« | »

Gates: Biden Incompetent, Obama Too Political

From the Wall Street Journal:

Top 10 Revelations From Robert Gates’s Memoir

Jan 7, 2014

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates is releasing his memoir, “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War,” a 600-page book that offers a stark, insider’s view of Washington, the Pentagon, Congress and America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq… Here’s a look at some of the book’s most riveting revelations:

1. Contempt for Congress — Mr. Gates expresses open disdain for Congress and the way lawmakers treated him when he testified at hearings. “I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned and prone to put self (and re-election) before country.” Mr. Gates said he fantasized about storming out of hearings and quitting. “There is no son of a bitch in the world who can talk to me like that,” he writes of his fantasy.

Something tells me his contempt was largely directed at Democrats. But that will never be mentioned.

2. Contempt for Vice President Biden — Mr. Gates expresses particular dissatisfaction with Vice President Joe Biden. He describes Mr. Biden as a “man of integrity” who “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” Specifically, Mr. Gates said he opposed Mr. Biden’s proposed limited strategy in Afghanistan to focus on counter-terrorism: “Whac-A-Mole hits on Taliban leaders weren’t a long term strategy,” he writes.

We even wonder about the ‘man of integrity’ part. How can anyone be so wrong all the time and not resign from such an important position?

3. Suspicion of White House Control — Mr. Gates described the White House and its national security team as too controlling and says that he found himself at odds with Mr. Obama’s inner circle. At one meeting in the Oval Office in 2011, Mr. Gates said he considered resigning because of the White House micromanagement and strategy. “I never confronted Obama directly over what I (as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-CIA Director Leon Panetta and others) saw as his determination that the White House tightly control every aspect of national security policy and even operations,” Mr. Gates writes…

Why shouldn’t the ‘War Hens’ Hillary Clinton and Valerie Jarrett be calling the shots? They are the two smartest women in the world.

5. White House vs. Pentagon — “The controlling nature of the Obama White House, and its determination to take credit for every good thing that happened while giving none to the career folks in the trenches who had actually done the work, offended Secretary Clinton as much as it did me,” Mr Gates writes…

What a surprise. We always thought Obama was quick to accept blame for failures and reluctant to take credit for successes. (This is what they call sarcasm.)

8. The War in Afghanistan — Mr. Gates writes that Mr. Obama had early doubts about his decision in late 2009 to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan… Mr. Gates says that Mr. Obama was taken aback by a 2009 request from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, then commander of U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, for a major military surge…

Huh? In 2008, Obama campaigned on the need for a surge in Afghanistan, in order to show that was tough. Was he surprised that General McChrystal took him seriously?

9. Obama’s Domestic Politics — Mr. Gates says that domestic politics factored into “virtually every major national security problem” the Obama White House faced. At one point, Mr. Gates writes, he witnessed a conversation between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton in which the president “conceded vaguely” that his opposition to the 2007 military surge in Iraq was a political calculation. Mr. Gates called the exchange “remarkable.” …

The most amazing thing to my mind is that this, or any of the rest of his list, came as a surprise to Gates.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, January 8th, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

9 Responses to “Gates: Biden Incompetent, Obama Too Political”

  1. JohnMG says:

    What I’d like to know is why Gates waited until now to go public with all of this. If Obama had no confidence that his strategies would succeed then his decision to send troops to those two Shiite holes is tantamount to Murder One. And for Gates to sit on this information makes him complicit.


    • canary says:


    • canary says:

      He should have said something before the election.

      So, go figure Obama Panetta saying 10 more years smack after Obama was re-elected, and John Kerry recently giving an 8 more years in Afghanistan.

      And the deaths of US Troops spiked high once Obama came into office, all that serving tea and bisquits, planting green beans and enraging the enemy by packing and loading their heroin. US Troops having to provide training and guns to corrupt Afghanistan police and military.

      Considering with all this humanitarian work Obama used US troops to do for him and Karzai, the death toll spiked high under Obama, and Gates should have said something before the election.

  2. evansj42 says:

    In my best Gomer Pyle voice:
    Surprise, surprise, surprise!

  3. Petronius says:

    Steve: “The most amazing thing to my mind is that this, or any of the rest of his list, came as a surprise to Gates.”

    Emphatically concur! The whole business strikes me as extremely naive. Like the ruminations of a pimply teenager.

    After all, what did Gates expect when he went to work for a neo-Marxist revolutionary? What did he expect from a President whose entire staff is composed of fellow neo-Marxist revolutionaries? Didn’t Gates learn anything during all of those Cold War years at the CIA? Good grief.

    The only surprising thing is that Gates seems to have received more face time with Nerobama than Kathleen “turkey neck” Sebelius had with the man. In fact, come to think of it, I’m surprised that Nerobama bothered to meet with Gates at all.

