Does the Fail tag have more important obligations?

Uh, submitter, it may be that Gates is in synch with Obama.

The Bush withdrawl plan that recently was approved is remarkably close to what Obama's been saying for a long time.

Obama's tact sure is a lot different that it was during the campaign. Who is this guy?

Obama hasn't changed shiat. If people listened to what HE'S been saying instead of what bloggers and pundits (friendly and unfriendly) have been saying, they would know this.

You folks back east have probably seen it but I'm just now watching Meet the Press. Eeeeks..seriously, who is this guy? Some of this foreign stuff has to be pissing off his supporters. Is it drafty in here?

Lionel Mandrake: Obama hasn't changed shiat. If people listened to what HE'S been saying instead of what bloggers and pundits (friendly and unfriendly) have been saying, they would know this.

Pretty much. He's always said this. Has Robert Gates actually ever expressed a political opinion on anything, btw? Or are people assuming that because he works for Bush, he must believe everything Bush does?

GaryPDX: You folks back east have probably seen it but I'm just now watching Meet the Press. Eeeeks..seriously, who is this guy? Some of this foreign stuff has to be pissing off his supporters. Is it drafty in here?

"has to be" = "PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!". The only people talking about that are the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. You should be happy he's picking Gates.

Draft? If it hasn't happened now, it's not happening soon. Obama's not stupid when it comes down to what's going to ensure he doesn't get elected in 4 years.

PC LOAD LETTER: GaryPDX: You folks back east have probably seen it but I'm just now watching Meet the Press. Eeeeks..seriously, who is this guy? Some of this foreign stuff has to be pissing off his supporters. Is it drafty in here?

"has to be" = "PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!". The only people talking about that are the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. You should be happy he's picking Gates.

Draft? If it hasn't happened now, it's not happening soon. Obama's not stupid when it comes down to what's going to ensure he doesn't get elected in 4 years.

Just don't respond to him. I've noticed he's being ignored alot more recently, which is a good thing.

GaryPDX: You folks back east have probably seen it but I'm just now watching Meet the Press. Eeeeks..seriously, who is this guy? Some of this foreign stuff has to be pissing off his supporters. Is it drafty in here?

good

PC LOAD LETTER: GaryPDX: You folks back east have probably seen it but I'm just now watching Meet the Press. Eeeeks..seriously, who is this guy? Some of this foreign stuff has to be pissing off his supporters. Is it drafty in here?

"has to be" = "PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!". The only people talking about that are the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. You should be happy he's picking Gates.

Draft? If it hasn't happened now, it's not happening soon. Obama's not stupid when it comes down to what's going to ensure he doesn't get elected in 4 years.

GaryPDX won't be happy until he sees Obama go down in flames. In other news, the sky is blue and the Earth is round.

(TFA) The apparent harmony between Gates and Obama on broad defense and national security aims is on display in a Foreign Affairs magazine article by the defense chief that was released Thursday. Gates lays out a comprehensive agenda based on the Bush administration's new National Defense Strategy. In numerous ways it meshes with the defense priorities that Obama espoused during the campaign. Examples include:

Here's the Foreign Affairs article by Def. Sec. Gates

Re: "Bush administration's new National Defense Strategy."

Whats usually absent from these discussions is a clarification of the political shifts that occurred in the Bush Admin from Powell to Neocon to Realist.
Repost
Repost
Repost
Repost
Repost
Repost^{[1][2][3][4] [5]}

gates wasn't a bad pick. he's been trying to reform the defense department and will finally be able to do just that with obama in the oval office.

A Progressive Case for Gates (new window)

So? Just because you opposed something doesn't mean you turn a blind on reality. Obama may opposed the war (as MANY people were) but as Commander-in-Chief, it's his responsibility to make sure he ends it right.

By keep Gates on, he's ensuring that in the first couple of months he has a better grip on the troubles on the ground since Gates has been in charge for over 2 years now. Obama can replace Gates 6 mos after being president when he's better briefed about the issues.

What's with this "ooh you Obama supporters must be pissed" baloney? He's doing exactly what he said he would do, and I'm thrilled to see competence trump party loyalty. It's about damn time. If any of this comes as a surprise to you, you've been getting your news from people who lie to you.

DamnYankees: Pretty much. He's always said this. Has Robert Gates actually ever expressed a political opinion on anything, btw? Or are people assuming that because he works for Bush, he must believe everything Bush does?

