Bob Gates
Bob Gates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1991...105-gates2.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110906A.shtml
I can imagine this man will be replaced; along with Bush & Co. in '08.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1991...105-gates2.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110906A.shtml
I can imagine this man will be replaced; along with Bush & Co. in '08.
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 18,369
From: Reno, NV
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
Actually, I am in favor of a career Intelligence man as SecDef. With the exception of being DCI for GHW Bush, he's not a political type.
Besides, no nominee for SecDef will *ever* be universally approved by liberals because of the nature of the career one needs to be qualified for the position.
Besides, no nominee for SecDef will *ever* be universally approved by liberals because of the nature of the career one needs to be qualified for the position.
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,312
From: UCIrvine
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
I don't agree at all. There are pleanty of military people and intelligence people who are supported by liberals, and there are even liberals who are in those careers.
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 18,369
From: Reno, NV
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
From what little I've reviewed of Gates' career, the "controversy" stems from him doing what mid- to upper-level Intelligance people are supposed to be doing, just for unpropular and ill-advised operations.
IMO, the only thing the SecDef needs to be good at is making our military better at making war on the enemy. It's other people's responsibility to try to prevent his job from being necessary. And from that perspective, I think people who understand intelligance are more important than those who understand combat. Of course, being good at one makes you undertand the importance of the other.
My point is, I don't care what his involvement in Iran-Contra and Iraq in the late 70's/early 80's was. Our government had different goals then, and his job was to further them. The fact that he rose from an entry-level position to DCI- the only person ever to do so- speaks to me of someone who is good at doing the job he's given to do. If the next congress sticks to what Democratic/liberal ideology somewhat dictates, they should look at the State Department and Cabinet posts that have been occupied by defense types up to this point (Powell and Rice specifically; not that they did poor jobs, but I think populating the highest levels of the Administration strictly from defense and military backgrounds is short sighted and looks ominous to the rest of the world).
IMO, the only thing the SecDef needs to be good at is making our military better at making war on the enemy. It's other people's responsibility to try to prevent his job from being necessary. And from that perspective, I think people who understand intelligance are more important than those who understand combat. Of course, being good at one makes you undertand the importance of the other.
My point is, I don't care what his involvement in Iran-Contra and Iraq in the late 70's/early 80's was. Our government had different goals then, and his job was to further them. The fact that he rose from an entry-level position to DCI- the only person ever to do so- speaks to me of someone who is good at doing the job he's given to do. If the next congress sticks to what Democratic/liberal ideology somewhat dictates, they should look at the State Department and Cabinet posts that have been occupied by defense types up to this point (Powell and Rice specifically; not that they did poor jobs, but I think populating the highest levels of the Administration strictly from defense and military backgrounds is short sighted and looks ominous to the rest of the world).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
View Askew
Bay Area
9
Oct 23, 2004 02:23 AM



