Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Robert Gates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Gates. Show all posts

Friday, May 18, 2018

New VA Secretary Proposed






Trump Announces Veterans Affairs

 Secretary

  • 05/18/2018 
  • Source: TTN
  •  
  • by: TTN Staff
27 13 2  77

Trump Announces Veterans Affairs Secretary

BREAKING NEWS

President Trump has announced that Robert Wilkie will be his selection to run the Department of Veterans Affairs, according to Talking Points Memo.

Wilkie served on President Trump's transition team, and he served as assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs and special assistant to the president for national security affairs during the Bush administration.

According to his biography at the Department of Defense:
"Robert Wilkie is the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Mr. Wilkie is the principal advisor to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense for Total Force Management as it relates to readiness; National Guard and Reserve component affairs; health affairs; training; and personnel requirements and management, including equal opportunity, morale, welfare, recreation, and the quality of life for military families."

. . .

 Wilkie served both Robert Gates and Donald Rumsfeld as Assistant Secretary of Defense from 2005-2009, and was the youngest senior leader in the Department. Prior to his first Pentagon tour, he was Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and a senior director of the National Security Council under Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

Mr. Wilkie is a reserve officer in the United States Air Force Reserve assigned to the Office of the Chief of Staff. Prior to joining the Air Force, he served in the United States Navy Reserve with the Joint Forces Intelligence Command, Naval Special Warfare Group Two and the Office of Naval Intelligence.

A graduate of the College of Naval Command and Staff, Air Command and Staff College, the United States Army War College, and the Joint Forces Staff College, Mr. Wilkie has published articles in the Naval War College Review, Parameters, Armed Forces Journal International, The Air and Space Power Journal and Proceedings. He holds personal and unit decorations as well as the Defense Distinguished Public Service Medal, the highest civilian award of the Department.

Mr. Wilkie also shepherded the Senate confirmation process for James Mattis, Robert Gates, Admiral Mike Mullen (CJCS) and was responsible for the preparation of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Croker for their multiple appearances before the Congress in defense of the Iraqi Surge.

Mr. Wilkie holds an Honors degree from Wake Forest University; Juris Doctor from Loyola University College of Law in New Orleans; Master of Laws in International and Comparative Law from Georgetown University and a Masters in Strategic Studies from the United States Army War College.
The former aide to President Trump will likely face opposition due to his stance on the Veteran's Choice program, which offers veterans private alternatives to VA treatment in special circumstances; Wilkie has called to make the program permanent, as Democrats oppose it as a step towards full privatization. Even as Wilkie serves as acting secretary, with his impressive resume, the president likely has another confirmation fight on his hands.

Read more at http://trumptrainnews.com/articles/trump-announces-veterans-affairs-secretary#3DWbYip7Ly74PJ8m.99

Friday, January 20, 2017

Obama's Biggest Lies



Washington Post catalogues the biggest lies Obama ever told

 



Washington Post catalogues the biggest lies Obama ever told
In this photo taken Jan. 18, 2017, President Barack Obama speaks during his final news conference in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. (AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)