Many people who worked for Bush were against his decisions or lack-thereof...Gates reports on the issues and order the troops to whatever Bush says or wants done. Juts like in any working environment. You may be at ends with your boss on how to accomplish a task but if your boss says s/he wants something done in a particular way you listen, or object and stand in the unemployment line.

Well Obama did not know anything before the election. He was just talking out his arse, that was good enough apparently for a large number of retards.

/hopefully he is smart enough not to fark everything up.

No democrats believed we'd be getting out of Iraq by February. This whole Republican thing "you libs must be pissed" is quite silly and getting very old.

I'm not worried about Iraq any more. We were stumbling out of there over the next couple of years no matter who won. I am worried about the fact that Obama seems eager to return to a Clinton-style "world policeman" Wilsonian foreign policy, where the US military is to be used to right whatever wrong is getting the most play on CNN that week. You know, a bunch of stupid little wars instead of one or two stupid big wars. Which isn't that big an improvement, if it's an improvement at all. Keeping Gates for SecDef and appointing Hillary as SecState is not at all encouraging from an anti-war perspective.

No Republicans "Cut and Run" was bullshiat you said Obama said, not what he actually said.

He also made a big talk about the difference between tactics and strategy and policy. That policy is decided by the president, not by the advisers.

Gates didn't get us into this war. And I think on tactics and what we need to make or military look like, his view is very similar to Obama.

Gates will not be deciding who we invade or who do not invade like Rumsfield did under Bush.

I know the Obama attackers still won't get this because it was explained to you 100 times before the election, and you refuse to understand.

GaryPDX: You folks back east have probably seen it but I'm just now watching Meet the Press. Eeeeks..seriously, who is this guy? Some of this foreign stuff has to be pissing off his supporters. Is it drafty in here?

You're a funny guy.

eddiesocket: No democrats believed we'd be getting out of Iraq by February. This whole Republican thing "you libs must be pissed" is quite silly and getting very old.

This.

Churchill2004: I am worried about the fact that Obama seems eager to return to a Clinton-style "world policeman" Wilsonian foreign policy, where the US military is to be used to right whatever wrong is getting the most play on CNN that week.

I think he would like the world to be the world policemen not just the USA. And if we don't we will have more terrorist attacks.

You can't expect to ignore tensions in the world and think they will never impact you.

Corvus: I think he would like the world to be the world policemen not just the USA.

What the hell does that even mean? Having a bunch of other countries on our side in a US-dominated effort might look better on TV, but it has absolutely zero effect on how the intervention is perceived by those directly affected by it.

Corvus: And if we don't we will have more terrorist attacks.

The main cause of terrorism is resentment against intervention in other countries. Getting the US bogged down in more wars will do nothing to make us safer.

Corvus: You can't expect to ignore tensions in the world and think they will never impact you

There's a reason every war in the world affects the US- because we insist on getting involved in every war. Imperialism is the problem, not the solution.

If the US is directly attacked, then we can go kick the ass of those (and only those) responsible. The only people who benefit from us sticking ourselves in the middle of fights we have no dog in is the people who grow rich off America's obscene amount of military spending.

It's like some Jedi mindtrick that the GOP is trying to play. *waves hand* You are upset at his appointments. *waves hand* His foreign policy stances have changed. *waves hand* These are not the droids you are looking for.

Churchill2004: If the US is directly attacked, then we can go kick the ass of those (and only those) responsible. The only people who benefit from us sticking ourselves in the middle of fights we have no dog in is the people who grow rich off America's obscene amount of military spending.

You know what we need? A President that is looking to quickly end the war in Iraq and, instead, looking to refocus our energy in Afghanistan to permanently stamp out the taliban and finally put to rest the Bin Laden question (to the best of our abilities).

GaryPDX: Obama's tact sure is a lot different that it was during the campaign. Who is this guy?

If you'd actually paid attention to his real campaign, and not the right-wing strawman they tried to pretend was his campaign, this is fully in line with everything he said.

He was talking about keeping Gates on since summer.

Plus, in TFA:

Gates lays out a comprehensive agenda based on the Bush administration's new National Defense Strategy. In numerous ways it meshes with the defense priorities that Obama espoused during the campaign.

