OT - Regarding the Obama/Robert Gates "Myth"
mozark
interviews to places like "The Military Times". From that interview,
dated 7/7/08:
======================================================================
Q: It’s the first wartime transition in 40 years. The basic concern
within the Pentagon is that things will be lost or continuity will be
lost. Do you expect to keep any political appointees in place?
A: Here’s what I’ll tell you. I try to avoid signaling what a cabinet
will look like. I can tell you this: I do think that [Defense]
Secretary [Robert] Gates has brought a level of realism and
professionalism and planning to the job that is worthy of praise. I
think that the Pentagon is operating more effectively. I think he has
improved greatly the relationships with the Joint Chiefs and the
military generally.
Q: He just fired one of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
A: Well, that’s OK. The truth is, part of improving relations is
improving accountability. That’s something we should always expect
from our military leadership and our civilian leadership, something
that has been in short supply over the last seven years. So overall I
think Gates has done a good job. But whether that means that he would
continue in that position, or would even want to, I think that’s
something that will be determined later. I don’t want to get too far
ahead of myself. I think I have a little more work to do before I have
to make those decisions.
theBZA
883023...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> Obama just can't wait to bomb someone, and toward that end he's giving
> interviews to places like "The Military Times". From that interview,
> dated 7/7/08:
>
> =====================================================================
> Q: It’s the first wartime transition in 40 years. The basic concern
> within the Pentagon is that things will be lost or continuity will be
> lost. Do you expect to keep any political appointees in place?
>
> A: Here’s what I’ll tell you. I try to avoid signaling what a cabinet
> will look like. I can tell you this: I do think that [Defense]
> Secretary [Robert] Gates has brought a level of realism and
> professionalism and planning to the job that is worthy of praise. I
> think that the Pentagon is operating more effectively. I think he has
> improved greatly the relationships with the Joint Chiefs and the
> military generally.
>
> Q: He just fired one of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
>
> A: Well, that’s OK. The truth is, part of improving relations is
> improving accountability. That’s something we should always expect
> from our military leadership and our civilian leadership, something
> that has been in short supply over the last seven years. So overall I
> think Gates has done a good job. But whether that means that he would
> continue in that position, or would even want to, I think that’s
> something that will be determined later. I don’t want to get too far
> ahead of myself. I think I have a little more work to do before I have
> to make those decisions.
>
These are similar to the quotes Richard Danzig gave NPR. Where does it
say "I am going to keep Gates" or even "I would consider keeping Gates"?
Nowhere. Thank you for proving that that is a myth.
BTW, Gates is definitely a step up from Rumsfeld and saying so is just
saying the truth, not betraying some core principle. It's like saying
Ford was an improvement over Nixon. Or McDonalds is an improvement over
6-month old rotten dog food.
I take it this is the closest you could get to "I am seriously
considering keeping Gates as my Secretary of Defense." As such, you have
proven my point. I thank you.
--
Are you Evolved?
mozark
> say "I am going to keep Gates" or even "I would consider keeping Gates"?
> Nowhere. Thank you for proving that that is a myth.
Thank you for proving that you can't read.
No one said he was "going to keep Gates" -- not me, not the very good
article in the LT, no one,
What everyone has said, and was shocked about, was the statement that
Obama is CONSIDERING -- look up the word if you need to -- keeping
Gates. And that's exactly what he says in this MT interview.
The fact that you don't think it's a big deal that the Democratic
nominee is CONSIDERING carrying over the SecDef from the most
militarily and internationally criminal adminstration in US history
shows you've lost your compass, and seem to be, as are so many
"progressives" who continue to hang with this guy, in this for
identity reasons, apart from ideology.
Plus you have it both ways. You assert that everyone who has their
panties in a twist about BO are just a bunch of uniformed sheep, not
as informed and sophisticated as you are. While also asserting that
these same lowlifes should have known long ago that this guy was just
another slice of DLC cheese.
