Those of us who tried to warn about Obama's rightward tendencies were shouted down, marginalized, and verbally beaten up.
Don't look for sympathy from us.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Don't look for sympathy from us.
Uh. Okay. Really wasn't thinking of you at all, whoever you are, but, uh, thanks for the heads-up...
Posted by iamcoyote at November 26, 2008 05:15 AMIn my humble opinion, no one associated with the Bush Administration should be selected to do anything in Obama's Administration except clean toilets.
Posted by Judith at November 26, 2008 05:28 AM"Is it that hard to find a tough intelligence professional who isn't stained with Cheney residue?"
Um, Yes. None of the "serious players" have an once of integrity and were universally delighted to go with the Cheney "program". Our beltway "elites" are largely moral scum who have convinced weak-willed elected officials that they are "indispensible", with the corporate press chanting the necessary amens.
And these fading pumas like Carolyn are simply a riot in their egocentrism. The bitter, it stings! Fester away, carolyn kay. Time for a new "hobby" perhaps.
Posted by euzoius at November 26, 2008 05:53 AMObama apparently thinks he needs the blessings and support of the Repub "realist" wing (Scowcroft, et al) in order to accomplish his Iraq--Afghanistan "pivot". Who knows.
There's a substantial wing of spittle flecked crying Repub Boehners and pinhead Kyls and Sessions ready to pounce on any "national security" opening---46% of Cretin Nation was dying for the warmongering militarists McCain and Lady Psycho. So making sure that Obama can do what he wants with the "wars" isn't going to be the easiest thing ever, and I guess he's going way out of his way to obtain "allies" on the Right, not that the crazed "conservative" wing would view the Scowcrofters as members of the "Right".
Posted by euzoius at November 26, 2008 06:03 AMGates is a lot more than "stained with Cheney residue." He's George HW's boy. Even worse.
I understand the warm and fuzzy notion of keeping some continuity, particularly with two ongoing wars, but it's a bad move. Get him the fuck out of there, along with any other neocon barnicles that are still clinging to the walls of the Situation Room.
The stain of HW's reign must be removed. I'd be all for burning a fucking bundle of sage if it helped. Keeping a SecDef who was handed the CIA by the Puppetmaster himself... Scary.
And I'm canceling my 2:00 appointment to seek sympathy from Carolyn Kay. She's too angry after being "shouted down, marginalized, and verbally beaten up", three things which are technically impossible given that we're on a BLOG.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at November 26, 2008 07:24 AMCome on you guys. All Republicans are not bad. Gates has done a great job to change the course of the wars and will be valuable for the first 12 months when the shift will be to reduce involvment in Iraq and increase it in Afghanistan. Gates brought some sanity in the Bush/Rumsfeld conduct of the war. He was given a tough assignment and he carried out admirably. Besides he is been honest with congress, which is a first for Bush administration.
Posted by suresh at November 26, 2008 07:42 AMAll Republicans are not bad.
As someone who voted for Ron Paul in the primary, I agree. It's the neocons with intimate ties to the Bush Family that I distrust. And I doubt I'd need a therapist to understand why.
Besides, we were promised CHANGE, right? Gates can't be the only person for the job.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at November 26, 2008 07:48 AMJust another area where Obama is admitting, by his actions, that Bush was right. Where has he broken away from Bush policies? He is not going to raise taxes on the rich because he knows that will reduce revenue. He will not get out of Iraq before the job is done because he knows that would lead to more problems down the road. He will not end NAFTA because he knows that would hurt exports. He will not raise the capital gains or corporate taxes because that would stifle job creation. He will continue to bail out wall street because he knows trickle down really works. He will not re-regulate industry because he knows that the only government can stimulate growth is get out of the way. He will not go after the telecoms because he may need to ask for the same information. He will not end enhanced interrogations because he wants to keep us safe. He will not push for public financing of campaigns because he wants to get re-elected. He will not bring about change as has been reflected in his cabinet nominations.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
He simply said all those things in the campaign to get your vote and you fell for it.
Posted by manapp99 at November 26, 2008 08:12 AMI have no problem with keeping Gates around until the new administration gets itself established. Gates is apparently very well received in the Pentagon following the Rumsfeld Reich. So keeping him around a while won't hurt morale there. It's a very good PR move. It just shouts out to those who will be looking for any reason to be calling for Obama's head that he's approaching things responsibly and with the country's best interests in mind. And let's face it, we aren't going to be out of Iraq or Afghanistan any faster with a new body as Sec. Defense than we are with Gates.
It's a savy move to keep him on short term.
Posted by snark at November 26, 2008 08:46 AMHe simply said all those things in the campaign to get your vote and you fell for it.
Thanks for stopping by, Rush.
Anything else you wanna regurgitate from Fix Noise? One last squeeze of the toothpaste tube?
You forgot to bring up PRE-CONDITIONS, but I think you hit the rest with one swipe.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at November 26, 2008 08:57 AMSo far he has shown a plan to govern in a far more conservative approach than he promised in the campaign. Keeping Gates is tatamount to an endorsement of the Bush policies in Iraq and the GWOT. Appointing the Clinton economic team (which were known for deregulations, NAFTA and GATT), not ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich and supporting the bailout for Wall street is pretty much throwing the economic progressives under the bus. He voted for a bill that gives money to the financial institutions carte blanche with no strings and yet says the Auto industry needs to "come up with a plan". Does this sound like supporting the unions to you?
I will wait and see if he indeed raises capital gains or the corporate tax rate but I will bet you he does not. At least not while we are in this financial mess. This means he understands what conservatives have been saying. Raising rates will reduce revenue. He does not seem to have a problem with huge deficit spending (they are already saying the deficit will soar to 1 trillion next year). He does not seem to mind borrowing from the Chinese and increasing the national debt and passing the cost on to your children and grandchildren.
So how is he a change from Bush?
I will have to give him credit for his salesmanship and speechifying.
He would make a fine used car salesman in Chicago.
Posted by manapp99 at November 26, 2008 09:31 AMI agree with snark. Gates is convenient and has, for the most part (at least publically) had his foot on the brakes of Cheney's warlike tendencies during the last year. He does not appear to be anywhere close to the wacked out Rumsfeld way of operating. Further if Obama does command the Military to get out of Iraq in 16 months (and go straight to Afghanistan,ugh) Gates will be the messenger to the Top Brass, not some new guy. And if all hell breaks loose in either war after Jan.20, Gates will be a useful fall guy.
Posted by T2 at November 26, 2008 09:35 AMmanapp99 said:
He is not going to raise taxes on the rich because he knows that will reduce revenue.
Huh? You want to explain that one?
Raise taxes on the rich will reduce revenue?
Maybe, if "the rich" move their money off shore...
Posted by KJS at November 26, 2008 09:43 AMThose of us who tried to warn about Obama's rightward tendencies were shouted down, marginalized, and verbally beaten up.
Don't look for sympathy from us.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Thanks for the love note from PUMA Central, now go away and nurse your grudges somewhere else, such as in your wing of Sarah Palin's digs.
Posted by joel dan walls at November 26, 2008 10:14 AMAs Bush III comes more into focus, we supporters of McCain are being vindicated each and every day. Bringing in all the graybeards from Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and W's admins. to continue on. No Carter people yet. Can't be associated with that admin.
...
"Mr. Geithner, the job of the New York Fed is to -- now I am quoting its own web site -- 'supervise and regulate financial institutions in the Second District [Wall Street]. Its primary objective is to maintain safe and competitive U.S. and global banking systems.' You have been in your current post since 2003 and during that time the U.S. financial system has come close to complete disintegration. Why do you deserve a promotion?"
Why does he deserve a promotion?
That's the question to ask.
Bush III....that's good Peter. If I had of known he would be so much like Bush I would have voted for him.
Posted by manapp99 at November 26, 2008 06:41 PM"...reduce involvment in Iraq and increase it in Afghanistan."
Increasing involvement in Afghanistan is exactly the wrong thing to do.
"Gates brought some sanity in the Bush/Rumsfeld conduct of the war."
Sanity and war are mutually exclusive. They do not belong in the same sentence.
Posted by Shirin at November 26, 2008 09:35 PMCarolyn Kay seems to be under the illusion that Hillary would have been less "rightward" than Obama.
Posted by Shirin at November 26, 2008 09:39 PM"Gates...has, for the most part (at least publically) had his foot on the brakes of Cheney's warlike tendencies during the last year."
Is that what you call escalating Afghanistan? Having his foot on the brakes?
"...if Obama does command the Military to get out of Iraq in 16 months..."
For the zillionth time, Obama has made it clear from the beginning that he did not intend to command the military to get out of Iraq in 16 months. He has from the beginning said that he would have "combat troops" out within 16 months, and that he would leave a "residual force" there indefinitely to perform a number of specific missions, which include protecting "American interests", and some of which include - well, combat. In other words, he intends to reconfigure and rebrand the occupation.
Posted by Shirin at November 26, 2008 09:46 PMKeeping Gates means all is well with the American blood blooded establishment. The belligerent, oppressive foreign policy will continue.
Gates will work and do his thing quietly and professionally unlike his predecessor.
The war policy is accepted on all sides of the aisle...it's just the process that gets questioned.
But really, with or without Gates, the song remains the same.
lol - you all are reading too much into keeping Gates. He'll have his input but the decisions have all been made by Obama with input from the generals. They just need a yes man to work through the logistics of getting our troops home and ramping up Afghanistan. I think that is where Gates 'excels'. Why would Hagel want it, the tough policy decisions have been made and the Rumsfield power grabs into intellegence/forgien policy are all going to be scaled back.
Posted by allansfca at November 27, 2008 10:52 AM>>Carolyn Kay seems to be under the illusion that Hillary would have been less "rightward" than Obama.
No illusion. Hillary is a liberal. Obama is not.
Just as the people who were right about the Iraq War still don't get a hearing in the corporate media, those of us who were right about Obama don't get a hearing on the so-called progressive blogs.
How fitting.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com