Matthew Yglesias (June 19, 2008) - How About a Democrat? (Foreign Policy)

"Answering those questions would give us a better sense of where Obama stands vis-a-vis the status quo."

Dude, I think "Obama" should be "McCain"

Posted by Dan F | June 19, 2008 6:20 PM

I agree.

Since when did least incompetent member of Bush administration turn into ideal pick for an Obama administration?

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | June 19, 2008 6:29 PM

Isn't Condi in the hunt for McCain's Veep slot?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | June 19, 2008 6:31 PM

I generally agree with Matt's sentiment about trying to patch up Dems' perception problems on nat'l sec. But I think Obama's imperatives will be different when in office. The point that Scheiber makes is not trivial: if keeping Gates would help achieve withdrawal, he should be considered. However, I don't believe Gates actually would help with neocons and others who will scream bloody retreat whether he's there or not. (They don't like Gates anyway).

So ultimately the general need to signal both strength and directional change in foreign policy will require some Dem heavy-hitter or other in the post.

Posted by Mike | June 19, 2008 6:40 PM

Obvious name barring veep nod: Wes Clark.

Posted by Mike | June 19, 2008 6:45 PM

why not wonder which Bush administration secretaries John McCain might keep on?

That's a good point. I think everybody assumes that McCain would want his own team in charge and that Gates would be out (with thanks for the great job he'd done).

In fact, how long has it been since Bush had a Democrat in his cabinet? The only one I'm aware of was Norman Mineta - safely tucked away in the inoffensive position as Secretary of Transportation until he left government in 2006.

Posted by Jinchi | June 19, 2008 6:45 PM

If you put a Republican in charge of the Pentagon it says "Obama likes diplomacy, but even he knows that when the going gets tough you need to call in the GOP."

Or it says, "Why elect a GOP president and get all their crappy policies, when you can elect a Democrat and just put a Republican in charge of defense? You get to 'look strong' and still have a grown-up at the very top."

For the people who are drawn to voting GOP for president just because they think having the GOP in charge of defense makes us look strong -- which seems to be a sizable chunk of the voting population, for reasons I can't fathom -- it could be a way of persuading them to vote Dem, instead.

Or not.

I have no strong feelings on this, either way; as long as a sane Dem (i.e., not a liberal hawk) is commander-in-chief, I'm okay with a GOP SecDef. I just think appointing one doesn't necessarily send the message MY says it does.

Posted by urbino | June 19, 2008 6:57 PM

Here, here. If we need some cabinet bipartisanship, we can find a non-wingnut Republican doctor and make her the Surgeon General. We don't need Republicans running the branches of government they have notably screwed up over the past 7+ years.

I don't think Gates is a bad guy. He seems like a very sensible and sober pro. But we have plenty of guys like that in our own party.

Posted by Dan Kervick | June 19, 2008 6:57 PM

dan.

please keep republicans out of my health system. kthxbye.

Posted by brenna | June 19, 2008 7:15 PM

Matt writes "these guys are Republicans"; I don't think we know that about Gates. He spent the majority of his professional career as a professional in the intelligence community. I think it would be fair to characterize his appointment by Bush 41 to head the CIA as putting a professional career civil servant in to run the Agency & coordinate intelligence. Moreover, his stewardship at DoD has all the hallmarks of leader not driven by partisan ideology.

Posted by Mark | June 19, 2008 7:18 PM

"The point that Scheiber makes is not trivial: if keeping Gates would help achieve withdrawal, he should be considered. "

No, the point he makes is trivial. Why would you need Gates' help to achieve withdrawal? What has prevented withdrawal so far?

60 votes, that's what. And the GOP won't have them come 09 IMO.

And a lot of them will be Republican.

Posted by Davebo | June 19, 2008 7:33 PM

whether obama or mccain wins or not, all systems must be run indepentent from him.

http://www.husniyemoda.com.tr

Posted by www.husniyemoda.com.tr | June 19, 2008 7:36 PM

Why does anyone look for foreign policy pointers at The New Republic.

I could care a less about the Democrats perception problems on Iraq. Rather, there is no reason on god's earth to keep Robert Gates around.