The Washington Post marked the end of the Obama administration with a list Thursday that likely didn’t please the outgoing president’s supporters.
For the last five years, the Post has made its political Fact Checker a staple of the publication. Ranked by “Pinocchios,” contenders receive one Pinocchio for a little lie and can earn up to four Pinocchios for the most outrageous of fibs.
Though the Post ran its trademark Fact Checker during President Barack Obama’s first campaign, it wasn’t until 2011 that it became a fixture there, so admittedly the publication missed some blatant dishonesty.
But the newspaper has fact-checked more than 250 statements made by the current president. On his last full day in office, the Post published a catalogue of Obama’s 10 biggest lies.
Included on the list, unsurprisingly, was Obama’s statement to the American public while rallying for Congress to pass his signature health-care legislation, Obamacare: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”
“If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it”
This memorable promise by Obama backfired on him in 2013 when the Affordable Care Act went into effect and at least 2 million Americans started receiving cancellation notices. As we explained, part of the reason for so many cancellations is because of an unusually early (March 23, 2010) cutoff date for grandfathering plans — and because of tight regulations written by the administration. So the uproar could be pinned directly on the administration’s own actions.
Another whopper was Obama’s claim that all but 10 percent of the federal deficit was due to former President George W. Bush’s policies. Pushing back against criticisms of running up the deficit at an unparalleled rate with stimulus packages and bailouts, Obama made this claim during his 2012 campaign.
“90 percent of the budget deficit is due to George W. Bush’s policies”
During the 2012 campaign, Obama repeatedly reminded voters that he became president during a grim economic crisis. But he went too far when he claimed that only 10 percent of the federal deficit was due to his own policies. About half of the deficit stemmed from the recession and forecasting errors, but a large chunk (44 percent in 2011) were the result of Obama’s actions. At another point, Obama also falsely suggested that the Bush tax cuts led to the Great Recession.
And throughout Obama’s two terms in office, he has been quick to dismiss clear acts of terrorism — using phrases like “workplace violence” or blaming a YouTube video for an attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The Post also included his categorization of the Benghazi attack as “an act of terror” and his reference to ISIS as a “JV team.”
“The day after Benghazi happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism”
Obama did refer to an “act of terror” in the immediate aftermath of the 2012 Benghazi attacks, but in vague terms, wrapped in a patriotic fervor. He never affirmatively stated that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.” Then, over a period of two weeks, given three opportunities in interviews to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question. So this was a case of taking revisionist history too far for political reasons.
“I didn’t call the Islamic State a ‘JV’ team”
In 2014, Obama repeated a claim, crafted by the White House communications team, that he was not “specifically” referring to the Islamic State terror group when he dismissed the militants who had taken over Fallujah as a “JV squad.” But The Fact Checker obtained the previously unreleased transcript of the president’s interview with the New Yorker, and it’s clear that’s who the president was referencing.
But the Post did leave out some key falsehoods recited by Obama over the years. Here are a few:

“Over the past eight years, no foreign terrorist organization has successfully executed an attack on our homeland that was directed from overseas.”

Playing a semantics game, Obama misrepresented the fact that there have been many terrorist attacks carried out on American soil by those with ties to foreign terrorist organizations. In fact, in the case of the 2009 Fort Hood shooting in Killeen, Texas, Major Nidal Hasan murdered 14 people on the military base while shouting “allahu akbar” and was shown to be in direct contact with Al Qaeda terrorist leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack.
ISIS themselves also claimed responsibility for a 2015 attack in Garland, Texas, when two men were taken down by police officers after they shot up a community center hosting a Muhammad cartoon contest.
Over the last eight years, there were even more terrorist-related attacks in the country, including the San Bernardino attack, Boston Marathon attack, and a 2009 Little Rock, Arkansas, attack when Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad shot two soldiers at a military recruiting station. Muhammad also had ties to al-Qaeda.

“Let me say this as plainly as I can: by Aug. 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.”

Obama claimed that combat operations would be finished by 2010 and later took credit for ending U.S. combat in Iraq. But his own former Defense Secretary Robert Gates disputed that in 2016, the White House did a “disservice” to troops by engaging in word games.
“I think that it is incredibly unfortunate not to speak openly about what’s going on,” Gates told MSNBC. “American troops are in action, they are being killed, they are in combat. And these semantic backflips to avoid using the term combat is a disservice to those who are out there putting their lives on the line.”

“We have not had a major scandal in my administration.”

Obama sidestepped the comprehensive list of scandals that plagued his tenure as president. These scandals include but are not limited to: the Operation Fast and Furious gun walking scandal, the IRS scandal involving IRS workers intentionally targeting Tea Party organizations, and his own Secretary of State Hillary Clinton using a private email server.

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Cuts In Defense Spending, While Politically Exciting, End Up Inviting Disaster.

  • The nation's media, who seem to assume that Americans are weary of war, rather than that they are desperately frustrated at being infantilized and lied to, rarely discuss what defense programs need more investment. If anything, they discuss what defense programs should be killed.
  • Defense spending grew from $265 billion in 1996 to $300 billion in 2000, a 13% increase, equivalent to a $76 billion annual increase today. And the plan to balance the budget reached its goal in 1997. Why can America not do that again? Reform tax policy. Restore a sound defense budget plan.
  • "You think defending this nation is expensive; try not defending it." — Senator Ted Cruz, Nov. 10, 2015.
Especially as ISIS, Iran and others openly threaten the United States, it seems increasingly urgent for this administration and the next to determine the level of defense spending America should support.
new study by the American Enterprise Institute, (AEI), authored primarily by defense experts Tom Donnelly and Mackenzie Eaglen initially supports using as a minimum baseline the defense five year plan proposed in 2012, by then Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates.
Unfortunately, too often in Washington a discussion of defense spending frequently defaults into arguments over whether major tax rate increases must be part of the bargain. This failure is in part due to policy proposals to increase defense spending often being linked to with other proposals -- to cut tax rates, reform entitlements and balance the budget. Combined, these proposals are often described as unworkable and radical, and are thus easily dismissed.
A debate over how much to "tax the rich" lends itself to easy demagoguery. And that attracts politicians and their supporters to call for the redistribution of income. In short, if everything in the drive-by media newsroom can default to the progressive, Marxist narrative, it will.
In addition, the nation's media, who seem to assume that Americans are weary of war, rather than that they are desperately frustrated at being infantilized and lied to, rarely discuss what defense programs need more investment. If anything, they discuss what defense programs should be reduced or killed. For example, Keith Payne, the President of the National Institute of Public Policy in Fairfax, Virginia and a former top DOD official, told a conference on September 17, 2015 that during the past few years, media stories advocating cutting nuclear deterrent programs outnumbered those pushing for modernization by more than 200 to 1.
Retired Air Force Lieutenant General David Deptula, Dean of the Air Force Association's (AFA) Mitchell Institute and formerly the first Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, explained at an AFA conference on bomber policy on November 10, that the U.S. needs to have a discussion of "first principals" -- asking what defense of the country one should have, to accomplish what ends. Then one can determine what it would cost.[1] The first task in the Constitution is "to provide for the common defense."
To be sure, it is also necessary to have an intelligent discussion on how to pay for such a defense.
That raises the further question of how best to generate the economic growth and jobs needed to raise the revenues needed to pay for these defense bills. If the U.S. is serious about balancing the federal budget in the next decade, as the new Speaker of the House, Paul D. Ryan, supports, that debate should be held soon. The debate should be about what smart tax, regulatory and spending policies would yield highest levels of revenue.
But does the U.S. really need to increase tax rates more on "the rich," to meet its defense obligations?
Already, the current tax system is extraordinarily progressive. For example, while the top 1% earned 18.9% of national income they paid an astounding 37.4% of all federal taxes, while the top 5% earned 33.8% of national income but paid 59.1% of all federal taxes. By contrast, the bottom half of Americans received 11.7% of national income yet paid only 2.4% of federal taxes.
Few Americans, however, seem to know that every year -- with no change in Federal tax rates -- the U.S. government dramatically increases its "tax take" from the U.S. economy.
Despite the current economic recovery being the slowest in the post World War II era, revenue collected by the U.S. in 2014-2015 was still $230 billion higher than the year before.[2]
Obviously, a strong economy at near full employment would generate record levels of revenue, even when tax rates are lower (such as a 35% top tax rate) than in other years.[3]
The media and political discussion should include what to do with annual revenue increases that, even now in a slow-growth economy, are climbing each year by nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars.
For defense, if one accepts the recommendation of AEI that a $611 billion defense budget for FY2016 be adopted, as proposed by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates in 2012, it would boost the current administration's February 2015 defense request of $585 billion by $26 billion.
It appears, in fact, that Congress and the administration have finally agreed on a new defense spending level of $607 billion, which does bring the U.S. significantly closer to the initial goal of $611 billion proposed by AEI's Donnelly and Eaglen. This new annual increase in defense spending of about $60 billion above the previous budget caps is welcome, but amounts to the appropriation for more defense spending of only about 25% of the annual increase in federal revenue.

An infographic from the AEI report "To rebuild America's military," charting the shrinking post-Cold War U.S. military.

In short, it does not appear "radical" at all to devote some of those resources for U.S. national security, especially at this time.
It also does not seem "radical" to question the debates about taxing the rich, which are usually accompanied by arguments about who pays what share of federal revenue, and whether "the rich" make "too much" money.
Recent history has some lessons for the U.S. In 1996, the U.S. cut capital gains tax rates; lowered taxes on inheritances; expanded individual retirement accounts and increased the child tax credit. Domestic non-defense spending was curtailed. Nevertheless, defense spending grew from $265 billion in 1996 to $300 billion in 2000, a 13% increase, equivalent to a $76 billion annual increase today. And the plan to balance the budget reached its goal in 1997.
Why can America not do that again? Reform tax policy. Take people from welfare to work. Restore a sound defense budget plan. And balance the budget.
As said by U.S. presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz, "You think defending this nation is expensive; try not defending it." How radical is that?

[1] Lt Gen David Deptula, remarks at the AFA November 10, 2015 "What's Next for the Long-Range Strike Bomber?"
[2] The budget, tax and GDP numbers are from Christopher Chantrill's website. This site provides current and historical budget, tax and GDP data far superior in format and detail than any other source, government or private. You can also find the revenue numbers from the Treasury tables posted on the White House website.
[3] These revenue figures are for taxes collected from all tax rate levels. The top tax rates are for reference purposes and illustrate the key to greater revenue is greater economic growth.
© 2015 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

What Happened To Morally Straight? Boy Scouts May Give Up Ship On Gay Adult Ban.

Boy Scouts' Leader Urges End to Ban on Gay Adults

Image: Boy Scouts' Leader Urges End to Ban on Gay AdultsBoy Scouts of America President Robert Gates. (John Thys/AFP/Getty Images)
Thursday, 21 May 2015 02:36 PM

Boy Scouts of America President Robert Gates said on Thursday the group's ban on adult gay leaders cannot be sustained, a move that could open the door to ending the policy that has caused rifts in the 105-year-old organization.Gates said at a national meeting of the group in Atlanta he does not plan to revoke the charter of Boy Scout councils that allow gay leaders, according to a text of the speech.
"We must deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be. The status quo in our movement's membership standards cannot be sustained," said Gates, who as U.S. secretary of defense helped end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that barred openly gay individuals from serving in the military.
He said he was not asking the Boy Scouts' national board to make any policy change at the current meeting.
"Dozens of states - from New York to Utah - are passing laws that protect employment rights on the basis of sexual orientation," he said. "Thus, between internal challenges and potential legal conflicts, the Boy Scouts of America finds itself in an unsustainable position."
Latest News Update
Those pushing for change, applauded Gates' stand.
"We are 180 agrees from where we were a year ago," said Zach Wahls, executive director of Scouts for Equality. "This is a very, very positive development."
The Irving, Texas-based organization lifted its ban on gay youth in 2013 but continues to prohibit the participation of openly gay adults.
The selection last year of Gates as president of the Boy Scouts was seen as an opportunity to revisit the organization's policy on gay adults.
Gates said he personally would have supported going further toward lifting the Scouts' ban on gays but would not reopen debate during his two-year term.
Special:
The ban received its first major challenge in April when the first openly gay adult was hired as a summer camp leader by the Greater New York Council of Boy Scouts.
In Ohio, an assistant scoutmaster in Westerville was expelled in March for being openly gay, according to local media reports.
© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Gates Wins No Friends In His Memoir

Former Defense Sec. Gates: Obama 'Skeptical' of His Own Afghan Strategy

Image: Former Defense Sec. Gates: Obama 'Skeptical' of His Own Afghan Strategy
Wednesday, 08 Jan 2014 09:00 AM
Share:
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
   Forward Article  |
President Barack Obama had major doubts about his decision to commit more troops in the war in Afghanistan, believing it would ultimately end in failure, his former defense secretary, Robert Gates, writes in his memoir, to be published next week.

Gates, who served from 2006 to 2011 under Obama and his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, sharply criticizes Obama's approach to a number of defense-related issues, especially Afghanistan, according to a review of "Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War" in The Washington Post on Tuesday.



Gates adds that Obama was "skeptical if not outright convinced it [the administration strategy] would fail," according to the Post.

During a meeting in March 2011 to discuss the withdrawal timetable, Gates recalls that Obama also expressed doubts about the commander he had chosen, Gen. David Petraeus, and questioned whether he could work with the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, The New York Times reports.

"As I sat there, I thought: The president doesn't trust his commander, can't stand Karzi, doesn't believe in his own strategy and doesn't consider the war to be his," Gates writes. "For him, it's all about getting out."

Gates nonetheless believed the president to be an admirable thinker who often made decisions "opposed by his political advisers or that would be unpopular with his fellow Democrats," according to the Times.

He points to Obama's approval of the mission to attack the compound in Pakistan where Osama bin Laden was believed to be hiding as, "one of the most courageous decisions I had ever witnessed in the White House."

Gates also describes Obama as "a man of personal integrity."

Gates however gets into detail about the difficulties he had in working with the president and the administration, saying it ultimately "produced a rift, that at least for Gates, became personally wounding and impossible to repair," according to the Post.

He says that after an initial honeymoon period with Obama's inner circle, they soon tired of him and he found himself in ongoing policy battles with top aides, according to the Times.
In particular, Vice President Joe Biden, who he accused of "poisoning the well" against the U.S. military leadership, Tom Donilon, Obama's national security adviser, and Douglas Lute, the Army lieutenant general who managed the Afghan policy, the Times reports.

Gates says that at one point in September 2009 he considered quitting.

"I was deeply uneasy with the Obama White House's lack of appreciation—from the top down—of the uncertainties and unpredictability of war," he writes, according to the Times. "I came closer to resigning that day than at any other time in my tenure."

Gates also describes his outrage and misery at other points during his service under Obama.
"All too often during my 4 ½ years as secretary of defense, when I found myself sitting yet against at that witness table at yet another congressional hearing, I was tempted to stand up, slam the briefing book shut and quit on the spot.

"The exit lines were on the tip of my tongue: 'I may be the secretary of defense, but I am also an American citizen, and there is no son of a bitch in the world who can talk to me like that. I quit. Find somebody else'," he writes, according to The Wall Street Journal.

He adds, however, that the main source of his frustration throughout his tenure, was the difficulty of achieving anything of consequence due to the gridlock of Washington.

"Getting anything consequential done was so damnably difficult—even in the midst of two wars. I did not just have to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq and against al-Qaida; I also had to battle the bureaucratic inertia of the Pentagon, surmount internal conflicts within both administrations, avoid the partisan abyss in Congress, evade the single-minded parochial self-interest of so many members of Congress and resist the magnetic pull exercised by the White House, especially the Obama administration, to bring everything under its control and micromanagement," he writes according to the Journal.

"Over time, the broad dysfunction of today's Washington wore me down, especially as I tried to maintain a public posture of nonpartisan calm, reason and conciliation."

Gates also described his views on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with whom he said he shared a common view of national security issues, and praised her in his memoir as "smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world," according to the Post.

Nonetheless, he revealed that even though Clinton supported the Afghan surge, she had confided she opposed the Iraq surge, ordered by former President George W. Bush, for political reasons, a position, the Post notes could play into her image of taking decisions on a purely partisan basis, which could ultimately haunt her if she runs for president in 2016.

"Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq has been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary… The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying," Gates writes, according to the Post.

At the end of this memoir, Gates says he is to be buried in Arlington Cemetery's Section 60, the final resting place of many killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. "The greatest honor possible would be to res among my heroes for all eternity," he writes, according to the Times.

Republican swiftly responded to Gates' sentiments in the memoir, in particular, his assessment of the tensions over Afghanistan. Arizona Sen. John McCain told CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "Did you ever hear the president talk about Afghanistan without talking about that we were leaving?"

The White House nonetheless played down any suggestions by Gates that Obama's private views on Afghanistan were not in keeping with his policy positions.

In a statement released Tuesday, Caitlin Hayden, the National Security Council spokeswoman, said, "deliberations over our policy on Afghanistan have been widely reported on over the years, and it is well known that the president has been committed to achieving the mission of disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al Qaeda, while also ensuring that we have a clear plan for winding down the war, which will end this year," the Times reports.