Robert Gates confirms Obama admitted opposing surge for "politics"

[Pennywise]

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.

I think the motives are financial, and a way for him to pretend to be apart from the mess when he was right in on it.

Obama is a piece of shit and I believe Gates is truthful, but these after-the-fact, in the SAFEZONE whistle-blowers are a little too cute by half. If Gates were a real man he would have stood up and sung at the time when his words would have made a difference. Right now he just looks like an opportunist.

And I repeat, Obama is filth, but it doesn't mean Gates isn't as well, just in a different sphere.

 

[PredFan]

There will be a lot more come out of this book, can't wait!

 

[PredFan]

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.

That's no surprise to anyone. The democrats have nothing but distain for the military. Never have.

 

[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.

why do you believe gates but not Clarke?

 

[PredFan]

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.

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.

I personally don't give a shit about motive, I only care if it's true or not.

 

[PredFan]

the right called the top terror expert a liar


why?

Quit changing the discussion moron, go start your own thread.

 

[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.

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

I think the motives are financial, and a way for him to pretend to be apart from the mess when he was right in on it.

Obama is a piece of shit and I believe Gates is truthful, but these after-the-fact, in the SAFEZONE whistle-blowers are a little too cute by half. If Gates were a real man he would have stood up and sung at the time when his words would have made a difference. Right now he just looks like an opportunist.

And I repeat, Obama is filth, but it doesn't mean Gates isn't as well, just in a different sphere.

Gates would have been out of line to publicly attack his Command-in-Chief while he wore the uniform or served under him.

 

[g5000]

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.

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.

I personally don't give a shit about motive, I only care if it's true or not.

A motive betrays bias, which can help determine whether one is being told the WHOLE truth.

 

[g5000]

Being a Secretary of Defense leads to a very lucrative career afterwards. If one senses that one is leaving a sinking ship, then one can build one's currency by firing another round through the hull on the way out.

I don't think Gates is really revealing anything we don't already instinctively know about Obama and Biden if we have been paying attention all along.

 

[JimH52]

the right called the top terror expert a liar


why?

Quit changing the discussion moron, go start your own thread.

Seems like a germane question to me....You have an answer?

 

[tinydancer]

the right called the top terror expert a liar


why?

You need to read the new rules. The game has changed.

 

[Pop23]

Gates is blaming someone else for his failure.

Obama called Gates one of the greatest Secretaries of defense ever.

Makes your statement absurd

That's gotta hurt

 

[Pop23]

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.

why do you believe gates but not Clarke?

Why do you ask? Obama called Gates one of the Greatest Secretaries of State ever. Are you calling Obama a liar or inept? It must be one or the other.

 

[g5000]

Are you calling Obama a liar or inept?

Isn't he?

 

[rdean]

The surge worked. It prolonged the inevitable.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.

who gives a rip what agenda Gates has...? picking on now-retired Gates is simply the chattering liberal response to sidestep the real issues....

that died-in-the-wool lefties Obama and Hillary said they opposed the surge for political reasons is no freakin' surprise to anybody....

you liking the results of their political agenda....?

Afghanistan is lost...
Iraq is lost...
the whole Middle East is burning...
our military is weaker...
America is sinking....

 

[tinydancer]

You are going to have a lot of knives come out of the drawer now. I'm watching the Clintons start to make their moves.

And I love love love it. You young libs. Heads up!

One thing I have always admired about the Clintons. Man oh man they are pit bulls.

You don't have to worry about the tea party. You don't have to worry about conservatives. The Clintons are coming for you.

 

[g5000]

America is sinking....

This is the cheery Reaganesque optimism of the faux Right we love so much!

 

[Decus]

I personally don't give a shit about motive, I only care if it's true or not.

Excellent question. Surprising that you can't get an answer.

 

[Pennywise]

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

I think the motives are financial, and a way for him to pretend to be apart from the mess when he was right in on it.

Obama is a piece of shit and I believe Gates is truthful, but these after-the-fact, in the SAFEZONE whistle-blowers are a little too cute by half. If Gates were a real man he would have stood up and sung at the time when his words would have made a difference. Right now he just looks like an opportunist.

And I repeat, Obama is filth, but it doesn't mean Gates isn't as well, just in a different sphere.

Gates would have been out of line to publicly attack his Command-in-Chief while he wore the uniform or served under him.

Not if he rendered his resignation in order to bring to light these loaded allegations. A real man would have done that, if this business was as awful as he now claims. There is blood on his hands because he sat on them.

Someone in my family was career military, retiring very high up the chain. I've learned things about the Pentagon and DC that I wish I never heard.