Beyond uttering a couple of ok things, his record is nothing short of atrocious. As a long time cold warrior, Gates is steeped in the blood of Nicaraguans (Iran-Contra) Iranians (arming of Iraqi's in Iran-Iraq War) and Iraqi's (current).

He is not only an ideologue republican, rising to prominence amidst the politicized ranks of the CIA during the 80's-90s era, but implicated in wretched misadventures in American history.

Only at TNR do they look upon such things with virtue. This is a no-brainer: NO.

Posted by jeff | June 19, 2008 7:40 PM

You see this kind of thing because Joe Klein is one of those erstwhile liberals who think the Democrats can't run national security. It is one of the reasons he has a lifetime achievement award in wankerism.

Posted by DP | June 19, 2008 7:46 PM

As an independent who votes for both parties (and even the occasional green) I absolutely concur with your first paragraph: This chicken littling on defense is terribly unattractive--if I want Republicans running defense I can just vote for a Republican for president, confident that he or she will nominate a Republican for that post.

As to your second paragraph, no one speculates about these things because McCain simply winning would be a seven-day wonder all its own. Even you switch over to musing on Obama appointments before escaping the paragraph.

Posted by Deborah | June 19, 2008 7:47 PM

Obvious name barring veep nod: Wes Clark.

Not eligible for SecDef for 10 years after retirement. I think that'll be 2012 (so maybe 2nd term SecDef? ;) )

Posted by ResumeMan | June 19, 2008 7:50 PM

Matthew's point is quite correct--insofar as it goes. It is even weighty. But it is not dispositive.

There are two reasons for retaining Gates, even though he is Republican-affiliated.
#1: He is known to be competent in this very demanding job. A person can have a perfect resume, and still be a flop. Harvey Pitt or Paul O'Neill were good examples. (Few of Bush's financial services appointments came from the Republican clown brigade.) You run this risk for anybody not named Gates.
#2: Obama is probably going to want to end the war, and move on. This is easier if you can fire your SecDef. Gates, since he will have served on the job for about the normal 3-4 years, will be easier to fire than any Democrat appointed in 2009.

Posted by Joe S. | June 19, 2008 8:10 PM

And how.

This is one of this "soft bigotry of low expectations" deals. Just because a Republican rises to the level of decency that we expect from a Democrat doesn't make him a star. It makes him average.

Now if Gates changed his party affiliation, I'd be open to it.

Posted by Chris | June 19, 2008 8:28 PM

You guys are gullible. Obama will be more centrist than Bill Clinton. I predict that under Obama, a Republican will control the DHS. That's where the money and the contracts are, and that's all the Republicans care about. Furthermore, Obama will not renegotiate NAFTA. That stance was just BS for the voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. I don't know if Hillary would have been this bad, but at least she would have tried to get us healthcare. Now we're stuck with a big-time triangulator because you guys couldn't get over your Mommy issues.

Posted by Karen | June 19, 2008 8:41 PM

Now, I know times have changed, but if Bill Clinton could name a Republican - William Cohen - to Defense, why not Obama? I'd rather Chuck Hagel at Defense than Hillary "Obliterate Iran" Clinton.

Let's not forget that there are rumors that McCain's Defense Secretary could be Joe Lieberman.

Posted by Judy | June 19, 2008 8:54 PM

Obama won't do it.

Good post Matt.

Posted by jvoe | June 19, 2008 9:11 PM

Obama should nominate Hillary Clinton as SECDEF.

P.S. I'm not kidding.

Posted by Kolohe | June 19, 2008 9:12 PM

Right, Kolohe - put Clinton in as SecDef - the asshole who talked about "obliterating Iran" for the benefit of Israel.

That will go over big with AIPAC, I'm sure. If that's your constituency.

Not to mention that she's utterly clueless about foreign policy and national security and military affairs.

Or was this some kind of a joke that escapes me?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 19, 2008 9:18 PM

Now, I know times have changed, but if Bill Clinton could name a Republican - William Cohen - to Defense, why not Obama?

It was a bad idea then too. Some Democrats have been known to moan in the past about not being taken seriously on national defense. Well, you think that maybe putting a Republican in charge of defense when given a chance to lead the country has something to do with perpetuating that message?

