Desperation in media can work positively, but Hannity's model of discourse would destroy any democratic government if applied to governance. It is reassuring to see people like Robert Gates in government expressing staid perspectives we can all take heart in. Hannity's world perspective - not so much! Now would be a good time for Hannity to retire and enjoy the good life. _kevo

has hannity agreed to be water boarded for charity yet?

Well said. Gates is a deeply impressive man, and Obama did well to appoint him.

A Democrat could have said it just as well.

I don't find the political cover as Gates being a Republican or the alleged restraint this would impose on the fox news freaks (right, like anything changes their behavior) remotely worth the price for the perception Democrats can't do Defense.

I want a Democratic Secretary for DOD. I'm not willing to accept the excuses and rationalizations of this weak political genuflecting to Republicans, what in the hell is he doing there? I don't trust anyone from the Bush era, no one.

Okay, okay. Let's see if Hannity and all the rest fall into line. Meantime we screwed our own brand and horribly missed out on a personell opportunity for filling at slot with a Republican.

Well said. Great, take your money and 5% increase, very well said, progress is upon us, I'm positive.

well to be fair, I think Gates is an Independent

"I can only assume Republicans will now feel compelled to call for Gates' resignation"

Or, outright call him a traitor to the country (meaning Republican).

I don't care what Gates' background is, I think he's a good choice - one of few that Bush got right. If his "background" says he is/was Republican - great! I just love watching Republicans have no mercy on each other just as they have none for the rest of the planet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBFnuScfizc

Fast forward to the 2 minute mark.

If Bugs is TDR, who is Yosemite Sam?
Three guesses, first two don't count.

Even if Gates was a good choice who has unique abilities to shut up right wing media jackals (right) it does not come close to negating the horrible damage done to the Party brand and lost potential/opportunity for future leadership.

Going to Republicans isn't an option. Doing so is always a mistake. Trot out the reasons Republicans have earned trust and the tangible, empirical payoff for his appointment, I'm listening. I really don't have much patience for some fantasy he might represent, but I'll objectively take it in, yes.

We've all worked with people who can't admit when they're wrong and think backing off a misguided position is a sign of weakness. They're horrible to be around and make it hard to get anything done. Republicans are the political version of the office colleagues everyone hates and feels contemptuous of.

Again. Gates is not a republican. Gates is a true Independent.

And as for wanting a politician of a specific stripe in charge of the Pentagon - no. I want the best person for the job in that post. I want the person that makes it the least likely that I will have to go to funerals for friends and relatives still in uniform. Leaving Gates in that post was a stroke of brilliance. I have been critical of Gates for 20 years, but I have always respected the talent, and the last two and a half years have really elevated my opinion of him.

I think Gates showed his colors when the brass hats responsible for the Walter Reed debacle were fired. This is what the Pentagon needs, and if it takes a Republican/Independent/Person from Mars to do it, then so be it.

A Democrat could have said it just as well. -paradox

I disagree. Beyond a few, most of the Democrats are as gifted speakers as the penultimate President.

I don't find the political cover as Gates being a Republican... -paradox

Who said Gates was a Republican? Certainly not Gates, who lays claim to an apolitical independence, which is exactly what we need in a position that should be apolitical.

I want a Democratic Secretary for DOD. -paradox

I want an effective Department of Defense, and Gates is doing a decent job.

As someone who listens to Hack Hannity on the way home from work most days, I can tell you that NOTHING will ever shut him up. Nothing will ever get in the way of him smearing Obama and Democrats. Full stop. Facts, reality, God descending from Heaven to personally tell Hannity that he is wrong will not have any effect on the daily crapsandwich that he feeds to his audience.

Hannity is still claiming that the Swift Boat liars are heroes, Nancy Pelosi demanded a bigger plane, Bush inherited a recession, Obama said "Iran is a tiny threat", the Obama Administration produced the DHS report targeting right-wing extremists including veterans, and so on. He won't care what Gates said. He will either ignore the comments altogether or doctor the quote to make it seem that Gates was criticizing the president. The man is a hypocritical, lying hack. The man has no shame.

Paradox has a point - Yes, perhaps a solid Democrat, who, served as an US Army officer, to take the reins. Someone, such as another Les Aspin, eh?

Failure can come from either party. So can success. Churchill is still lauded to this day by so many, yet, he was one of the worst micro-managers of military operations in history. Whether as a bureaucrat or the ultimate leader, he botched so many operations with some of his misguided stratagies, such as the Italian campaign and Galipoli for two examples. I still believe Winston, as a baseball manager, would have left his pitchers in far too long and would have never taken the blame for losing walk-offs.

"Well, I like to remind people that, when President George W. Bush came into office, he talked about a more humble America."

Funny, that's what Ron Paul said too.

the next line that I always use is, no other country in the world is so self-critical, and is so willing to change course when we feel that we've strayed from our values, or when we feel like we've been too arrogant.

Isn't this statement another expression of the American exceptionalism that he is trying to repudiate? What examples in support of this contention could he possibly be imagining?

"Well, I like to remind people that, when President George W. Bush came into office, he talked about a more humble America."

What he left unsaid: "But that was only when he came into office. Starting a few days later, he morphed into a dickhead, and it was all downhill from there..."

