Obama Picks Robert Gates For Defense

Obama picks Bush's boy to continue his job of Secretary of Defense. This news announced tonight on all the agencies. So where is this change at we were promised? What is your guys thoughts on this? I see more of the same.

reply to post by mybigunit

---

Actually, that was a fairly predictable decision. Zbigniew Brzezinski is a huge supporter of Gates, and of course, Zbigniew Brzezinski was also the person behind the scenes "guiding" the candidacy of Obama. Brzezinski's grand scheme is playing out just the way he wants it.

Still doesnt change my opinion of Obama. He isnt about change. He is another government tool. None of these sons a B# are about change. Gates is corrupt I mean hell he worked for Bush. We had no choice last election or any election for that matter.

reply to post by mybigunit

---

I never gave my opinion of Obama in my response. I have no use for him, didn't vote for him, and have consistently posted threads that indicated that. In addition, I made it very clear in those posts that I believe both parties are in bed with the PTB, and that regardless of who was elected, things would not change.
The only thing I disagree with that you said, is that Gates worked for Bush. Actually, Gates AND Bush both work for the real powers behind the US government, and the rest of the world. They are all part of the same country club of crooks and despots, who are doing everything to get total control of everyone's lives.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

---

My amigo, could you elaborate some more on this.


Seeing that Gates currently know the in and outs of what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think this is the best choice Obama could have made. At least there will be some stability until Obama starts to make policy changes. Those changes could take awhile due to the current economic fiasco.

Those changes could take a while? How long are Obama supporters going to wait? LOL I can see it now, Obama/Biden 2012 Changes are coming I promise.

HA!HA!, Jd you could have a point there. I have to agree he is walking with the choir. I do hope and pray for a real change for the better and keep my hopes up, but the out look could be grim. Can you believe I'm an optimist.............

reply to post by jd140

---

Don't know. I didn't vote for Obama. All I can tell you is that I keep hearing this word prioritize. Right now Iraq and Afghanistan is pretty stable. As long as they are stable Obama can focus on other pressing issues.

reply to post by jam321

---

Certainly, I'll elaborate.

www.4rie.com...

I just assumed that most members knew that Brzezinski was the founding member of the Trilateral Commission.

BTW, if you want confirmation that it didn't matter who was elected President, here is a great link:

www.opednews.com...







[edit on 25-11-2008 by ProfEmeritus]

ProfEmeritus, thanks for the info. will read up on it.

I knew Brzezinski had ties to Carter and had heard a little bit about the trilateral commission.

I just hope that once he is given the full brief on Iraq he will be humble enough and give W a personal call of apology. I believe most people here are right. The government isn't telling us everything. I just choose to think that the things they aren't telling isn't so they can cover up mistakes.

Obama was elected three weeks ago. He won't be inaugurated until January 20. What kind of changes do you expect before then?

Gates was a surprising choice, but he is both competent and knowledgeable in his area of expertise. Obama has said he wants to have Republicans in his administration, too, so this is an example of his bipartisanship. I don't think this appointment says anything about Obama's commitment to withdrawal from Iraq. Gates will be working for a new boss now, so you can't assume he will continue Bush's policies.

It may not be possible or advisable to withdraw from Iraq too quickly. We don't have access to the president's briefings on foreign affairs, so we don't know exactly how we would do it.

It's obvious most of you are determined to undermine Obama and never intended to give him a chance.

I intend to give him every chance that Bush haters (who are not privy to presidential briefings on foreign affairs) gave him. I expect all Bush haters to become Obama haters if we are not out of Iraq by the end of next year. I expect all Bush haters to become Obama haters if the economy isn't showing signs of improvement by the end of his first term. Most of all, I expect one Obama supporter to tell me what Obama meant when he said "change we can believe in".

Obama will have the support Bush should have had. It will not matter what he does, everyone will continue to blame Bush for all the problems. Obama could run this country straight to hell and it would end up being Bush's fault. I believe he could do nothing and go down in our history books as one of our greatest presidents ever.