I'm not sure how you could POSSIBLY say that Obama is departing from his campaign promises, when the whole point of the article, if you read it, was that Gates is moving towards implementing Obama's campaign promises.

What the hell does the Iraqi occupation have to do with "National Defense"? Bring those losers home already, the people that carried out the attacks on 9/11 died in the planes and the war criminals that allowed it to happen are in the U.S. anyway.

Obama is just as guilty as Bush if he continues with these lies. Both are a disgrace along with the troops.

bulldg4life: You know what we need? A President that is looking to quickly end the war in Iraq and, instead, looking to refocus our energy in Afghanistan to permanently stamp out the taliban and finally put to rest the Bin Laden question (to the best of our abilities)

Bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan, and neither is al Qaeda in any significant numbers. The war in Afghanistan stopped being about al Qaeda a long time ago- what's left of al Qaeda in the region is in Pakistan. Now it's just another endless nation-building/civil war operation, with the extra problem of our insane poppy eradication efforts fueling resentment and funneling profits to the Taliban. The best thing Obama could do for Afghanistan is stop the counterproductive distraction of drug war operations there, but I don't see him promising that.

Phil Herup: Well Obama did not know anything before the election. He was just talking out his arse, that was good enough apparently for a large number of retards.

/hopefully he is smart enough not to fark everything up.



/and he doesn't know he's dumb
//looks like I'm going to be using this graphic a lot

Churchill2004: What the hell does that even mean? Having a bunch of other countries on our side in a US-dominated effort might look better on TV,

No. No one said it would be a US run sham. You are now against countries being a police force for their own nation?

So you are against Pakistan routing out terrorism in their own country? You think that would be some BS for TV?

You are really some loon who totally just ignores what people say and makes it up so that you don't actually have to deal with what they actually say.

If the US is directly attacked, then we can go kick the ass of those (and only those) responsible.

I believe that is what Obama's plan ACTUALLY IS! To get out of Iraq and to clean up Afghanistan.

Also you are making up a false dichotomy (like usual) where we either go to war with nations OR we completely ignore them.

There are many other things that you can do to change foreign affairs than just going to war or being a isolationist. There exists ideas of pragmatism out in the world. You seem to believe the only options out that exist are one dogmatic ideology or another.

Churchill2004: If the US is directly attacked, then we can go kick the ass of those (and only those) responsible.

So you would of been one of those who wanted us to stay out of WWII. And then after we got involved we should never of attacked the Germans just the Japanese?

Churchill2004: Bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan, and neither is al Qaeda in any significant numbers. The war in Afghanistan stopped being about al Qaeda a long time ago- what's left of al Qaeda in the region is in Pakistan. Now it's just another endless nation-building/civil war operation, with the extra problem of our insane poppy eradication efforts fueling resentment and funneling profits to the Taliban. The best thing Obama could do for Afghanistan is stop the counterproductive distraction of drug war operations there, but I don't see him promising that.

I would assume the situation would be vastly improved if we didn't take a several year detour through Iraq.

What do you propose then? Picking up and leaving Iraq and Afghanistan?

Personally, I figure a final end-date for one ridiculous mistake will allow us to refocus on what we set out to do at the end of 2001.

Churchill2004: Bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan, and neither is al Qaeda in any significant numbers. The war in Afghanistan stopped being about al Qaeda a long time ago- what's left of al Qaeda in the region is in Pakistan. Now it's just another endless nation-building/civil war operation

Yeah lets just tell them to rebuild their own nation. That worked so great when we did it to Germany in World War I!

Although I loath the one term-President Elect, I'm glad to see he's stuffing his cabinet with DC insiders instead of the true nutcases I had feared.

Lionel Mandrake: Obama hasn't changed shiat. If people listened to what HE'S been saying instead of what bloggers and pundits (friendly and unfriendly) have been saying, they would know this.

Or, to be more specific, Obama has always been a supporter of finishing the Iraq war properly and taking the time needed. He thinks getting into it wasa bad idea, but that describes more or less every member of the national government at this point, in both parties. He's never been on of the "get us out immediately, and screw the Iraquis" bunch. The closest he ever got was discussing timetable withdrawals in cooperation with native securtiy forces, which isn't really anything revolutionary, since it's been what the current administration has been trying to set up since like 2005.

Corvus: No. No one said it would be a US run sham. You are now against countries being a police force for their own nation?