So which is it? Are you lying about him now, or are you lying about
him then?
theBZA
news:936d779f-6cdd-4abb...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>> These are similar to the quotes Richard Danzig gave NPR. Where does
>> it say "I am going to keep Gates" or even "I would consider keeping
>> Gates"? Nowhere. Thank you for proving that that is a myth.
>
> Thank you for proving that you can't read.
>
> No one said he was "going to keep Gates" -- not me, not the very good
> article in the LT, no one,
>
"very good" and "London Times" in the same sentence? What next? Praise
for Rush Limbaugh?
> What everyone has said, and was shocked about, was the statement that
> Obama is CONSIDERING -- look up the word if you need to -- keeping
> Gates. And that's exactly what he says in this MT interview.
>
It is exactly *NOT* what Obama said. But maybe if you keep saying it is,
everyone will eventually believe you. I think that's a very old tactic.
> The fact that you don't think it's a big deal that the Democratic
> nominee is CONSIDERING carrying over the SecDef from the most
Um, what does "carrying over" mean and where does Obama say he is
considering this? You still haven't shown us a quote to that effect.
> militarily and internationally criminal adminstration in US history
> shows you've lost your compass, and seem to be, as are so many
> "progressives" who continue to hang with this guy, in this for
> identity reasons, apart from ideology.
>
I can't get upset about something a guy never said.
> Plus you have it both ways. You assert that everyone who has their
> panties in a twist about BO are just a bunch of uniformed sheep, not
> as informed and sophisticated as you are. While also asserting that
> these same lowlifes should have known long ago that this guy was just
> another slice of DLC cheese.
>
Wrong. The only problem I have with people with their panties in a twist
are the ones who are promulgating these Rovian hit pieces about Obama's
"betrayals" and "reversals." I've shown you over and over how his
policies today are the same as they were last year, the year before, the
before that, etc. If you want to be upset at those policies, that is
legit. I certainly do not agree with all of them. I've long been against
the option in his healthcare plan. But to say that he has suddenly
changed positions on a bunch of policies that he hasn't, that's just
doing Karl Rove's job for him. So, no, I don't want it both ways. I want
it just one way: let's have legitimate criticism. Not propaganda
bullshit.
> So which is it? Are you lying about him now, or are you lying about
> him then?
>
Since I'm saying he's the same now as then it can't be one or the other.
--
Are you Evolved?
VicXnews
883023...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> Obama just can't wait to bomb someone, and toward that end he's giving
> interviews to places like "The Military Times". From that interview,
> dated 7/7/08:
that's as far as I got...can't vote for him...gotta vote for the other
dog...I'm off the cool-aid
bozak
i think your phone is off the hook...
i keep hearing that noise...
mozark
> for Rush Limbaugh?
Hey, I have a hunch -- I bet you've never even read the London Times.
Yes, it's owned by Murdoch. It's also the most respected newspaper in
GB.
And the funny thing is -- it has absolutely nothing to do with this
story. Obamba said what he said. He was asked about continuity in the
Pentagon. Then went off on how good a SecDef Gates is. Then, all by
hisself, since the interviewer was asleep at the wheel, mentioned the
possibility of bringing Gates into an Obama Cabinet.
Once more for the literal-minded:
"But whether that means that he would
continue in that position, or would even want to, I think that’s
something that will be determined later. I don’t want to get too far
ahead of myself. I think I have a little more work to do before I
have
to make those decisions."
Try and imagine any other candidate in the past 40 years leaving the
door open to reappointment of a sitting Cabinet member from the other
party's incumbent administration, forgetting for a moment that we're
talking here about the prime militarist in an adminstration which has
rewritten Nuremberg.
So let's imagine Nixon leaving the door open for a Robert McNamara or
Dean Rusk re-up. Clniton leaving it open for a Cheney re-up. Bush/
Albright. Reagan/Vance. Carter/Kissinger.
Absolutely ridiculous. And ALL of those adminstrations were less
partisan or criminal than Bush II.
But keep on throwing your shit. You're still deep in the ditch.
theBZA
news:b6f3252c-b175-494e...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>> "very good" and "London Times" in the same sentence? What next?