By the way. I really hope he succedes. If he doesn't then we are all in a world of hurt. So why would I not give him a chance?

Agreed. He's got the best qualifications given his knowledge of the middle east so I think he's a great pick. Of course the liberal purists won't be happy.

Hang on, Sestias. You have to to remember what Obama campaigned on most of the time - that he would make it a priority to brings the troops home immediately.

But then that changed and he said "set a timetable" for withdrawal, instead. Now that Obama has been briefed on what's going on and actually knows something about something it sounds like he understands that a withdrawal from Iraq or setting a hard timetable may not be in our best interests.

So what is your message to all Obama supporters who voted for him based on the Iraq war being their number one concern and wanting the troops brought home?

I knew Obama was in with the Trilateral Commission, but I didn't know he was that in with it. :-(

How stupid is America?

In fact, this applies to all the choices he has made from the Clinton years and other previous administrations. All the complaining about this not being "change" is summed up in your sentence. They're working for a new boss, so we can't assume they will continue practices from before.



Over 16 months. He said he wanted to start immediately and bring them home over a period of 16 months. He was always clear that that's what his plan was and that he would have to get further informed to know whether or not it would work out as he planned.



I AM one of those Obama supporters who was FIRST drawn to his desire to end the Iraq war. It was my first priority. I still think he wants to end the Iraq war, but it may take longer than 16 months to get all of our troops out of there. That's OK. I get it. I understand.

I feel great knowing that he wants to end the war as opposed to Bush/Cheney, et al, whose priority was to keep it going. At least I feel we'll be headed in the right direction.

And keeping a Secretary of Defense from the other party IS CHANGE. Putting the stability of the situation over personal desires IS change. Putting Country First IS Change! It's anti-cronyism. I totally approve of this choice! I think it's the smart (and unselfish) thing to do.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Wow the hypocrisy is laughable at best on this thread. You wonder how they divide and conquer Im going to show you how right now.

On one hand you have the Democrats and Obama nuts saying we are willing to wait for change and if Obama needs more than 16 months than that is what it takes. Meanwhile when BUSH was saying its going to take time to get out because we cant just rush out the door all the Democrats and Obama nuts were flipping out. Now staying in Iraq past 16 months is Ok. LOL.


Then you have the Neo Cons in here saying oooh Robert Gates is a GREAT choice just because he is on Bush's team meanwhile all of Obama's Clinton picks are lets dog on Obama because he doesnt want change.

Do you sheeple see where Im going with this. This is how they divide and conquer to get their goals achieved. The facts are we can leave Iraq tomorrow. There is no reason to stay they have their own government, own army, and own security. Our job is done there and we never should of gone in in the first place. It was done under false pretenses and it was a disaster. For the guy above who says oh now Obama gets Bush's intelligence briefings now well geez where were those briefings before going into Iraq? Oh yeah Bush dismissed them because they didnt say what he wanted them to say.

Then for you Obama nuts he promises change and puts in a lot of the scum that helped to get us into this situation in his cabinet. I know he hasnt taken office and I understand that. I too want to see him succeed but man choosing people like Geitner and Rahm Emanuel heh is almost disgusting at best. So for all the sheeple in the house here's to the change that is NOT coming.

This appointment was discussed on C-Span this morning and as I look over this post I don't really see anybody addressing this-

I've read stuff related to aliens and gov/mil involvement that spoke of political drama within the pentagon and that the US president doesn't come close to some security clearances. Also that the pentagon has been traditionally Republican. Like Jimmy Carter- something about the more Republican pentagram (I mean pentagon ) never let him close to the alien info.
Such allegations- unfortunately I don't want to spend time finding the source (one of the big alien gurus)- would be contrary to the R=D=one party facade idea. For this reason I don't really accept that part of it as the parties are barely discernible.
I do wonder however- is the Sec of Defense hold pentagon authority beyond/above the President?
And Also- perhaps the powers that be determined his extension. What am I saying? -Of course people above the O-dog made the decision but could it have been related to inter-pentagon politics?

If someone could please answer though- How much power does Gates yield outside the surface military?
Thanks!