Their own nation? No. I am opposed to the US being a police force in other nations, though, regardless of whether or not we get a bunch of other countries to do the same.

Corvus: So you are against Pakistan routing out terrorism in their own country? You think that would be some BS for TV?

What the hell are you talking about? I honestly have no idea how you got that from what I said.

Corvus: You are really some loon who totally just ignores what people say and makes it up so that you don't actually have to deal with what they actually say.

How have I done that? All I see here is you hurling childish accusations and burning strawmen.


Corvus: I believe that is what Obama's plan ACTUALLY IS! To get out of Iraq and to clean up Afghanistan.

The people who attacked us aren't in Afghanistan, and haven't been for years. Pouring more troops into Afghanistan is not going after the people who attacked us, it's getting us bogged down in more endless nation building while fighting another country's civil war.

Corvus: Also you are making up a false dichotomy (like usual) where we either go to war with nations OR we completely ignore them.

You're the only one saying that.

Corvus: There are many other things that you can do to change foreign affairs than just going to war or being a isolationist. There exists ideas of pragmatism out in the world. You seem to believe the only options out that exist are one dogmatic ideology or another.

No, and I'm not an isolationist.

Corvus: So you would of been one of those who wanted us to stay out of WWII. And then after we got involved we should never of attacked the Germans just the Japanese?

Japan directly attacked us, and Germany declared war on us a few days later.


bulldg4life: I would assume the situation would be vastly improved if we didn't take a several year detour through Iraq.

That's built on the assumption that a heavier US presence would improve things. I see no reason to think that more US military in Afghanistan would improve anything. It's in large part the destruction of Afghan poppies by the US and the US-backed gov't that is fueling the civil war.

bulldg4life: What do you propose then? Picking up and leaving Iraq and Afghanistan?

As far as the US government is concerned, yes.

bulldg4life: Personally, I figure a final end-date for one ridiculous mistake will allow us to refocus on what we set out to do at the end of 2001

If you're talking about getting the people responsible for 9/11, pouring more men and resources into Afghanistan has nothing to do with that. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, to the extent that al-Qaeda is even a coherently organized and directed entity any more, are hiding in Pakistani Waziristan. The only thing going on in Afghanistan is a civil war between Afghans, in large part fueled rather than quelled by the US presence.

Corvus: Yeah lets just tell them to rebuild their own nation. That worked so great when we did it to Germany in World War I!

You clearly have absolutely no understanding of what the Versailles treaty actually entailed. It imposed punitive sanctions on Germany- it had nothing to do with "not rebuilding" Germany (which didn't need to be "rebuilt" anyway, since almost no actual fighting took place in Germany).

Churchill2004: If you're talking about getting the people responsible for 9/11, pouring more men and resources into Afghanistan has nothing to do with that. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, to the extent that al-Qaeda is even a coherently organized and directed entity any more, are hiding in Pakistani Waziristan. The only thing going on in Afghanistan is a civil war between Afghans, in large part fueled rather than quelled by the US presence.

So, when I say refocusing on Afghanistan, that doesn't involve refocusing on that region and only the country known as Afghanistan? Well, I'd like to clarify that when I say "Afghanistan"...I mean the "Afghanistan war and all including areas surrounding it".

I don't really understand how you could misconstrue the idea of refocusing on that region as someone saying "we're only going to deal with Afghanistan and everything within the borders of Afghanistan and nothing in surrounding areas".

As far as the US government is concerned, yes.

Well, since we carpetbombed the f*ck out of the country for a few years...we're going to go with the assumption that "picking up and leaving" is not a valid answer to the situation.

Death to America: What the hell does the Iraqi occupation have to do with "National Defense"?


One word. 4 letters (3 if your name is Joe Biden).....Iran.

bulldg4life: It's like some Jedi mindtrick that the GOP is trying to play. *waves hand* You are upset at his appointments. *waves hand* His foreign policy stances have changed. *waves hand* These are not the droids you are looking for.

