Barack Obama in which the president admitted to him that he opposed the "surge" strategy simply for political purposes.

In other words, he was willing to let Americans die horrible deaths and not attempt to win the war in order to score political points for his own selfish advantage.

Absolutely, positively disgusting. And this is the selfish, arrogant, self-absorbed sociopath that the Dumbocrats worship and defend here on USMB.

Ex-Defense Secretary Gates Takes Aim At Obama In New Book : The Two-Way : NPR

In the context of the Iraq War, the surge refers to United States President George W. Bush's 2007 increase in the number of American troops in order to provide security to Baghdad and Al Anbar Province.[1]

The surge had been developed under the working title "The New Way Forward" and it was announced in January 2007 by Bush during a television speech.[2][3] Bush ordered the deployment of more than 20,000 soldiers into Iraq, five additional brigades, and sent the majority of them into Baghdad.[2] He also extended the tour of most of the Army troops in country and some of the Marines already in the Anbar Province area.[2] The President described the overall objective as establishing a "...unified, democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror."[3] The major element of the strategy was a change in focus for the US military "to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security".[2] The President stated that the surge would then provide the time and conditions conducive to reconciliation among political and ethnic factions.

Has anyone paid attention to the current events in Anbar Province? How well did that surge work out, Bush in his 2007 STOU Speech said in part:

"...in Anbar Province, where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them, we're sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out. (Applause.) We didn't drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq".

 

[Truthmatters]

why didn't you believe what he said?

Who said I didn't? Please show me the post where I stated "I don't believe Richard Clarke".

So now that we've covered the 80's and 90's, can we get back to current events that are shaping our nation? Or are they just too difficult for you to swallow? Rather change the subject to 1972?

1972?


R. Clarke was the top terror expert when Bush took office.


He quit because Bush REFUSED to listen to his warnings about OBL and AQ.


then we got hit on 911

 

[Truthmatters]

the right called the top terror expert a liar


why?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I very much doubt The President was opposed to the surge solely for "political" reasons. Gates has an agenda - we'll learn what it is soon enough.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The higher up you go in the military, the more political it becomes and the less military it is.

Gates is a politician. I think we need to watch and see what his political aspirations are before we can understand the true motives behind his book, and determine whether he is telling whole or half truths.

A book is often a signal from a politician who is seeking a new career in DC.

Obama has been prosecuting the War on Islam differently than the way Bush did it. Bush threw armies at them while Obama uses drones.

Gates is an old school blood and treasure kind of guy, and probably misses the days of moving men around on the map.

Gates is probably the last partisan figure in DC. Attributing political motives is the last refuge of the clueless.

What is his purpose if not political?

 

[Truthmatters]

um righties


if you called our top terror expert a "disgruntled employee" and said he wasn't telling the truth then why do you automatically believe this guy?

 

[g5000]

During the 2008 campaign, each candidate had a different approach to the wars.

McCain made it clear he expected we might have a military presence in Afghanistan for the next 50 years. The liberals pounced all over him for this statement. However, if Truman had said during World War II that we would have a military presence in Germany for the next 50 years that would cost us an astronomical amount of money and create a vast military-industrial complex, would he have been wrong? Nope.

Obama had an entirely different agenda focused on domestic issues. His plan for the wars was to end them and use the "savings" to fund his domestic programs.

During his 2008 campaign, Obama was writing promisorry checks the American people would not be able to cash. I pointed out on other forums that the idea there would be "savings" from ending the wars was preposterous. If you were spending $500 a month more than you earned, and you were spending it on hookers, then said that you were going to stop frequenting hookers and would use the "savings" to go to night school, would that make any kind of mathematical sense?

No. It doesn't. Our country was deficit spending like drunken sailors in a whorehouse under Bush. Something to which the coma children around here are oblivious. If you stop some of the deficit spending, there are no "savings". There is just less deficit spending.

So, bascially, Obama was saying he was going to keep on deficit spending at the same levels as Bush, only he was going to redirect the money from warmaking to domestic programs.

But to do this, he first had to end the wars.

And that explains his approach to the War on Islam being different from the way Bush prosecuted that war.

It also explains the suspicion he had toward his generals which Gates describes in his book. The generals wanted to continue to prosecute the war and have a military presence for the next half century in Afghanistan.

So is it really big news Obama had differences with them?

Nope.

And let's not pretend that the coma children don't make more of a big deal out of American deaths under Obama than they did Bush. Christ, we had some dipshits here claiming he killed 4,000 troops in the past year! A COMPLETELY BOGUS figure not even close to reality. It is therefore to be expected that Obama is sensitive to this.

So...yeah.

 

[chikenwing]

I very much doubt The President was opposed to the surge solely for "political" reasons. Gates has an agenda - we'll learn what it is soon enough.

What you really mean is you hope,but when contras ed with all the other Dems that were for Iraq untill they were not,for political hay ,you hope he wasn't one of them,but........

Dems caused more pain and suffering in Iraq because of their actions

Hairy Reid "We have lost the war"