    I can only conclude that Nerobama welcomed Gates as a fellow-hater of Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu. That would have been enough to cement their relationship, although perhaps Gates has other Progressive credentials as well.

    And as for that nitwit Joe Biden being a “man of integrity” –– I have to wonder whether Gates missed the entire Clarence Thomas hearings? I would sooner put my faith in a used car salesman (which is the highest position that Biden is qualified for).

    • GetBackJack says:

      So, to wrap this up this news cycle what we have is a ‘man’ who as Secretary of Defense knew Obama was confident it was alright to murder men and women for no reason, ruin families and spend billions more so the Shiite fanatics could take back the hardest won ground paid for with American blood and treasure? But did so anyway to score political points?

      Isn’t that Accessory Before the Fact to Capital Crimes?

      Any attorneys in the house?

    • Petronius says:

      Ah GBJ, but who is going to bell the cat?

      More likely that you and I would be hauled in chains before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission than that Nerobama will pay for his crimes against America.

      It is axiomatic that, if they deploy military force, Liberal presidents will bungle the job. Where a conservative president might have deployed smaller forces at an earlier stage, and resolved a situation with minimal fuss before it got out of hand, the Liberal comes to the battlefield with too little too late, resulting in unnecessary bloodshed, destruction, and political damage.

      A better explanation for Nerobama’s actions (or inactions) in Afghanistan and Iraq might simply be that, because of his ideology, which is deeply anti-American, Nerobama is constitutionally unequipped for the use of force against America’s enemies. On the other hand, he is perfectly comfortable with the use of force against his political enemies on the Right.

      Thus Liberals are always uncomfortable with use of force in defense of the US or its interests, or against America’s enemies (except enemies on the Right).

      This is partly because Liberal doctrine includes an optimistic view of human nature –– ”Come, let us reason together,” as LBJ used to say to the commies.

      More importantly, it is because Liberals do not believe in any of the things that are genuinely worth fighting and dying for, things like God, king and country, sovereignty, Western Civilization, freedom, or honor.

      The things that Liberalism has to offer are never worth fighting for . . . who wants to die for a national heath care system, unemployment benefits, the minimum wage, comprehensive amnesty, or affirmative action?

      But essentially it is because they dislike America and distrust our military which is the tangible representative of American might.

As a result, when Nerobama is tested –– as Joe Biden rightly assured us he would be –– he is indecisive and erratic in the use of military force, acting out of raw political expediency, panic, humiliation, impatience, fear, public pressure, and always dithering, leading from behind, or not acting at all, because the enemy (Syria, Putin) calls his bluff, rather than acting from a studied and prudent assessment of the situation.

      Thus Democrat CINCs always use force at the wrong times and places, against the wrong enemies or targets, and in the wrong amounts. Examples of military bunglings by Democrat CINCs are legendary. It would be a waste of space to list them all here, but to take a few examples: the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Carter’s forlorn Iran hostage rescue attempt, Mogadishu, the empty Taliban training camps, the Sudan aspirin factory, the suicidal ROE in Afghanistan. Benghazi is probably the most disgraceful episode in American history since the Civil War.

      On the other hand, when the enemy is on the Right, then the Democrat will be utterly ruthless and use overkill. Take for example the disproportionate degree of force Clinton used against the Christian Serbs in the Kosovo War or against Elián González, or at Waco or Ruby Ridge. But against real enemies and real threats, their actions are hesitant, half-hearted, and inadequate. If they use military force, they will generally screw things up and make the situation worse.

      It’s just what they do.

    • GetBackJack says:

      The first one who stands up is gonna take a bullet or be reeducated
      The 100th one is gonna spend the rest of life with a backside big enough to park a harley in
      But the 100,000th one who stands up is gonna go the distance and start putting heads on pikes

      I probably will go down in the first wave

  4. Mithrandir says:

    A Couple of Things to Think About….

    ►Anyone who claims to be THIS OUTRAGED at what was going on…..
    1. Continued to collect a pay check.
    2. Took notes, so that he could write a book about it all, and collect another pay check.

    ►This guy has the nerve to point out who has integrity and who doesn’t!?
    ►Don’t give me this babe in the woods routine! You were Secretary of Defense!
    ►Has absolutely NO POWER in a micromanaged dictatorship, and is so GUTLESS, he even admits,

    “I never confronted Obama directly over what I (as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-CIA Director Leon Panetta and others) saw…”

    Wow, a Secretary of Defense. Our top man to sound the alarm over national security. An eagle-eye to watch and inform our President of all problems foreign and domestic. Keeping us safe, protecting our borders, defending our ideals……..um, “never confronted Obama directly……” PUH! Pathetic! You work for the American people loser! Not a king! CONFRONT HIM! THEN QUIT!
    ►You work for the regime, you are part of the regime!

« Front Page | To Top
« | »