Could be variation of hare mindtrick

And here comes the count. One! Two! Three! It looks like it's all over. Four! Five! The champ is still champ. Six! Seven! But wait just a minute, folks. Bugs is coming out of it. He's on his feet. He's moving in like a tornado. The champ is confused. He doesn't know which way to look. Bugs lands a beauty to the solar plexus! A right to the jaw! A one-two on the instep! Four fast rabbit punches to the kidneys! A left hook, a right hook, a north hook, a south hook! What a fight! The champ is groggy!
The champ is down.

bulldg4life: So, when I say refocusing on Afghanistan, that doesn't involve refocusing on that region and only the country known as Afghanistan? Well, I'd like to clarify that when I say "Afghanistan"...I mean the "Afghanistan war and all including areas surrounding it"

Then you're talking about going into Pakistan, which is opening a whole new can of worms. Particularly with Musharaff gone, that isn't going to go over well with the Pakistanis. I'm not saying the US wouldn't be justified in going into Waziristan, but I don't think it's worth a war with Pakistan.

bulldg4life: I don't really understand how you could misconstrue the idea of refocusing on that region as someone saying "we're only going to deal with Afghanistan and everything within the borders of Afghanistan and nothing in surrounding areas".

The ongoing Afghan civil war and the lingering al-Qaeda hideouts in Afghaninstan are two very different issues. Obama's been conflating the two, as if burning Afghan poppy fields has anything to do with getting the people responsible for 9/11.

bulldg4life: Well, since we carpetbombed the f*ck out of the country for a few years...we're going to go with the assumption that "picking up and leaving" is not a valid answer to the situation

Again, you're assuming that continued (and heavier) US presence will be beneficial rather than counter-productive. I don't think the actual evidence backs that assumption up.

Phil Herup: Death to America: What the hell does the Iraqi occupation have to do with "National Defense"?


One word. 4 letters (3 if your name is Joe Biden).....Iran.

As someone who claims to be a high-paid medical professional, it's surprising that you don't understand the danger of severe dehydration

So...let me get this straight: Pretty much the biggest complaint conservatives have about Obama these days is that they agree with him.

Right. Keep up the good work kids.

Phil Herup: One word. 4 letters (3 if your name is Joe Biden).....Iran.

Yeah, too bad for us that we toppled Iran's arch-enemy Saddam, and that the democratic process we created allowed pro-Iranian, pro-Sharia groups to take power.

Look at which political party is actually running Iraq, and which groups they formed from, and who was financing them. Here's one piece of the answer, anyway: the party in charge is a fusion of Al-Dawa and SCIRI. They were both originally organized and funded by a certain neighboring Shiite theocracy.

The Iraq war has been a major victory for Iran. Their major enemy in the region is defeated, and a pro-Iranian government has taken its place, just like in Afghanistan. And they dind't even need to lift a finger. We've done more to increase Iranian influence in the region than they ever could.

On the other hand, truth be told, Iran is probably a better regional power than Saudi Arabia. The Taliban were armed and supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The United Islamic Front (the "Northern Alliance") were armed and supported by Iran and Russia. The Saudis are probably, long-term, a bigger problem than Iran. They're far more fundamentalist than Iran, and they seem more bent on exporting theocracy.

Death to America: What the hell does the Iraqi occupation have to do with "National Defense"? Bring those losers home already, the people that carried out the attacks on 9/11 died in the planes and the war criminals that allowed it to happen are in the U.S. anyway.

Obama is just as guilty as Bush if he continues with these lies. Both are a disgrace along with the troops.

You know, you're really not a very good troll.

FTFA: The list of similarities suggests the early focus of Obama's Pentagon may not change dramatically from President George W. Bush's.

Kool-aid will make it all better

Dil Doe: So...let me get this straight: Pretty much the biggest complaint conservatives have about Obama these days is that they agree with him.

Right. Keep up the good work kids.

Obama critic /= "conservative".

unyon: You know, you're really not a very good troll.

That's because I'm not a troll. I am serious.

bulldg4life: It's like some Jedi mindtrick that the GOP is trying to play. *waves hand* You are upset at his appointments. *waves hand* His foreign policy stances have changed. *waves hand* These are not the droids you are looking for.

And if we're NOT upset, then, why, we must just blindly believe everything "the Obamassiah" says! No critical thinking, cult of personality, etc.

It simply can't be that Obama is following through with the promises of his campaign, and that his supporters voted for him expecting these outcomes.

Because then the GOP would be wrong.

The empty suit keeps to his word? He didn't say anything so thats the fact jack.

Note to Real 'Merika:

Intelligent people sometimes agree on intelligent decisions, despite what their political party or religion tells them to think.