Maybe if Dem males of the Clinton/Klein generation weren't so insecure about their manhood and their national defense cred, they would have had the balls to fight hard to keep us out of Iraq, instead of rolling over for it. I'm so glad Obama is from a younger generation, and doesn't appear to suffer from all of those boomer guilt and shame complexes.

Posted by Dan Kervick | June 19, 2008 9:31 PM

Richard Danzig and Wesley Clark would also be good choices for the Secretary.

Brining back Perry wouldn't be a bad idea either, except he'd be 81 at the time of the innagural.

The only person in the DOD that the democrats should even remotely consider hanging on to is Gordon England.

But, it is probably more important to completely purge the entire executive branch of every current political employee that it is legal to do so.. If some good people get swept out, it shouldn't matter; if they're good, they'll find decent jobs in the real world. Heck, most will regardless of their performance.

Posted by Kolohe | June 19, 2008 11:29 PM

Not eligible for SecDef for 10 years after retirement

I didn't see this before; I didn't know it was a rule. Kelso was the secretary of the Navy for a brief time when Clinton first came in, but it may be different because it was a service secretary and/or he was just acting sec.

Posted by Kolohe | June 19, 2008 11:35 PM

My proposal, Gates for Secretary of the Air Force. That keeps him focused on the thing he's been doing the most good at while freeing up the top job for a dem that can do more overall changes.

Posted by Chris P | June 19, 2008 11:36 PM

"If you find a moderate Republican...and make him or her head of the EPA..."

Because that worked so well with Christine Todd Whitman.

Gates has done a good job and I think continuity matters most right now with the military. As for McCain and old Bush hands, I've honestly heard he is considering John Bolton for State. Also, Lieberman may as well be a Bush hand, and he's likely to run McCain's Pentagon.

Posted by Jay | June 19, 2008 11:54 PM

Just because a Republican rises to the level of decency that we expect from a Democrat doesn't make him a star. It makes him average.

It is generally agreed that Gates has been a very solid SoD. Why would you want to fire a perfectly competent public official and replace him with an unknown?

Now if Gates changed his party affiliation, I'd be open to it.

Oh, I get it. Partisan politics.

I'm an independent who's voting Democratic this year partly because I'm sick of the Bush administration appointing Republican hacks to important government positions. I'm not doing so because I want to see them replaced with Democratic hacks.

Posted by Xeynon | June 20, 2008 12:03 AM

How about making Gates Secretary Of Organizing Barges For Republicans to Willingly Leave The United States For A Foreign Land On.

Posted by Swan | June 20, 2008 1:35 AM

How about making him Secretary Of Convincing Republicans Who Worked In Government During The Bush Administration to Provide Evidence Of Other Government Employees Who Broke The Law During The Bush Administration?

Posted by Swan | June 20, 2008 1:39 AM

I've got it: Secretary of Getting Armed Forces Radio To Stop Playing Rush Limbaugh's Show.

This guy can still be in government, but give him assignments that will prove his good faith.

Posted by Swan | June 20, 2008 1:42 AM

Right, Kolohe - put Clinton in as SecDef - the asshole who talked about "obliterating Iran" for the benefit of Israel.
That will go over big with AIPAC, I'm sure. If that's your constituency.

She said that if Iran used WMD they would be obliterated. That sounds a bit better than the wussy, craven Obama all but ruling out any force maybe necessary situation anywhere in the world as "distractions" - except for his plan to invade start a war with nuclear Pakistan. All which begins with the Paks all cutting off all resupply to US forces in Afghanistan, then able to throw up to 16 million trained and reserve at us out of a population of 180 million - simply because 2-3 terrorists which Obama declares are the sole focus of his concern about global threats, are hiding there. The rest of course, Obama has declared he can talk to and make them our friends or at least no longer a threat because he majored in International Relations in Columbia and because he has Muslim friends and family members overseas.

Not to mention that she's utterly clueless about foreign policy and national security and military affairs.

Actually, that is a problem for Obama, because as clueless as Hillary is on the 3 subjects, she knows a lot more than arrogant, cocky young Barry.

Posted by chris ford | June 20, 2008 2:17 AM

The "Gates is a wonderful SecDEF" shows how little evidence it takes to set meme in motion at our Versailles-on-the-Potomac. What has he accomplished?

Some nifty speeches, perhaps to boost his odds of keeping the job after the election. He fired a few USAF guys, after a string of nuke screw-ups. On his watch, Admiral Fallon was fired, the planned purchase of F-22's was reduced, and a Marine Expeditionary Unit was sent to Afghanistan.

These things set the hearts of insiders racing, but hardly qualify him as a powerful agent of change -- of the needed if Obama wants to make a mark on DoD.

Posted by Fabius Maximus | June 20, 2008 2:29 AM

I thin Gates is a very good defense sec indeed, and I bet he would be a lot more comfortable in an Obama administration than a McCain one.

Your argument simply betrays a lack of confidence. If an Obama administration is confident then it will pick the best man for the job, regardless of which party he comes from. If the administration goes on to be a great success, unwinding the Iraq fiasco, fixing up the M.E. and so on, believe me nobody will be saying it just goes to show you can't trust the Democrats with national security. They will see Gates appointment as the beginning of the end of the neoconservative lunacy, an advance guard waiting for a Democrat administration to restore sanity to the rest of government.

Those that don't think Gates has had a profound impact on the whole of national security might like to check out Jim Lobe's Gates Led Realist Resurgence in 2007. A little long in the tooth, but still relevant I think.

Posted by Chris Dornan | June 20, 2008 5:03 AM

The problem with a Democratic Pentagon chief is finding someone who would want the job, which basically will consist of liquidating a lost war. We should be grateful if a Republican is willing to take the heat for us.

Posted by bob h | June 20, 2008 7:50 AM

Actually Sam Nunn might be the one. Please no more talk of him for VP.

Posted by bob h | June 20, 2008 7:57 AM

A key point in favor of Gates, who has demonstrated competency in an extremely demanding job, would be CONTINUITY. Even if the guy who replaces him is just as competent, a fair amount of time and energy that would be spent on transitioning from one guy to the next could better be devoted to dealing with the myriad challenges the military is facing.

And I second JoeS's point that Gates has DEMONSTRATED his competency in this job, while people with great-looking resumes don't always deliver the goods after appointment. Does anybody have any idea whether Gates (who's 65) really wants to stay on at Defense long term (no matter who is elected)? Would he agree to serve in an Obama administration?

If Gates would serve under Obama but doesn't have long-term ambitions, there could be many benefits from having an experienced hand at Defense for the first couple of years. It would not be admissions that Dems are "soft" and can't handle Defense, but a recognition that with the mess left behind by Bush in Iraq, it would be silly to throw out one of Bush's few competent appointments just for partisan reasons.

Posted by MandyW | June 20, 2008 9:15 AM

It is generally agreed that Gates has been a very solid SoD. Why would you want to fire a perfectly competent public official and replace him with an unknown?

Because this is a presidential election. Presidents pick their own cabinet officials. That's sort of how this works. Everyone seems to think that because Gates doesn't talk trash like Rumsfeld that he's some kind of career civil servant--but he's not. This is a political job and he's a political appointee. When his boss is gone, he's gone.

I'm an independent who's voting Democratic this year partly because I'm sick of the Bush administration appointing Republican hacks to important government positions. I'm not doing so because I want to see them replaced with Democratic hacks.

So let me get this straight--you're voting for a Dem because you're mad about Republican appointees in government, but you want guarantees that the Dem will continue to employ those appointees.

A key point in favor of Gates, who has demonstrated competency in an extremely demanding job, would be CONTINUITY. Even if the guy who replaces him is just as competent, a fair amount of time and energy that would be spent on transitioning from one guy to the next could better be devoted to dealing with the myriad challenges the military is facing.

AAAAGGHH!! It's a presidential election! Cabinets change! This is what happens every few years! These are not lifetime appointments! The military is an unthinkably massive organization and has always faced "challenges"--that is not a pretext for keeping the same SecDef around indefinitely. The US government as a whole is facing massive "challenges"--should we grant Bush an indefinite extension on his 8 years because we're afraid of transition?

The fact that this idea is even being tossed around is farcical. The "change" candidate in the "change" election is supposed to keep the cabinet officials of the current wildly unpopular administration?

Posted by Jake H. | June 20, 2008 9:53 AM

a non-wingnut Republican doctor and make her the Surgeon General. - Dan Kervick

The only one I can think of is Antonia Novella, who's actually already been surgeon general. But that's not cabinet level, is it?

*

Also, I'm not sure if Pitt or O'Neil's resumes were all that good to begin with and considering the "constraints" put on them in order that they would last more than a day in BushCO, I don't think they did all that badly (although the moral thing to do would have been to have gotten out earlier).

*

We should be grateful if a Republican is willing to take the heat for us. - bob h

Here in FL, we had something similar. Like most states, our department of youth services is a mess. Chain Gang Charlie appointed a popular Dem. former attorney general (IIRC his position) to be in charge. In this way, if the appointee succeeds, then Crist gets accolades for being all "bipartisan", putting the best man in for the job, etc. And if Butterworth (IIRC his name) fails, then Crist can blame the Democrat.

Actually, come to think of it, the Orange County (CA) board of supervisors did a similar thing in putting Bob Citron (Dem) in charge of their money.

Before I didn't like this Gates for SecDef idea one bit. But now, I see, how, with proper spin, it's actually political gold. 'Cept you can never count on the Dems. to be able to spin something properly. Especially if any Dem. Senator (or quasi-Dem) named Joe is involved ...

*

Oh yes ... and what Dan Kervick said about Dems. and 'nads. Part of the reason why we Dems. are perceived as weak is because of the very real "weakness" of certain Dems. Heck, if we can't stand up to the GOP bullies at home, how will the Dems. stand up to the bullies abroad? That, FWIW, was essentially the GOP message in 2004, wasn't it?

Posted by DAS | June 20, 2008 10:12 AM

I'm an independent who's voting Democratic this year partly because I'm sick of the Bush administration appointing Republican hacks to important government positions. - Xeynon

We aren't talking about civil service positions and similar appointments (for the latter of which the Bush administration has definitely gone against the precident of hiring the best people for the job independent of party affiliation and gone for hiring hacks ... and firing non-hacks ... remember, there was a scandal about this? as others have pointed out, BushCO keeps the scandals going so fast and furious, nobody can keep up and hence nail them on any particular scandal).

Cabinet level positions have (almost) always been appointed on a partisan basis for quite some time. Indeed, Clinton appointing Cohen was a very shocking thing when it was done.

*

OT but in re the Air Force. You always hear talk both within and without the military about "whither the Air Force?" Nu? Why are we hiring Blackwater to fly missions/convoys in Afghanistan (c.f. the recent lawsuit in which they want it to be tried in a Sharia court so it'll get thrown out because, while Sharia is generally less big-business friendly than US law, in this case it is more friendly to them by ignoring the business connection in the first place)? If we can't figure out what to do with the Air Force, why not have them do what we're currently paying $$$ to have an outside contractor do? It doesn't make sense.

Well, unless you are a BushCO person with money invested in the military-industrial complex. Doesn't anybody pay attention to that speech anymore?

Posted by DAS | June 20, 2008 10:20 AM

Fortunately, Matthew, I think Barack Obama would disagree with you on this. It is not about scoring Democratic points for being able to run a coherent foreign policy. It's about fixing things.

Calling Gates merely the least incompetent member of the Bush administration, as one of your commenters did, reveals that a lot of Democrats are still playing the same old idiotic partisan games that the Republicans are playing.

This election isn't about punishing Republicans, however much they deserve it. It's not supposed to be about wresting control of the government for Democrats. At least it shouldn't be if we are serious about improving this country and the world.

Wake up people.

Posted by Andrew K | June 20, 2008 12:09 PM

Always signals and messages over substance and results. It's the same wiht government and media. Why isn't the first and only question is this the right guy to do what needs doing? I believe that's pretty much the way Obama approaches these kinds of decisions, at least that's my hope and the reason I support him.

Posted by Chris Boehme | June 20, 2008 12:31 PM

It's desperately important for the Democratic Party's leaders to avoid re-enforcing the idea that Democrats can't run national security

Always worried about the brand instead of the country.

