Chris Wallace Asks If Robert Gates Will Follow Orders
By Heather Monday Dec 01, 2008 10:00am
On Fox News Sunday Nov. 30, 2008. Chris Wallace talks to Lindsey Graham and Clair McCaskill about the pick of Robert Gates to continue as Secretary of Defense. First up is Lindsey Graham and after expressing his approval of the pick of Gates and the others on Obama's future National Security team and managing to put in one more plug for how well the surge supposedly has worked in Iraq, Graham plays concern troll for Obama and says he hopes he listens to Gen. Petraeus. I'm sorry but I thought Gen. Petraeus said that he would follow the orders of the new President and not the other way around. But then Petraeus is one of those very "serious" people that the GOP has practically anointed to sainthood, so why should we expect anything different from Graham?
Wallace moves on to Clair McCaskill and wants to know why even though McCaskill was critical of Gates that he is now the right man to pull our forces out of Iraq. McCaskill reminds Wallace that an important part of the SOFA agreement is that it embraces the kind of time table that Barack Obama made a foundation of his campaign. She tells Wallace that at least Gates is no ideologue and that Obama wants the best and the brightest for his Cabinet and not just those that supported him.
Then Wallace throws out this doozie:
Sen. McCaskill, are you concerned about the fact and yes the Status of Forces Agreement says that all the troops have to be out by 2011, but Mr. Obama's time table is much quicker than that, it's the middle of 2010 and he wants a firm deadline for pulling them out. Bob Gates has talked about doing it based on conditions. Are you satisfied that Secretary Gates will follow Barack Obama's orders?
How utterly ridiculous. Can anyone imagine the Villagers asking this of a Republican President-elect? Of John McCain had he won? Of Bush? After McCaskill responds that of course Gates will follow orders Wallace asks Graham the same question and they blather on about whether Obama will listen to Gates or Petraeus and Wallace asks if the pick of Gates means that Obama might modify his time line.
Chris Wallace, no one knows what Obama is going to do once he takes office but the one thing we know he won't be doing is taking orders from Bob Gates or David Petraeus, or skipping out like our current Commander in Chief and letting his Vice-President run a shadow Presidency while he clears brush at the ranch.
Login or Register to post comments.
Special orders don't upset him?
Hard to believe he's the son of the iconic Mike Wallace.
This piece of fruit did fall far from the tree.
What a jerk.
This trust fund asshole probably had the best of everything, went to the best schools, on the best family vacations, surrounded by likeminded elite goofs who never had to even think about those less fortunate. Shit with a silver spoon is still shit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InicU68nSwc&fe...
He better f*cking follow orders.
Not that he has to worry, since Obama's leaving him intact is basically a tacit yielding to the continuity of the neocon policies.
Oh, joy!
I am up to here (motions to throat) with these talking heads trying to make themselves important by acting as though they know things the rest of us don't or couldn't understand. Put Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan right up there at the top of the heap. What the hell, add Mika too.
They try to create problems where problems don't exist and then they, with all their worldly knowledge, provide their own explanations of the way things should be or should go. They don't know squat and with silly shit like this, they prove it every single day.
Wadda bout me?
Agree with you 100% POP. I am tired of these media jackasses like Wallace and Matthews braying their what-if projections and creating controversy where none exists. Why have integrity in the MSM when you can just be a soap opera star? I guess if their present gig fails than they can always work for Jerry Springer. If I were Mike Wallace I would disown Chris immediately.
Gates was a GHWB boy and not a neocon. His advice to Bush 41 was to not pursue the war in Iraq. I suspect he wants out of Iraq as much as the rest of us. He will withdraw troops as commanded The withdrawal of troops is a hell of a lot trickier then sending them in and continuity with be important
GHWB was/is a NEOCON...
"New world order" hello?
You might want to read a little about Neo conservatism. I am no fan of GHWB but he was pilloried by the neo consrervitive writers. His policies where more self serving than nation building. As to the choice of words he used to describe glasnost I don't think he was referring to an Illuminati or any other tinfoil hat conspiracy
Chris Wallace is SOFA-KING stupid.
All I ever hear is 'blah blah blah wahhh' when these half wits start blathering.
That Obama will come to his senses according to Chris Wallace and the fairy princess Linsay Graham and implement the world according to them:
Torture is fun.
Sucking balls of dead people is a special attendant thrill of torture.
Death-based economy is the only way to go.
Splitting off from the grief we cause is it's own special high.
Icepicking the future of your young countrymen/women as the basis for your immediate gratification is o.k. if not desireable.
Obama will begin dragging his knuckles, drinkin', druggin' and dumbing down and showing up before the cameras with new bruises on his face from falling off the couch. For sure.
His cabinet and advisory picks suggest he will.
Enthusiastically.
The agreement in Iraq is made to be broken, if it even survives the plebiscite in July.
There's lots of time for it all to go to shit again...
Don't forget, the "Biden Plan" for partitioning Iraq isn't on the radar yet.
Partitioning is necessary, if for no other reason than to prevent Iraq from unifying again in opposition to Israel. Bit there is another reason: it'll be easier to extort energy management concessions from competing factions than from the State as a whole. And partitioning also preserves the bulk of the "temporary" bases we have built there over the last 6 years...
This little fiasco is FAR from over...
That will speak volumes. What, exactly are the plans for those multibilliondollar country clubs in Iraq.
Still, we have to let this thing unfold before we actually have something to base these assumptions upon and realize that for now, they are projections.
less than 100 years old. In fact Iraq was created due to the opposite reality of what you are claiming: dealing with different entities defending their own interests was counter productive for the Western powers of the time.
The creation of Iraq was in the aftermath of World War I when they were redrawing map boundaries, and was the work of the British who ruled it until about 1935.
It's similar to Rwanda with the Hutus and Tutsis, traditional enemies being pulled together in one state.
Obama will replace General Puppet Petraeus with a General who is honest and isn't a yes man. Watching Petraeus lie under oath and read what the White House told him to say was a disgrace to our soldiers and the country. Our troops know the General who were paid to lie for the White House and Petraeus is on the top of the list.
What I sensed in Patraeus was a profound dislike/disgust of Bush from the moment bush stuck his hand up his ass and began moving his mouth to say words.
Where is the video of Obama announcing his security team? I only caught the end of the live feed. No-one Chicago-trib, LA Times, NYT, Huffpost has it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJMsFGH4eoQ
peed my pants a little!
Their new talking point is to question if Obama appointees will go rogue... "Will Hillary take orders?" "Will Gates take orders?"
"Will the hypo-allergenic dog purpsely shed doggy dander in the children's rooms?"
I laughed my ass off when I heard about the incident. I was horrified when they tried to impeach him. It was an attempted coup. They tried to overthrow a legitimately elected President over a blowjob. Republicans make all their money embezzling from the Government. If they lose the Presidency then they also lose their incomes. I completely expect them to go after Obama.
the traps the pieces of shit at the GOP lay for them.
Clinton could have diffused the whole blowjob with a simple "it is a matter between my wife and I now," and the Dem machinery should have hit the GOP hard with their own scandals. Because there are no worse perverts that them GOPers and their closet has more skeletons than a medical school.
You simply can not play nice with weasels, they will find a weakness and they will bite you period. Which is why I can't understand Obama's choice of keeping Gates on board.
Now, if he fires Gates... I am sure the GOP will flip out and blame Obama as not being partisan enough (never mind that the previous administration contained a grand total of zero dems), and if he keeps Gates he is validating Bush's policies... which I am sure it is the meme that is going to be pushed hard by FOX et al.
Now, I am aware I have not filled the required paperwork with the authorities that be at this site regarding my daring "critique" of Obama. But I fail to see the strategic value of keeping Gates. Keeping him, sort of implies continuity... and undermines Obama's original meme of change.
There must have been other qualified people for the position. Clark or somebody far more en tune with the Dem policies. Keeping a loyal Bushie (all the way to papa Bush) like Gates with all his CIA/NSA baggage seems a bit dangerous to me.
Those are obviously my personal views. Alas, I am bit unsettled to be honest. As I have observed the GOP vermin take advantage of every opening for their attacks.
maybe Wallace Jr. either thinks That President Obama will not be a 'real' president to be taken seriously or even worse, just a 'token black', or both. If this question has crossed Wallaces' little pea brain, I am sure it has crossed others also. As I have said before, I think the Good 'Ole Boy Club in D.C. is going to find out that President Obama will be a force to be reckoned with. Look out kids, there's a new sheriff in town.
God's speed and protection to you President Obama.
No president - and President Obama will be no exception - would tolerate insubordination from a cabinet-level staff member.
In the case of the Secy of Defense we must also consider the president's role as Commander in Chief. If the SecDef can't be relied upon to carry out the instructions of the CiC, then that SecDef won't have a job much longer.
This question would NEVER have been asked of a Republican president-elect. Yet more evidence of the conservative bias of the mainstream media. "Liberal media" my ass.
This is exactly what I think--Gates is on the same page as Obama, or Obama wouldn't be keeping him. We all really don't know what career military have had to do in order to keep their jobs in Bush's insane administration, and what they wouldn't do now to reverse the harm of Bush/Cheney. Gates is probably estatic that he gets to remain involved, and get our military the hell out. I'm not only tired of right-wing whiners, I'm tired of liberal whiners who assume that they know what horrible "back-sliding" Obama is going to do just because of who he picks.
We absolutely do NOT know what the private conversations have been. Assuming we do is just stupid.
Login or Register to post comments.