Posted on 03/01/2009 12:04:27 PM PST by Justaham
WASHINGTON – Tell us, Robert Gates, what's the difference between working under Barack Obama and working under George W. Bush?
"That sounds like the subject of a good book," Gates said with a smile.
"It's really hard to say," he continued during an interview aired Sunday on "Meet the Press" on NBC.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Bull Shitte.
The war turned around as soon as Rumsfeld was kicked to the curb. Gates seems to be doing a good job. I’m very glad that despite Obama’s massive liabilities on economics, he is getting decent marks from his defense team, so far.
Time will be that judge...as time will be the judge as to the effectiveness of the strategy.
This much we know.
Bush's policies have freed tens of millions of people who have never been free before in a part of the world that knows precious little or no freedom.
This will be invaluable if we will support that freedom in opening the door to more of the same in that area, the heart of the fundamental Islamic Jihadist who must depend on tyranny, intolerance, and ignorance to fill their ranks...all of which liberty is the natural enemy to.
Obama's policies and direction, had they been followed as he has espoused them instead of Bush's, would have opened no such door and freed no one.
We also know this...Bush's policies led to us not gettgin hit again by a major terror attack on these shores. He took the fight to the enemy and the emeny is cowering in holes.
We shall see in four years (God forbid eight) if OBama can say the samen either count.
My sentiments as well. See post 4.
“It’s hard to say.” What the f??? Well how about saying that Bush was actually working towards an American victory! That would be one big damn difference right there, chunky.
....and a LOT less truthful.
Nah. On matters of Israel, Iran and our mortal enemies from abroad, Iraq is the only feather in the cap for Gates.
How can a Chicago thug like Dumbo be “analytical” when he thought Iowa was Ottawa, canada?
How can a Chicago thug like Dumbo be “analytical” when he thought Iowa was Ottawa, canada?
yea, he is anal-itical
where is the birthcertificate, huh? Who is he???
Kenyan, British, Indonesian, devil?
Just Google “Obama Iowa Ottawa” and you;ll get a couple of hits. The MSM was successful in ignoring the story but got picked up in the blogosphere.
By then the military had come up to speed with Arabic speakers, getting ten's of intel units the year or two to build up networks, meshing together Army/CIA/NSA units, bribes..... Can't remember the guy that pushed, pulled, kicked, had acerbic questions getting the military/security bureaucracy to get it's ass in gear. Maybe Tinkerbell.
...
In September, Rumsfeld had rejected the idea of a surge when retired general Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army and a member of the advisory Defense Policy Review Board, met with him and Pace. Keane insisted the "train and leave" strategy, as Bush referred to it, was failing. He proposed a counterinsurgency strategy, the addition of five to eight Army brigades, and a primary focus on taking back Baghdad. Rumsfeld was unconvinced.
Fred Barnes reporting in the Weekly Standard.
Gates proposed the surge. Rumsfeld opposed it.
So Barry has to ask question after question until he understands an issue, DURING a meeting, while Bush prepared for meetings in advance.
Yeah Barry, go ahead and ask the Surgeon General about Iraq because he has a uniform... Or ask that bozo Panetta....
Fred never run a two man canoe.
The ‘Surge’ wasn’t possible until someone transformed the Army and the other organs from a dated, Soviet Centric equipped and fossilized structure and mentality. The Surged worked because the troops, leaders, equipment, and other agencies had changed. That took years, and support and push for change.
That credit at his level belongs to Rumsfield.
As an aside, one of the criticisms I read of Rumsfeld was his hard, almost prosecutorial questioning of those making propositions.
Which is the right thing to do, as so much smoke is generated and delivered in such a bureaucracy.
There may have been many reasons why at one point in time, Rumsfield wouldn’t accept The Surge. Politics, money, bad presentation, weariness ....there are a hundred to include it being just one of a hundred critical decisions dumped on his desk. Also, where were the Joints? Afraid?
Lastly, Rumsfeld through thick and thin was loyal to Bush, and to the interests of the services as he saw them.
Lastly, who was responsible for not having a follow up after the initial victory?
Who was the architect of the notion of ‘train and leave’?
What I’m getting at is, isn’t the US Army high command, the Generals and the General schools the ones that failed in have so delivered the worlds most well funded military and yet with such little command, theory or thinking on this?
Anyways, Bush was lucky to have tough old Rumsfeld. I can’t but feel that most political appointees would of run for the hills in having 9/11, a new enemy, two wars at the farthest distance, unpopular support here and abroad, plus manage the Pentagon and stayed sane and loyal.
I certainly think so. I think the higher officer schools and command have been very poor for decades on the subject of low intensity and third world state management.
Now that things are smoothing out in Iraq, people are coming out of left field saying they were the ones, and the ones who were doing the hard work at the time are looked back upon as the enemy.
Sorry, I’ve been around too long to let that fly.
Obama plans on cutting Defense Spending, which will certainly lessen his popularity with his defesne team.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.