Posted by Shinyk | June 20, 2008 12:40 PM

"Because this is a presidential election. Presidents pick their own cabinet officials. That's sort of how this works. Everyone seems to think that because Gates doesn't talk trash like Rumsfeld that he's some kind of career civil servant--but he's not. This is a political job and he's a political appointee. When his boss is gone, he's gone."
-Jake H.

Hey genius, the fact that presidents pick their own cabinet officials allows them to pick the previous cabinet official if it is indeed in the best interest of the country. That is for Obama to assess based on realities, not hyper-sensitive democrat activists who cannot separate partisan politics from actual progress. Goddamn, I cannot wait until the baby boomer generation is eating apple sauce in retirement communities... Identity politics is killing us

Posted by martel | June 20, 2008 1:09 PM

I think what is "desperately important" is having people in vital positions who will do a great job. Whether they are Democrat or Republican should be beside the point. Showing those mean Republicans that Democrats can run national security seems a rather juvenile motive.

Posted by Dan | June 20, 2008 1:15 PM

Hey genius, the fact that presidents pick their own cabinet officials allows them to pick the previous cabinet official if it is indeed in the best interest of the country. That is for Obama to assess based on realities, not hyper-sensitive democrat activists who cannot separate partisan politics from actual progress. Goddamn, I cannot wait until the baby boomer generation is eating apple sauce in retirement communities... Identity politics is killing us

I was gonna express my frustration with the conversation here, but this quote and the next by Dan summed it all up for me.

Posted by okteds | June 20, 2008 2:11 PM

In response to comments like the last one at 2:11, I've got to say it's fucking naive to think that anybody Bush gives a big job to isn't a racist stooge. These people (the Bushies) specifically staff big projects by asking people questions about their ideology and political loyalties! That's not geared to recruit non-ideological, career public servants!

Gates may have enough calculation to throw out some non-partisan sounding fig leafs here and there. But guess what? Look at the FISA bill that just passed! Gates isn't stopping this-- that's a no-brainer. I'm betting the Bushies know that if you have a head of a nation's intelligence who acts like a fascist, it irritates people who would be those who defend freedom because it starts making them think about state police and secret police (cops who are summarily enforcing a partisan political orthodoxy by extra-legal means), and it sets them to thinking. They sure don't want a lot of people calling Republicans Nazis or fascists. At the least, the Republicans know that Gates' job makes him a very noticeable public figure.

Sorry, I have no faith that Gates is on the side of the angels, although I'll acknowledge it's possible.

Posted by Swan | June 20, 2008 2:29 PM

In response to comments like the last one at 2:11, I've got to say it's fucking naive to think that anybody Bush gives a big job to isn't a racist stooge. These people (the Bushies) specifically staff big projects by asking people questions about their ideology and political loyalties! That's not geared to recruit non-ideological, career public servants!

Gates may have enough calculation to throw out some non-partisan sounding fig leafs here and there. But guess what? Look at the FISA bill that just passed! Gates isn't stopping this-- that's a no-brainer. I'm betting the Bushies know that if you have a head of a nation's intelligence who acts like a fascist, it irritates people who would be those who defend freedom because it starts making them think about state police and secret police (cops who are summarily enforcing a partisan political orthodoxy by extra-legal means), and it sets them to thinking. They sure don't want a lot of people calling Republicans Nazis or fascists. At the least, the Republicans know that Gates' job makes him a very noticeable public figure.

Sorry, I have no faith that Gates is on the side of the angels, although I'll acknowledge it's possible.

Posted by Swan | June 20, 2008 2:29 PM

Swan,

If you're going to call someone a racist, you need evidence. You can't just say: Gates knows Bush, so he's a racist (you also haven't proven Bush is a racist). Furthermore, Gates's responsibility is overseeing American military activities abroad, so I'm not sure what difference it would make if he were, which you cannot prove, anyway.

Also, I believe you're confused about the structure of our goverenment.

FISA is the responsibility of Congress, the President and DHS, not Gates's DoD. It would be no more appropriate for Gates to "stop" the Democratic FISA bill than it would be to "stop" the Corn Ethanol Fraud, and he doesn't have the power to do so if he wanted to. This is like asking why the mayor of Atlantic City doesn't act to solve a Labor Situation in Iowa.