Isn't this statement another expression of the American exceptionalism that he is trying to repudiate? -scudbucket

Struck me a little like that, too, but not a terribly offensive expression of that sentiment. It seemed to me like a less articulate way of echoing Bill Clinton when he said, "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America."

Failure can come from either party. So can success. Churchill is still lauded to this day by so many, yet, he was one of the worst micro-managers of military operations in history. Whether as a bureaucrat or the ultimate leader, he botched so many operations with some of his misguided stratagies, such as the Italian campaign and Galipoli for two examples.

Narf.

Of course, one has to careful not to compare Bush and Churchill--the Midsomer village idiot versus Sherlock Holmes, in terms of intelligence and competance.

However, you can get a notion of what Gates, Petraeus, and Mullen have been going through with Bush and Cheney, read up on how General Sir Alan Brooke felt babysitting Churchill for four years while Bernard Montgomery got to lead actual armies. He even had to tuck him into bed.

All qualifiers aside, Churchill had a terrible hand to play in 1940 and very little in the way of stakes. Britain's strategic position was desperate, its economy verged on bankruptcy, its industrial plant was an antique. The British army was second best on its good days, suffering an string of humiliating defeats at the hands of the Germans and Japanese. Britain's navy and air force were well led but crippled by lack of resources relative to responsibility.

For all Churchill's temperment and follies, he had a sense of history and depth of intelligence rare in politicians, he knew how to run a government, and possessed vast reserves of courage and energy. He could be talked out of his foolish ideas and did not backbite after he backed down. Not bad for someone who ate, drank, and smoked too much and turned 70 midway through the war.

Note too that Gates proceeded to model the kind of humility he defended, equating Pakistan's failures in counterterrorism with our own, and warning re Afghanistan, "if we try to do it all ourselves, I think it won't work."
http://xpostfactoid.blogspot.com/2009/05/lesson-in-humility-from-robert-gates.html

"Funny", how Gates hews closer to the President's positions than some Democrats one could name. He's proving to be an excellent pick in respect to having Obama's back.

People like paradox, OTOH... the "my party, right or wrong" brigade... That kind of blind ideology is poison, no matter which stagnant pool it comes from -- right or left.

"Churchill is still lauded to this day by so many, yet, he was one of the worst micro-managers of military operations in history...his misguided strategies, such as the Italian campaign and Galipoli(sic) for two examples."
The original aims of the Italian campaign included knocking Italy out of the war (done) while holding the greatest number of German divisions possible in Italy and away from France and the Eastern Front. There was also the hope that the Allies would be able to move far enough north fast enough to threaten both southern France and Austria; thus requiring the Germans to use scarce resources to guard both areas.
The Salerno landings in September 1943 were successful, but the advance up the Italian peninsula was halted by the German defences, anchored on Monte Cassino. That led to the Anzio landings in January 1944, which were an attempt to outflank the enemy, but they were only a qualified success. Troops and amphibious equipment were withdrawn from Italy for the invasion of southern France (Operation Dragoon), that was to occur in August 1944. It was this withdrawal of troops and materiel that prevented any further amphibious operations on the Italian front and forced the Allied forces (mostly British and Commonwealth troops) to slog their way north so slowly.
Regarding Gallipoli I can only say: Had Churchill actually "micro-managed" the Gallipoli operations as so many have accused him, he most likely would have been responsible for a great Allied victory.
As for Mr. Gates, the original topic of this posting: he has shown himself to be a very competent SoD so far and his lack of party identification certainly shouldn't be held against him.

Churchill is still lauded to this day by so many, yet, he was one of the worst micro-managers of military operations in history...his misguided strategies, such as the Italian campaign and Galipoli(sic) for two examples."
The original aims of the Italian campaign included knocking Italy out of the war (done) while holding the greatest number of German divisions possible in Italy and away from France and the Eastern Front.

Two books by modern scholars tend to support this view of the matter. I bring it up when people (British, I think) complain about the US not getting in the war sooner. The biggest reason? We didn't have an army.

In 1942, German and Japan had a crack at a major strategic/political victory by breaking or just disrupting Allied supply lines in the Middle East and the Indian Ocean. America only had a half dozen trained divisions to fight anywhere in the world, so we went into Africa with the British and permanently separated the German and Japanese conquests.

In 1943, the Americans had only a couple of dozen trained divisions and had to fight someone, somewhere, or admit they could not face the German army on equal terms for another year or so. So, the allies took out Mussolini, the Italian army, the Italian navy, the Italian air force, and made the Germans deploy an entire army group and thousands of warplanes to defend southern Europe.

Not that bad a deal.

As for Mr. Gates, the original topic of this posting: he has shown himself to be a very competent SoD so far and his lack of party identification certainly shouldn't be held against him.

Beyond all the weaseling on "Don't ask, don't tell," the Obama-Gates team has been working splendidly so far.

DADT will happen, sometime in the next 18 months, we are getting out of Iraq, and we have a gambler's chance of a clean exit from Afghanistan.

Sometime in the next two years, we will be cutting the defence budget for the first time in decades.

Once all that is in motion, Gates can retire having accomplished something important, Obama doesn't need him for political cover, and he can appoint a Democrat to be SOD.