A Crumbling Meme on Gates, Cheney and Iraq

By Jeralyn, Section
Posted on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:29:27 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Larisa at Raw Story reports that Robert Gates, Bush's nominee to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, may not be the pro-Baker, anti-Cheney, anti-necon candidate after all.

The argument has been made by many pundits and experts that the removal of Rumsfeld and the nomination of Gates, planning for which numerous sources indicate began roughly one month ago, will have the effect of marginalizing Vice President Dick Cheney, seen by most to be the driving force behind US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Larisa quotes several sources, such as the one below, to posit that Gates and Cheney may be more closely allied than previously thought.

One current intelligence contract employee, a former intelligence official who worked with Gates, indicated to RAW STORY that he believes there is much more commonality than discord between Cheney and Gates. The many connections and parallels between the two men over the years suggest that, contrary to current folklore, Cheney may in fact have been involved in the choosing of Gates, in an effort to rein in Pentagon near-mutiny.

Nonetheless, insiders seem happy with Gates' nomination. The true meme being anybody but Rumsfeld.

One former senior aide to the National Security Council, who wished to remain anonymous, offered a different perspective, saying "They are doing cartwheels in the E ring and could not care who was nominated so long as Rumsfeld resigned. They would not care if Satan replaced him."

The "E Ring" is Defense Department lingo for the outermost offices of the Pentagon.

< Your Liberal Media | Scooter Judge: Crack Penalties "Unconscionable" >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

A Crumbling Meme on Gates, Cheney and Iraq | 6 comments (6 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Seriously.... (none / 0) (#1)
by kdog on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:48:00 PM EST

He's a Bush family man...need we say more? I wouldn't trust the Bush's milkman at this point.

Satan may ::have:: replaced Rumsfeld, after all. (none / 0) (#2)
by Edger on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:52:17 PM EST

Gates...may not be the pro-Baker, anti-Cheney, anti-necon candidate after all.

How would Robert Gates perform as Defense Secretary?

As Deputy Director of Intelligence, Robert Gates' manipulation of intelligence data to support Ronald Reagan's views of reality resulted in disasters that are comparable to those perpetrated by Donald Rumsfeld from his manipulation of intelligence data to support George W. Bush's views of reality. In addition to that, Robert Parry also discusses good evidence to support the belief that Gates was involved in several other scandals, including Iran-Contra, the Reagan/Bush "October Surprise" (in which the Reagan administration conspired with Iranian rulers to withhold return of our hostages until after the Carter vs. Reagan presidential election), and the covert supply of weapons to Saddam Hussein's Iraq during their war with Iran.

I'm convinced that Bush & Cheney fully intend to push their Middle East/Iran agenda via Gates regardless of the congressional power shift. I honestly don't think they give a damn what happened in the elections last Tuesday:

Operation Comeback:

TO: My Fellow Neoconservatives
FROM: Joshua Muravchik
RE: How to Save the Neocons
...
Neoconservatives have the president's ear, but they also have lots of baggage. To stay relevant, they must admit mistakes, embrace public diplomacy, and start making the case for bombing Iran.
...
One area of neoconservative thought that needs urgent reconsideration is the revolution in military strategy that our neocon hero, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, has championed.

: Nonsense (none / 0) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 06:40:33 PM EST

Actually edger you need to come to the understanding that the President sets foreign policy, not the Majority leaders and/or the various chairmen.
It is helpful if they talk to each other and try to work together, but it is not a mandate.
As for your October surprise BS, that issue has been beaten into the ground time and again, with no proof that a reasonable person would believe.
However, if you want to believe the Soviets, I have a book or two with actual information from their archives that will sear your eyes should you actually read them.

Gates and Cheney (none / 0) (#3)
by PeterAtLarge on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:53:30 PM EST

I know very little about Gates, but I know enough about Cheney to believe he will not relinquish one atom of his power willingly. This man is stubborn, tenacious, and egocentric to the point of being blind to the interests of anyone but himself. And he clearly maintains a powerful grip on the "man" in the Oval Office.

Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#4)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 05:52:02 PM EST

Time will tell, but I think Jim Baker as more power than Deadeye Dick right now, or Rumsfeld would not have left.

Uhhh, no! (none / 0) (#6)
by Sailor on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 11:26:44 PM EST

Actually edger you need to come to the understanding that the President sets foreign policy

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur