Obama MUST FIRE Robert Gates!!!

Probably the single biggest mistake that President Obama made, was losing a great deal of control over the direction of the ongoing (corrupt) U.S. Foreign Wars, Occupations, and general Policy, by bringing back the outgoing (Bush-Cheney appointee) Robert Gates — whose policies the public clearly rejected in the 2006 and 2008 Elections.

An article has been reported today that goes into more details about the internal struggle going on now within the Administration, and the tragic consequences for having left things in the hands of Robert Gates.

Obama In Secret Russia Visit Warns Putin, “I May Not Make It

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

Reports circulating in the Kremlin today are detailing an extraordinary ‘secret’ meeting held between Prime Minister Putin and President Obama at the request of the American leader that took place on Air Force One upon its landing at the Russian military airstrip at Pulkovo I in Saint Petersburg during a stopover while in route to Copenhagen, Denmark.

According to these reports, Obama stated to Putin that the US Government was in “total disarray” after what the American President called a “putsch” made against him by high-ranking members of the US Military during a ‘fractious‘ meeting in the White House of the United States top Military, Intelligence and National Security officers over the future course of the war in Afghanistan.

Most distressing to Obama was his chief and longest serving, National Security Advisor, US Naval Intelligence Officer Mark Lippert, being forced out of the White House by the Bush appointed US Defense Secretary, and former CIA Director, Robert Gates who ‘ordered’ Lippert out of the White House and back to active duty.

Obama further reported to Putin that Gates told him, “in no uncertain terms” that the President had “no power whatsoever” over US Military decisions regarding Afghanistan whereupon Gates then ‘leaked’ to the US propaganda media his intention to massively increase America’s troop levels in the Afghan war zone.

Even worse for Obama, who is already struggling with a collapsing economy, Gates further undermined the President by ordering 6,600 armored war trucks at a cost estimated to be in excess of $8 billion the US Military intends to pour into Afghanistan during the coming year at the expense of his Nations people already struggling under their Nations massive war debts.

When queried by Putin as to his ability to regain control of those factions opposing him Obama in these reports is quoted as saying, “I may not make it“.

Further troubling evidence of the disarray the US Government now finds itself in as Obama wages this titanic battle against the right-wing fascist forces seeking to destroy him can be seen in the actions of the powerful US Senator Jim DeMint who is openly defying the White House by traveling to the Central American Nation of Honduras to give his support to the CIA backed coup leader, Roberto Micheletti, who recently overthrew that countries legitimate President Manuel Zelaya and put his Nation under martial law.


President Obama needs to fire Robert Gates if he ever wants to be able to properly reevaluate the Afghanistan War options (and also the Iraq War too as the number of Military Contractors has actually increased there, as troops have been withdrawn), and if he is to ever assume his Constitutionally defined role as the U.S. Commander-In-Chief.

The War atrocities and and bankrupt Foreign Policies will never change as long as Robert Gates, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and Gen. David Patraeus call all the shots. In addition, special Afghan and Pakistan envoy Richard Holbrooke is another Neocon ideologue who is not helping.

Obama cannot govern in a state of paralysis, where he is outmaneuvered by War-profiteers and World Empirists to the peril of our Nation’s Economic Health. He must confront the fact that the only way to get control is to fire the War Hawks and replace them with people who are not joined at the hip to the corrupt and failed Bush Administration’s War policies.

Progressives must demand that Obama retake control of U.S. Foreign Policy by firing Robert Gates, before we are condemned to 8 more years of dual Foreign Occupations and Worldwide violence.


Skip to comment form

  1. Before this only gets worse…

  2. to me this sounds implausible.  Obama has been Pres for 9 mths, met Putin what, a few times, and he confides something like this to him after his training from Brezniski?  Got any better links than that one?  

  3. If he did, he’d have done it the very first day he took office.  Instead, choosing to continue the neocons’ wars in the Middle East, he sided with the fascists yet again by retaining them at the Pentagon.  If this report is true, then Obama – who has based his entire political career on backing down from conflict by appeasing the far right – really is not the functioning executive of this nation; the military is.

    • Robyn on October 3, 2009 at 1:13 am
    • Edger on October 3, 2009 at 5:29 pm

    and Hillary Clinton is his Secretary of State, and I think that neither choice was an accident or even really Obama’s “choice”.

    In July 2007 University of Colorado Professor Ira Chernus wrote in his article “The Democrats’ Iraqi Dilemma: Questions Unasked, Answers Never Volunteered“:

    Start with the simplest, most basic fudge.  Newspapers and the TV news constantly report on various plans for the “withdrawal of American troops” from Iraq, when what’s being proposed is the withdrawal of American “combat troops” or “combat brigades.” This isn’t a matter of splitting hairs; it’s the difference between a plan for full-scale withdrawal and a plan to remain in Iraq in a different military form for the long term. American combat brigades only add up to perhaps half of the troops we presently have in that country.

    Pity the poor Democratic candidates for president, caught between Iraq and a hard place. Every day, more and more voters decide that we must end the war and set a date to start withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Most who will vote in the Democratic primaries concluded long ago that we must leave Iraq, and they are unlikely to let anyone who disagrees with them have the party’s nomination in 2008.

    But what does it mean to “leave Iraq”? Here’s where most of the Democratic candidates come smack up against that hard place. There is a longstanding bipartisan consensus in the foreign-policy establishment that the US must control every strategically valuable region of the world — and none more so than the oil heartlands of the planet. That’s been a hard-and-fast rule of the elite for some six decades now. No matter how hard the task may be, they demand that presidents be rock-hard enough to get the job done.

    So whatever “leave Iraq” might mean, no candidate of either party likely to enter the White House on January 20, 2009 can think it means letting Iraqis determine their own national policies or fate.


    So the Democratic front-runners must promise voters that they will end the war — with not too many ideologically laden ifs, ands, or buts — while they assure the foreign-policy establishment that they will never abandon the drive for hegemony in the Middle East (or anywhere else). In other words, the candidates have to be able to talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.

    Farther down in the article Chernus continued with:

    “The single most important job of any president is to protect the American people,” [Obama] affirmed in a major foreign-policy statement last April. But “the threats we face…. can no longer be contained by borders and boundaries…. The security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people.” That’s why the U.S. must be the “leader of the free world.” It’s hard to find much difference on foreign policy between Clinton and Obama, except that Barack is more likely to dress up the imperial march of U.S. interests in such old-fashioned Cold War flourishes.

    That delights neoconservative guru Robert Kagan, who summed up Obama’s message succinctly:  “His critique is not that we’ve meddled too much but that we haven’t meddled enough…. To Obama, everything and everyone everywhere is of strategic concern to the United States.”  To control everything and everyone, he wants “the strongest, best-equipped military in the world…. A 21st century military to stay on the offense.” That, he says, will take at least 92,000 more soldiers and Marines — precisely the number Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has recommended to President Bush.

    And with:

    Hillary Clinton declares forthrightly: “It is time to begin ending this war…. Start bringing home America’s troops…. within 90 days.” Troops home: It sounds clear enough. But she is always careful to avoid the crucial word all.  A few months ago she told an interviewer:  “We have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq…. What we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of, between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region.”  A senior Pentagon officer who has briefed Clinton told NPR commentator Ted Koppel that Clinton expects U.S. troops to be in Iraq when she ends her second term in 2017.

    Why all these troops?  We have “very real strategic national interests in this region,” Clinton explains.

    Now Afghanistan is not Iraq, obviously, but the same foreign policy establishment goals apply, and Obama would not BE President if he did not agree with them.

    The fine print was there to be read long before the 2008 Presidential Election, and everyone should have known what was under the shiny wrapper. Obama is not “changing” his foreign policy views, and even if he replace Gates it would be with someone just as, or more, hawkish.

Comments have been disabled.