If you want to blame someone for this FISA bill, you can point the finger at Reid and Pelosi and, to a lesser extent, Bush.

Posted by Shinyk | June 20, 2008 3:32 PM

In response to you, Swan...

Yes I am aware of the Bush Administration's criminal behaviour. Nearly every top person in that Administration from 2000 to 2006 was either complicit in the intelligence distortions, the cover ups, the authorization of torture, the outing of CIA agents, the ethical and professional gutting of various branches of government, the saber-rattling, among countless other despicable act. The one common thread with this regime is that they've consistently done whatever the hell they want to do, without regard for facts, evidence, or common consensus, while the whole time turning every issue into a political football.

But I can't for the life of me figure out what you're argument is. I don't like the FISA bill either...but it's the DEMOCRATIC House that is shepherding that through right now. Who should he speak out against? The Bush administration for pushing for these new FISA regulations? Or the Democratic-led house for giving Bush nearly everything he wanted in the bill and then allowing less than an hour to debate it, and less than 24 hours to vote on it?

In Gates, I see someone who has repeated rebuked this administration, in public no less, when their BS flew in the face of reality. He advocated more diplomacy with Iran, just as the administration was using the opposite point as a political club, he advocated shutting down Gitmo, and he endorsed a troop-withdrawal debate advocating that it would be "helpful in showing the Iraqis that American patience is limited".

But after writing all that, it's painfully obvious that I've given too much credence to the coherence of your argument. You're main argument appears to be that all people associated with this administration are "racist stooges", presumably including people like Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Richard Clarke. If you can't see the whopping differences between someone like Powell and Alberto Gonzalez, or Gates and Rumsfeld, you are a naive fool who has not paid any attention to how Iraq has been handled since Rumsfeld stepped down, or, more importantly, how the circumstances on the ground have changed dramatically since he took over (a subtle distinction, but very, very important)

Posted by okteds | June 20, 2008 3:34 PM

Just happened to be reading Doug Frantz and Catherine Collins book THE NUCLEAR JIHADIST when I read of Danzig's comment. I went back to the two points in the book where Gates appears. It's a mixed bag. In 1990 as Assistant National Security Director he seems to have played a key role in successfully preventing war between Pakistan and India. But later, the authors note that "Gates has a history of seeing the world through a bleak lens, and in the past he had been accused of slanting intelligence to justify a hard-line policy." Those would seem to me to be two troubling attributes for an administration about hope and change. Is it just me, or is associations with slanted intelligence the last thing Obama needs???

Posted by JLO | June 20, 2008 7:36 PM

Just happened to be reading Doug Frantz and Catherine Collins book THE NUCLEAR JIHADIST when I read of Danzig's comment. I went back to the two points in the book where Gates appears. It's a mixed bag. In 1990 as Assistant National Security Director he seems to have played a key role in successfully preventing war between Pakistan and India. But later, the authors note that "Gates has a history of seeing the world through a bleak lens, and in the past he had been accused of slanting intelligence to justify a hard-line policy." Those would seem to me to be two troubling attributes for an administration about hope and change. Is it just me, or is associations with slanted intelligence the last thing Obama needs???

Posted by JLO | June 20, 2008 7:37 PM

Just happened to be reading Doug Frantz and Catherine Collins book THE NUCLEAR JIHADIST when I read of Danzig's comment. I went back to the two points in the book where Gates appears. It's a mixed bag. In 1990 as Assistant National Security Director he seems to have played a key role in successfully preventing war between Pakistan and India. But later, the authors note that "Gates has a history of seeing the world through a bleak lens, and in the past he had been accused of slanting intelligence to justify a hard-line policy." Those would seem to me to be two troubling attributes for an administration about hope and change. Is it just me, or is associations with slanted intelligence the last thing Obama needs???

Posted by JLO | June 20, 2008 7:41 PM

you all forget one big name who could replace Gates with solid credentials and who is non-partisan:

Admiral Fallon.

Posted by Brett | June 21, 2008 1:47 PM

How About a Democrat?

Comments (55)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories