Confirmed!!!

No she wasn't. All you have done is offered your opinion without any evidence or logical explanation that backs up your claim.

- - - Updated - - -

But wait? We haven't figured out if the media is biased yet?

In other words, I wonder why those very same people that claim the media is biased, use the media to back up their claims? That seems a little strange to me.

 

They are bias. They aren't even covering that Clinton made the vote against the surge so she could compete with Obama. According to gates who witnessed it. Not the news.

 

AWW
Just when I began to think nobody was going to play the race card

 

ALL Presidents have overall political concerns, which probably outweigh most of the decisions they make. That is, shall the President (or any politician) forsake their entire agenda... for a single decision? I doubt that most would.

We know that politics is not perfect. And we also know that the good a President can do over time... cannot necessarily be judged by any particular decision they make.

In my view, Gates is entitled to his opinion... and even if President Obama's decisions/actions are less-than-perfect, I'm reasonably sure he's looking at the BIG picture for America itself.

I do not agree with everything the President says/does, but I surely disagree with Barack Obama far less than other Presidents who came before him.

 

Did you read the book

I did not read the book But what I did read at the link below
Conflicts with what you say

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...8acad0-634d-11e3-a373-0f9f2d1c2b61_story.html

One is that gates contradicts himself
And nowhere in the book review is there Support for your post

Again I ask you did you read the book
If not your post is questionable at least

 

It doesn't take experts or even a professional media to relate direct quotes from a book.

 

Just a small question here; has there ever been a decision made in DC that was NOT based on politics first? Why in gawd's name would Obama make a decision based on what is good for Republicans? They LOST. They don't represent the majority opinion.

 

Let me preface this reply by saying that it's rare for a former Cabinet member, let alone a defense secretary occupying a central position in the chain of command, to publish such an antagonistic portrait of a sitting president. Could it be that Bob Gates' Republican roots come through loud and clear? And let's not forget that after Gates "quit" at the end of 2010, he joined a consulting firm with two of GWB's closest foreign policy advisers (Condi Rice and Steve Hadley) --- the firm is called RiceHadleyGates. I'm sure Gates' semi-diatribe will appeal to the Obamaphobic base.

As pointed out in an earlier post, Gates's severe criticism is even more surprising. In fact, it's surprising --- maybe contradictory --- because toward the end of "Duty," he says of Obama's chief Afghanistan policies --- " . . . I believe Obama was right in each of these decisions . . . " And let's not forget that while serving as defense secretary, Gates gives Obama high marks, saying privately in the summer of 2010 that the president is " . . . very thoughtful and analytical, but he is also quite decisive . . . " Furthermore, even says that " . . . I think we have a similar approach to dealing with national security issues . . . "

As for Hillary Clinton --- Gates describes Hillary in the sort of "glowing" terms that might be used in the political arena as a political endorsement. Gates says that " . . . I found her smart, idealistic but pragmatic, though-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world . . . "

"Duty" does not give the "Do Nothing" Congress and its "culture" high marks. Gates describes the John Boehner-Mitch McConnell obstructionist "team" --- as "truly ugly"!

Let me leave you with the following thought --- Gates tells his readers that the pressures of managing two "wars" (Iraq and Afghanistan) at a time when thousands of U.S. troops were killed and wounded took a deep toll on his psyche. In fact, he "feared" his concern for the well-being of the troops was affecting his judgment, a concern that eventually led to his decision to resign. From my perspective, Gates' 640-page "Duty" was not only written to make $$$$, but to put his mind at ease. It's an excellent read.

 

First off, you are right. Everything that happens in DC is only and exclusively, for political purposes.

Second, You claim that Republican's do not represent the majority opinion because 'they lost'. That is not true. Or at least, not provably true.

1. USA population 2012 = 312 Million.
2. US votes in the 2012 election = 126 Million.
3. Votes for B Obama 2012 = 61.1 Million.

So in a country of 312 Million people, Obama got a mere 61 Million votes. Not only did he not get the majority of the public, he didn't even get the majority of the votes that were cast.

And you want to claim you know who does, or does not represent the majority opinion? You don't know. Just let it go, you don't know. Neither do I. I have no clue who really represents the majority opinion, but you sure can't go based on voting.

Third, why does Obama make decisions based on Republicans?

It has to do with the fact they have a lot of power. See, you think that because Obama is president, that he has a lot of power. Over all... there is some truth to that. But as it relates to government, and passing legislation, and spending money, the fact is the president has very little power there.

The control the Democrats now have in the Senate, is a whooping 3 votes. The Republicans can filibuster for months on end, to prevent anything they don't want passing the Senate. There is very little the Democrats could do to stop them.

In the house, the Republicans have a 33 vote majority, which is more than enough to stop any legislation they want, and pass most of what they want to pass.

In other words, Obama simply can't get anything he wants, unless he deals with the Republicans now, and whether they "represent the majority opinion" doesn't matter.

This is something that we on the right, have been saying for decades. At least I have for decades. The president has very very little power legislatively. He can propose a budget, but the congress can, and often does, completely ignore it, and spend, or cut, whatever they wish.

The President can only do one of three things. He can sign a bill that congress has passed. He can VETO a bill that congress has passed. And he can ignore the bill, which if it is left for a certain amount time, it ends up law anyway. Additionally, congress can override the VETO, and pass the law without the President.

The President can't even actually put forward a bill. The President must find someone else, give the bill to them, and have them introduce the bill into Congress, and even then, Congress is not required to even bring the bill up for consideration. If it is never considered, the bill fades into oblivion and is forgotten.

So back to the question... why does Obama deal with Republicans? Because he has no choice. The Republicans have a ton of power. Until we have a dictatorship, they always will. And they should. Whether you like it or not, I voted for Rob Portman, and he's my representative, whether you like it or not. He represents my opinion to congress, whether you think it's the majority opinion or not.

Welcome to reality. We on the right.... can still vote. Sucks to be you.

 

Let me preface this reply by saying that it's rare for a former Cabinet member, let alone a defense secretary occupying a central position in the chain of command to publish such an antagonistic portrait of a sitting president. Could it be that Bob Gates' Republican roots come through loud and clear? And let's not forget that after Gates "quit" at the end of 2010, he joined a consulting firm with two of GWB's closest foreign policy advisers (Condi Rice and Steve Hadley) --- the firm is called RiceHadleyGates. I'm sure Gates' semi-diatribe will appeal to the Obamaphobic base in the RINO party.

As pointed out in an earlier post, Gates' severe criticism is even more surprising. In fact, it's contradictory --- because toward the end of "Duty," he says of Obama's chief Afghanistan policies --- " . . . I believe Obama was right in each of these decisions . . ." And let's not forget that while serving as defense secretary, Gates gives Obama high marks, saying privately in the summer of 2010 that the president is " . . . very thoughtful and analytical, but he is also quite decisive . . . " Furthermore, Gates even says that " . . . I think we have a similar approach to dealing with national security issues . . . "

As for Hillary Clinton --- Gates describes Hillary in the sort of "glowing" terms that might be used in the political arena as a political endorsement. Gates says that " . . . I found her smart, idealistic but pragmatic, thought-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world . . . "

"Duty" does not give John Boehner's "Do Nothing" Congress and its "culture" high marks. Gates describes the Boehner-McConnell obstructionist obliviots in the House and Senate --- as "truly ugly"!

Let me leave you with the following thought --- Gates tells us that the pressures of managing two "wars" (Iraq and Afghanistan) at a time when thousands of U.S. troops were killed and wounded took a deep toll on his psyche. In fact, he "feared" his concern for the well-being of the troops was affecting his judgment, a concern that eventually led to his decision to "resign." From my perspective, Gates' 640-page "Duty" was not only written to make $$$$, but to put his mind at ease. It's an excellent read.

 

Quote of the month.

 

The Democrats shouldn't listen to the Republicans and vice versa, not because the Republicans lost, but because they all won their elections. Who cares what the country thinks, you're not accountable to them - you're accountable to the people who elected you!

Obama himself has been elected as President. He should do everything in his power to represent his electorate as he sees best, just as the House Republicans should do everything in their power to stop him.

 

The best response to your garbage comes from Gates himself:

 

In his memoir Gates undermines his "reputation" as an honorable man above the fray inside the D.C. political jungle. Now! Gates looks like just another hack settling "scores." Gates is on a book tour complaining that his words have been "hijacked" by the Obamaphobe faithful who tend to take his quotes out of context.

It's clear that Gates should have made his objections to the administration's Afghan policies --- known sooner, when he still might have been able to do something about them. Instead, by his own account, he "seethed" quietly. Had Gates spoken at the time --- privately or, if that didn't work, publicly --- he might had some influence in changing the problems he saw --- Boehner and McConnell's worthless Congress, an insular bunker mentality White House and a president insufficiently devoted to his own policies.

Yes! Gates had a reputation for being a truth-teller during his time in office, by cleaning up the "mess" at the Pentagon left by Rummy and helping the Obama administration forge a consensus on Afghanistan. But by his own account in "Duty" --- Gates wasn't telling the president the whole "truth" on this issue.

Let me leave you with the following thought --- Just think of the national conversation that the only person to serve as defense secretary under a Republican and a Democratic president could have started by saying at the time what he thought of the "teapublican" obstructionists in Congress --- " . . . uncivil, incompetent in fulfilling basic constitutional responsibilities, micro-managerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned, often putting self {and re-election} before country . . . " Unfortunately, Gates held his tongue, and now he is answering critics who think he should have held it until after Obama leaves office. As Gates told NPR's Steve Inskeep --- " . . . These issues are with us today. These are not issues that can wait to be written about in 2017. . . " Nor should they have been withheld until 2014.

 

I could not agree with you more. However, "We the people . . . " need to remember that "Nothing causes self-destruction quite so readily as power." And the late Paul Wellstone said it best --- "The people in our {country}, not special interest big money, should be the source of all political power.

 

Barack Obama has been characterized as "an enigma rapped in a puzzle." Ryan Lizza of "The New Yorker" said it best --- " . . . Perhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama . . . is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them . . . "

It's clear that both the "righty" and "left" have had trouble processing Obama's institutionalism. Conservatives --- like the"teapublicans" --- have exaggerated his "liberal" instincts into "radicalism," ignoring the fact that a president takes advice from a wide assortment of advisers --- like John Podesta and let's not forget Bob Gates. The "left" has been frustrated, again-and-again, by the abyss that exists between Obama's professed principles and the compromises that he's willing to accept, and some "liberals" have become convinced that he isn't one of them at all.

President Obama displays such a peculiar combination of traits as president that in a new book by Columbia law professor Philip Bobbitt about Niccolo Machiavelli called "The Garments of Court and Palace," convinces me that to "succeed," Obama has been "forced" to become a neo-Machiavellian.

Here's a passage that Bobbitt quotes from "The Prince" --- " . . . A prince must sometimes practice the ways of beasts, he should choose from among them the fox and the lion, for while the lion cannot defend himself from traps, the fox cannot protect himself from wolves. It is therefore necessary to be a fox in order to recognize traps, and a lion in order to frighten wolves . . . " The way I see it, Obama does the fox thing pretty well. He recognizes trapsand generally avoids them. But he needs more lion.

 

When was the last time you saw a front page headline about "gerrymandering" in the media? Before the 2010 election, conservatives launched a plan to win control of state legislatures before the census. The idea was to be in power when congressional districts were redrawn in order to "fix" them so the RINO would "win" a majority of districts.

The so-called "Redistricting Majority Project" was hugely successful. In 2012, Barack Obama was re-elected President by nearly 3.5 million votes. In congressional races, Democrats drew nearly 1.4 million more votes than the RINO. Simply put --- The RINO "won" control of the House of Horrors 234 seats to 201 seats.

How was this possible? By pumping $30 million into state races to "win" the House, the RINO redrew state maps in states such as Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, Florida and Ohio to place all of the Democrats into just a few districts. In this manner, Democrats win heavily in a couple of districts and lost the rest.

The following question needs to be asked --- Why do so many insensitive comments come from the RINO and their Obamaphobic base? One reason may well be their proximity problem. Too many RINO members in the House are isolated in various homogeneous areas or "gerrymandered" ghettos, so elected "teapublicans" there rarely hear or see the growing diversity in our country. Simply put --- These congtressional districts produce "representatives" who are unaccountable to the geographical confluence.

Too many "teapublicans" live in districts that are dominated by narrow, single-issue, ideology-driven constituencies that see an ever expanding "them" ("those people") who threaten the heritage of a slowly shrinking "us." This mind-set can be seen on this Forum.

As "We the people . . . " have seen this defensive mind-set run counter to a country that is embracing change. So it's not a surprise to see and hear the Obamaphobes try to reverse this trend. What these folks don't seem to understand, is the fact that the Greek philosopher Heraclitus was right (no pun intended), when he said " . . . the only thing constant is change . . . "

 

It's a "given" that "We the people . . . " will be exposed to a growing number of lies, exaggerations and misleading statements between now and November's elections. Unfortunately, most of these political comments will be "swept under the proverbial rug" by the media. The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts."

This being said, it's imperative that the American public needs to pay more attention to such media outlets as "PolitiFact" and "FactCheck.org."

However, the biggest threat to fact checking is when news outlets treat it as "extra credit" --- a sidebar, a news analysis, a segment after the commercial break. Yes! Facts are part of reporting. Fact-checking to have a fighting chance, it needs to be prominent, integrated into the news and, whenever possible, immediate. It would be refreshing to see the media call out false claims in their "lead" stories. Too often, though, the lie gets a prime-time slot on TV, radio or the news stories in the world of the Fourth Estate.

It's our responsibility to do our homework, especially during any political campaign. I would like to think that the general public wants truth and transparency from the media outlets. Let's not permit the pressocracy to do our "thinking." Aldous Huxley said it best: "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

 

There is not doubt that Obama buys into Hitler's theory that the bigger the lie and the more often told becomes and everyday fact. I dont think Obama has ever met a useful lie that he didnt embrace.

 

Sure it does. He wanted the Hispanic vote so he offered illegals citizenship.

He wanted the gay vote and told a gay newspaper he was for gay marriage when running for the Senate in Illinois. When he ran for President he was against gay marriage. Then his aids reminded him there was a lot of gay votes out there so he reverted back to being for gay marriage.

He says he is for women 's rights and equal pay for woman, but it comes out he pays women less in the White House.

Obama promised something to almost everyone and lied in the process. He got many votes by promising health care to all Americans cheaper than what they were paying and he knew it was a lie when he said it.

He promised the unions he would renegotiate NAFTA and after being elected, said he changed his mind.

He also said he had all these jobs lined up to put people to work and he lied there too.

Obama will tell anyone anything to get what he wants and the people believe it all, or don't give a damn if he lies or not.