Skip to comments.Obama's War Cabinet Gates and Jones are welcome signs of continuity.
Posted on 11/28/2008 7:32:31 AM PST by obamaisandrogynous
The names floated for Barack Obama's national security team "are drawn exclusively from conservative, centrist and pro-military circles without even a single -- yes, not one! -- chosen to represent the antiwar wing of the Democratic party." In his plaintive post this week on the Nation magazine's Web site, Robert Dreyfuss indulges in the political left's wonderful talent for overstatement. But who are we to interfere with his despair?
If reports are correct, on Monday the President-elect will ask Robert Gates to stay on as Secretary of Defense and name retired Marine General James Jones as National Security Adviser. These are the Administration posts most critical to the successful conduct of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
A ray of Sunshine poking through the clouds of doom.
Just read another thread about Obama’s book, in which he says his tactic is to smile and be reassuring and [in relation to this thread] “don’t make any sudden moves”.
Perhaps reality hit home. Nothing will destroy his presidency faster than a weak response to foreign or terrorist attacks.
A word of advice (to the Left): cheer up. It's precisely because Obama intends to pursue a genuinely progressive foreign policy that he's surrounding himself with people who can guard his right flank at home. When George W. Bush wanted to sell the Iraq war, he trotted out Colin Powell--because Powell was nobody's idea of a hawk. Now Obama may be preparing to do the reverse. To give himself cover for a withdrawal from Iraq and a diplomatic push with Iran, he's surrounding himself with people like Gates, Clinton and Jones, who can't be lampooned as
I recall his oft-repeated promise that "on day one"(That's going to be a busy day) he will give the Sec/Def and Joint Chiefs "new orders" which will be to bail and flee from Iraq, leaving the field to AlQaeda.
I saw General Franks on Hannity and Moron a couple of weeks ago. Franks predicted that some of the Messiah’s opinions would change once he got all his national security briefings. Maybe that has something to do with what we’re seeing here.
If administrations change and policies don’t, you may be sure there is a(n) (ongoing) conspiracy.
You’re happy that we’re going to remain that world’s nanny at a cost a of a trillion dollars per year? You’ll be overjoyed when Obama sends some troops to Darfur I suppose.
“Thought Obama wanted to create a Department of Peace with Dennis Kucinich at the helm. “
Aaaaaargghh! Don’t give them any ideas!
I’m looking at Obama’s cabinet and realizing that McCain would have picked a much more liberal cabinet. Let’s see how it pans out. When it comes to Supreme Court picks remember that Prop. 8 in CA. was shot down by the Afro-Amer, community. Also the majority of Afro-Amer. are against abortion. So far so good and Colin Powell still doesn’t have a job.
The Iraq War costs a trillion a year? Give me a break. Go to Democratic Underground if you want to make ignorant statements like that. Winning the Iraq War is not being the “world’s nanny.” It’s winning a war. Bush deserves credit for winning this war, but only Obama will get credit for “bringing the troops home.”
Interesting point, but I would take it as propaganda. Consider the source. Time Magazine last week had a cover with Obama as FDR. What would a “genuinely progressive” foreign policy look like? Handing prayer beads to the Iranians? Cuddling with Putin? Time magazine has what William F. Buckley, in Up from Liberalism, called, “liberal mania.”
“change” means no bush.
after the msm attacked bush for 8 years, and he didn’t defend himself.
and the child-man obama’s figured out that folks miss bill and hill.
Ignorant? Before you go down that road, you might want to re-read my post. I didn’t mention the Iraq war. I said that the cost of being the world’s nanny was a trillion dollars per year.
And what do you imagine the cost of becoming an isolationist “Fortress America” would be?
Read the lessons of history. If you fail to understand them, they are more likely to repeat themselves.
I’m probably more of an internationalist than you are. I’m for free trade and leading by example as we did so successfully for the first 150 years of our history. We were the most popular country in the world before WWI and inspired countless revolutions. How many have we inspired lately?
so why were the dems so excited about obama? he’s just another politician!
I would love to be a witness to a moonbat after it reads that sentence.
History tells us that if we are going to be the world's cop we need to collect tribute...er I mean taxes.
I’m for free trade but I’m also for strong defense in the Reagan tradition. We need to protect our interests around the world.
Liberals, on the other hand, want to use the military as a humanitarian force (haiti, rwanda) under UN command and meddle with Israeli politics. Neocons, like Bush, wanted to promote democracy for the sake of democracy, such as in Gaza. That resulted in bringing Hamas to power. There’s a reason why we are a republic, not a democracy. We have to oppose such ideas.
As for “How many have we inspired lately?”
off the top of my head: Anbar Awakening, Rose and Orange revolutions
Biden, Hillary, Gates. He can’t pick anyone who was against the war because he doesn’t want to pick an idiot.
He needs at least one idiot in his cabinet...if nothing else but for the laughs and giggles.
I'm not the one on this thread defending the "liberal" Obama's foreign policy. The diffence between the neocons and the liberal Obamaites these days appears to be disappearing. Over at Commentary, the neocons are heaping praise on Obama. A few weeks ago, they regarded him as scumbag peacenik. What a diffence a few weeks makes. It seems that the neocons are defecting back to their original home, the Democratic Party, and good riddance.
The Anbar Awakening is democratic? Have you heard some of the guys interviewed? They were killing Americans not so long ago and continue to hate the Shi'ite dominated Iraqi government.
I think that Obama has a “two term” strategy. He’ll govern center-left for his first term and then if reelected as a centrist, he’ll move hard left for a second term when he’s term limited.
J. Jones is anything but a "ray of sunshine" as NSA! He is a PC-loving bureaucrat who spent 4 years as Commandant trying to refashion the Corps into a French army lookalike!
Lost in all of this is the fact that we won the war in Iraq and we are outta there by end of 2011 at the latest.
Wouldn’t have mattered if McCain, Obama, Bush 3rd term, General Patton won the election. It’s over.
Only problem with Time’s take is that these people are not cardboard cutouts. It is highly unlikely that any of them would take the job without a sense that Obama will heed their advice. On Obama’s part he has to do this or face the embarassing event of multiple resignations for cause if he were to cut any one of them off at the knees. Hillary for one would not hesitate to resign if she sees political benefit in undercutting Obama.
A very good point!
I agree, especially after securing the votes of the new Latino citizens.
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.