Obama wants Bush war team to stay

Tell Obama's anti-war supporters that this just isn't so!

article

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has asked most Bush administration political appointees except those targeted for dismissal to stay on in the Pentagon until replaced by the Obama administration in the coming months.

"I have received authorization from the president-elect's transition team to extend a number of Department of Defense political appointees an invitation to voluntarily remain in their current positions until replaced," Mr. Gates said in an Dec. 19 e-mail to political appointees.

The chance to stay is "available to all willing political appointees with the exception of those who are contacted individually and told otherwise," he stated.

Soooo, in spite of all Obama's anti-war campaign rhetoric, it looks like it will be pretty much "business as usual" at the Pentagon.

Maybe Obama is extending the olive branch to the military in this way to help keep them from thinking of "swapping him out"?

There will be a NEW war from the administration of President "O"
This my gut feeling.

[edit on 23-12-2008 by Muundoggie]

reply to post by Muundoggie


Well, by committing 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, that will certainly become Obama's war. No telling what the "Obama war team" will come up with after that.

Heh..well here comes the "change we can believe in" promise!!

Now where is my big sign with his picture and the words "I TOLD YOU SO".




Cheers!!!!

How many times did he say "the failures of the Bush administration" -da-da-da-da-da?

Same horse, different color, no pun, but the "Hate Bush, Love Obama" crowd will probably love this anyway.

This is nothing more than a CYA tactic because if and when he does, he can still blame it on the Bush adminstration and not lie about it.
Very Clintonesque.


---I just had a feeling of Deja Vu.

it's says..."until replaced"

doesn't that kind of indicate that a lot if not all these guys are only gonna be there till someone more suitable can be found?

maybe you guys are jumping to conclusions on this one.

[edit on 23-12-2008 by liquidsmoke206]

remember obama mainacs... you voted for em

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
it's says..."until replaced"

doesn't that kind of indicate that a lot if not all these guys are only gonna be there till someone more suitable can be found?

maybe you guys are jumping to conclusions on this one.

[edit on 23-12-2008 by liquidsmoke206]

I don't think that is correct. Consider the following from the same articlle:

About 40 positions in the Pentagon require Senate confirmation, including the undersecretaries and assistant secretaries and some deputies. The rest do not require a formal presidential nomination and Senate approval and can be made by the defense secretary.

Senate confirmation in some cases can take months and require hearings. In other cases, nominees can be approved within a few weeks of nomination.

Geoff Morrell, Pentagon press secretary, confirmed that Mr. Gates wants to retain most political appointees. He said the policy of keeping so many holdover officials is unusual for a transition from a Republican to Democratic administration

So, the ones requiring senate confirmation will will be there awhile (if replaced) and the others serve at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense - Gates, another Bush holdover - so I wouldn't expect them to be replaced..

[edit on 12/23/2008 by centurion1211]

Ok, so it seems that some will be staying, but how many?
It just says that he WANTS most to stay, but it doesn't say how many he actually can allow to stay in place.

I don't really understand what all these secretaries and deputies do, so I can't gauge their importance, and I don't know how many there are either. It seems the senate has control of 40 of them, but how many does Gates have?

If it's true that most of them end up staying in place, then Obama has some explaining to do, otherwise he looks pretty pathetic.

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by Muundoggie

 

Well, by committing 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, that will certainly become Obama's war. No telling what the "Obama war team" will come up with after that.

Does this mean the left will start calling him "Obama, the war criminal" now?

As long he's still going to pay my mortgage, i'm good

I think the lesson is clear. When you're on the campaign trail, it's easy as pie to point fingers and spout off what a bad job the current administration is doing, but then you put one of the critics in a position of power and suddenly they are privvy to all the information they need to actually do the job, and voila! The new administration suddenly closely resembles the old one! Arnold Governator from California found this out the hard way.

That should be a big indicator to the likes of SNL writers, Keith Olbermann (the biggest loudmouth on political television), etc. that there's more going on than they are in the loop of knowing. But of course, they will still continue to ignorantly spout disinformation and poke fun of the current administration for as long as they can, just like the good little airheads they all are.

First impression, I think it would probably have more to do with the fact that we're still currently engaged in these two conflicts - or at least dealing with their repercussions. Many of these people have been a-hole deep in the mess since it started. They know the game, and they know the score. It wouldn't really be beneficial to immediately withdraw and replace them with new appointees. Obama will be the new Commander in Chief of our military forces, so they will have to follow his orders and his directives.

Since lives are on the line, it makes sense to me to have the transition to a new president be as seamless as possible in regards to managing the military conflicts.

Originally posted by Lasheic
First impression, I think it would probably have more to do with the fact that we're still currently engaged in these two conflicts - or at least dealing with their repercussions. Many of these people have been a-hole deep in the mess since it started. They know the game, and they know the score. It wouldn't really be beneficial to immediately withdraw and replace them with new appointees. Obama will be the new Commander in Chief of our military forces, so they will have to follow his orders and his directives.

Since lives are on the line, it makes sense to me to have the transition to a new president be as seamless as possible in regards to managing the military conflicts.

You know this kind of response would almost be hilarious if it wasn't an example of how out of touch obama and many of his supporters were and still are.

Exactly how long ago was it now that the obamaphiles were calling Bush's people in the Pentagon war criminals and worse? Wanted them all prosecuted for war crimes. Last month? Now, it's suddenly a great idea to keep them on the job? Why? Just because obama said so? Well, what about all the anti-war "principles" you all claimed to have and that they were a big reason you supported obama?

[edit on 12/23/2008 by centurion1211]

reply to post by centurion1211


"You all"?

Buddy, I didn't vote for Obama. I didn't vote for either candidate, because I don't feel that either candidate matches my criteria. The only reason I WOULD have voted for Obama is to keep Sarah Palin as far from the position as possible, not because I support him.

I'm giving an outside analysis. It DOES make sense, and it would have made the same sense if McCain were to have won and decided on the same course. My response would have been exactly the same.

Methinks you're letting this "Us and them" mentality cloud your judgment.

reply to post by Lasheic


I'm starting to see more and more posts by people coming to their senses - after they voted - so that post wasn't meant to be directed solely at any one person. Hence the use of "you all".

Remember, most of us had to wait awhile before saying "oops" about Bush. These folks are finding themselves saying it before obama even takes office. Now that should be some kind of clue ...

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
maybe you guys are jumping to conclusions on this one.

Ya think?

This is a specialty here lately. Jumping the gun. With the way people are responding to Obama's choices, you'd think these people make policy or something.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
it's says..."until replaced"

doesn't that kind of indicate that a lot if not all these guys are only gonna be there till someone more suitable can be found?

maybe you guys are jumping to conclusions on this one.

[edit on 23-12-2008 by liquidsmoke206]

I don't think that is correct. Consider the following from the same articlle:

About 40 positions in the Pentagon require Senate confirmation, including the undersecretaries and assistant secretaries and some deputies. The rest do not require a formal presidential nomination and Senate approval and can be made by the defense secretary.

Senate confirmation in some cases can take months and require hearings. In other cases, nominees can be approved within a few weeks of nomination.

Geoff Morrell, Pentagon press secretary, confirmed that Mr. Gates wants to retain most political appointees. He said the policy of keeping so many holdover officials is unusual for a transition from a Republican to Democratic administration

So, the ones requiring senate confirmation will will be there awhile (if replaced) and the others serve at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense - Gates, another Bush holdover - so I wouldn't expect them to be replaced..

[edit on 12/23/2008 by centurion1211]

I think it would be stupid of Obama to clean out the experienced war mongers and put in hippies. I think it would be irresponsible to put in newbees during the transition...
Anyhow aren't You NEOCONS happy that the war is on??? Remember, spread freedom and Democracy???

So you got a good thing going for you! Cheers

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by Lasheic

 

I'm starting to see more and more posts by people coming to their senses - after they voted - so that post wasn't meant to be directed solely at any one person. Hence the use of "you all".

If it wasn't meant to be directed solely at any one, then perhaps you shouldn't have stated it in a direct response to me and addressing my comment. There's other ways to word it when addressing a general target audience. Think before you hit the reply button.

Originally posted by The Bald Champion

I think it would be stupid of Obama to clean out the experienced war mongers and put in hippies. I think it would be irresponsible to put in newbees during the transition...
Anyhow aren't You NEOCONS happy that the war is on??? Remember, spread freedom and Democracy???

So you got a good thing going for you! Cheers

No, but that's exactly what you (anti-war appeasers) said you wanted during the campaign, and obama was right there with you. So, bring on the hippies. Let's see once and for all how "brilliant" a move what you said you wanted would be.

Might end up costing us millions of lives and our nation as our enemies decide to take advantage of the hippies, but then we will have finally proved the point that their philosphy on this is wrong.

So, why take out your frustrations by trying to insult me when it is your guy that's let you down?

Up to you to now figure out what if any of what I just wrote was "tongue-in-cheek".

[edit on 12/23/2008 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by Lasheic

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by Lasheic

 

I'm starting to see more and more posts by people coming to their senses - after they voted - so that post wasn't meant to be directed solely at any one person. Hence the use of "you all".

If it wasn't meant to be directed solely at any one, then perhaps you shouldn't have stated it in a direct response to me and addressing my comment. There's other ways to word it when addressing a general target audience. Think before you hit the reply button.

Semantics. You are now wasting my time and everyone elses on this when you know what I meant. Move along to the topic again, please.