>> Praise for Rush Limbaugh?
>
> Hey, I have a hunch -- I bet you've never even read the London Times.
> Yes, it's owned by Murdoch. It's also the most respected newspaper in
> GB.
>
By whom? Every read the Guardian?
> And the funny thing is -- it has absolutely nothing to do with this
> story. Obamba said what he said. He was asked about continuity in the
> Pentagon. Then went off on how good a SecDef Gates is. Then, all by
> hisself, since the interviewer was asleep at the wheel, mentioned the
> possibility of bringing Gates into an Obama Cabinet.
>
> Once more for the literal-minded:
>
> "But whether that means that he would
> continue in that position, or would even want to, I think that's
> something that will be determined later. I don't want to get too far
> ahead of myself. I think I have a little more work to do before I
> have
> to make those decisions."
>
I see nothing here that says it's being considered. This quote you cited
earlier from the Military Times. You think he's going to tell the
Military Times that the sitting SoD is a piece of shit? If there was
even a 1% chance of Gates being retained longer than it takes the Senate
to confirm his replacement, Barry would have been singing it loud and
clear to the MT.
{
Q: It's the first wartime transition in 40 years. The basic concern
within the Pentagon is that things will be lost or continuity will be
lost. Do you expect to keep any political appointees in place?
A: Here's what I'll tell you. I try to avoid signaling what a cabinet
will look like. I can tell you this: I do think that [Defense] Secretary
[Robert] Gates has brought a level of realism and professionalism and
planning to the job that is worthy of praise. I think that the Pentagon
is operating more effectively. I think he has improved greatly the
relationships with the Joint Chiefs and the military generally. }
He was asked directly, "Do you expect to keep any political appointees
in place?" He did not answer. Later he said:
"So overall I think Gates has done a good job. But whether that means
that he would continue in that position, or would even want to, I think
that's something that will be determined later."
What would be determined later? Whether Gates continues? Or whether he
wasnts to continue? For how long? While a replacement is vetted and
confirmed?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-
lakers/msg/b132ec79bb6026f2?dmode=source
{
New addition to the FAQ:
Obama said he would "seriously consider" keeping Robert Gates as
SecDef.
}
You said Obama said "seriosly consider" and you still haven't provided
anything close to that. The best you have given us is a backhanded
compliment that he is better than Rumsfeld that was published in the
Military Times.
> Try and imagine any other candidate in the past 40 years leaving the
> door open to reappointment of a sitting Cabinet member from the other
> party's incumbent administration, forgetting for a moment that we're
> talking here about the prime militarist in an adminstration which has
> rewritten Nuremberg.
>
Does it have to be cabinet? GWB kept Richard Clarke on.
Andrew Johnson kept Lincoln's Treasury secretary. Jefferson kept Adams'
Treasury secretary also.
> So let's imagine Nixon leaving the door open for a Robert McNamara or
> Dean Rusk re-up. Clniton leaving it open for a Cheney re-up. Bush/
> Albright. Reagan/Vance. Carter/Kissinger.
>
> Absolutely ridiculous. And ALL of those adminstrations were less
> partisan or criminal than Bush II.
>
> But keep on throwing your shit. You're still deep in the ditch.
>
The ditch we call reality perhaps. But hey, if you want to ignore Barry's
true shortcomings in favor of the republican hit machine, do so.
--
Are you Evolved?
mozark
> anything close to that. The best you have given us is a backhanded
> compliment that he is better than Rumsfeld that was published in the
> Military Times.
I gave you the Danzig quote a long time ago. But maybe he's part of
media-con conspiracy too.
> Does it have to be cabinet? GWB kept Richard Clarke on.
>
> Andrew Johnson kept Lincoln's Treasury secretary. Jefferson kept Adams'
> Treasury secretary also.
LOL
> The ditch we call reality perhaps. But hey, if you want to ignore Barry's
> true shortcomings in favor of the republican hit machine, do so.
Of course, only a media genius such as yerself would understand that
differernce.
The reality known as Alzheimer's.