« On the brighter side | Main | Enlightenment vs enlightenment »


By Michael J. Smith on Saturday June 28, 2008 10:45 PM

From the Times -- the London one, that is. Ignore the quaint orthography:
Barack Obama may recruit defence chief Robert Gates

In defiance of traditional party labels, Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, may ask the defence secretary of President George W Bush to stay on if he wins the White House.

Obama’s top foreign policy and national security advisers are pressing the case for keeping Robert Gates at the Pentagon after he won widespread praise for his performance. The move would be in keeping with Obama’s desire to appoint a cabinet of all the talents.....

Richard Danzig, an adviser to Obama on national security and a former navy secretary, said: “My personal position is Gates is a very good secretary of defence and would be an even better one in an Obama administration.”

The appointment would cause a furore among Democratic party activists but would have the advantage of providing continuity at a time when Iraq appears to be stabilising and demanding more independence from America.

Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution in Washington, a foreign policy adviser to Obama, said: “Robert Gates is one of the best defence secretaries we have had in a long time and it makes a lot of sense to keep him.”

Gates, a former member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, was initially sceptical about the troop surge in Iraq and has been quietly seeking an orderly transition to a new US administration in January so that hard-won military gains in Iraq are not thrown away in a hasty withdrawal.

At one stage last year, he had hoped that 60,000–70,000 US troops could be withdrawn by Christmas this year, but he was persuaded to back more modest reductions by General David Petraeus, the US commander. ...

Gates showed he was comfortable working with Democrats when he appointed John Hamre, a former senior official under Bill Clinton, to serve as chairman of the influential Defence Policy Board last year. He also appointed William Perry, a former defence secretary who is advising Obama, to the board....

James Carafano, a defence expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, said Obama would be making a “smart move” if he asked Gates to carry on. [Gates] has clearly adopted a mainstream course on national security that would be acceptable to either McCain or Obama.”

Surprise, surprise. But here's the best:
Speculation intensified this weekend that Obama may offer Hillary Clinton the position of health secretary after he appointed Neera Tanden, her senior policy director and a key architect of her healthcare plan, to his campaign team.
Aiieee! Once wasn't enough? Spare us, Pharaoh! Spare us!

Comments (7)

Nicholas Hart:

Reminds me of Bill Clinton's 2nd term, when he picked (Republican) William Cohen to be his Sec Def. Managing the empire is too important a job to let petty differences between the two pro-war corporate parties get in the way.

Al Schumann:

He's helping us evolve.

Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

I reckon it's going to take us all a while to come to grips with that. My own soul is kind of surly and doesn't take well to being ushered around.

"Lightworker"...? ...rare kind of attuned...? ...usher in a new way of being on the... P'WHAHHH HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHA...ehh, heh heh, sorry...

But, aaaaaanyway.

I'm just wondering -- after his famous Preacher-Under-The-Bus trick, after his excluding Muslim women in headscarves from foto ops, after his refusal to participating in public election financing, after his Bill Cosby rant about how Black Men Suck, after his mentioning keeping on a Bush flunkie for Secretary of "Defense", after his bitching about the recent Supremes' death penalty decision... what do Maya Angelou and Alice Walker have to say for themselves? I'd really love to hear what they're thinking, now that it's been revealed that B.O. is neither King nor Malcolm nor even close to Mandela.

Despite my better judgement, I've found myself rooting for B.O. in November only so that, after he's been in office a couple of years and shown us what he's really all about, I get to see the looks on the faces of Angelou and Walker at the instant they realize they're going to have to eat their own dog food.


Uh- oh for the "progressives for Obama" camp - oh boy, this is going to be rough - all those young, eager for "change" professionals, and they can now barely see B. Obama as he back-peddles towards the pier, - damn, there he fell off, only to be rescued by a Zodiac piloted by Lieberman, his former mentor - what is going on here - what kind of ruse is this, set yourself up as some kind of new-age Luke Lightsaber only to be the newest Clintonian triangulator with a vengeance?
Okay, back to the real drama of changing the supersystem - who's going to make the sandwiches for our protest group today? Where do you want to set up our informational table- Wal-Mart or Wendy's?


reminds me of fdr appointing
wo repubicans one each to run war and navy macvhine
as he prepared to build
his great american war machine

everything you need to know about
guiding the american empire you can lean from a roosevelt

teddy franklin....and eleanor

Mike F., be reasonable. Ehrenreich, Moore and that whole wretched lot of appeasers have yet to acknowledge that they backpeddled furiously in 2004 for an asshole who thinks tasers are a perfectly reasonable tool in a political debate. If they don't have to apologize, why should Walker and Angelou have to apologize ?

Post a comment

Note also that comments with three or more links may be held for "moderation" -- a strange term to apply to the ghost in this blog's machine. Seems to be a hard-coded limitation of the blog software, unfortunately.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on Saturday June 28, 2008 10:45 PM.

The previous post in this blog was On the brighter side.

The next post in this blog is Enlightenment vs enlightenment.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.31