Robert Gates proudly wears the global elite stamp of approval as if tattooed across his forehead, in technicolor. —>
Former defense secretary Robert Gates recently authored a column in the Wall Street Journal, in which he compared Hillary Clinton’s well known role as an international arsonist, to Gate’s negatively projected prognostications of a Trump presidency.
The overall outcome, as circuitously surmised by Gates, was not at all surprising, as it turns out, with an impressive array of smoke and mirrors deployed by a dual-purpose political apparatchik.
Indeed, being a former Secretary of Defense for both the Obama & Bush regimes, a past deputy director of the CIA, and a card-carrying member of theCouncil on Foreign Relations, Robert Gates proudly wears the global elite stamp of approval as if tattooed across his forehead, in technicolor.
The CFR, by the way, is a quasi-government agency which acts as “the promotional arm of the Ruling Elite in America.
“Most influential politicians, academics, and media personalities are members, and it uses its influence to infiltrate the New World Order into American life. Its’ “experts” write scholarly pieces to be used in decision making, the academics expound on the wisdom of a united world, and the media members disseminate the message.”
While many a multiculturally inclined American might be tempted to grovel at Gate’s feet, one analytical glance at Gate’s resume necessitates a nausea-induced gag response for those anti-establishment Americans who see Gate’s 50 years in government as a glaring part of America’s overall problem.
You see, more often than not, the question of “service” in government today, belongs more in the category of “to Whom” rather than the automatic consignment of service to the public, in that most high-level government employees end their careers as progressively-inclined multi-millionaires.
Moreover, in looking at the debris trail left in Gate’s wake; thanking the man for his service to America, would be much akin to thanking a Brazilian mosquito for its contribution towards spreading the Zika virus.
Gate’s main gift to America, it would seem, belongs more in the category of suborning US interests to the multi-nationalist designs of bad actors in the vein of George Soros– rather than belongingly ensconced within America’s hall of patriots for service to the nation’s best interests.
But, what most Americans don’t know about Robert Gates is the fact that his actions on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations & the Bush Regime, actually position him as one of the founding architects of the disastrous Iran Nuclear Deal, going all the way back to 2004.
According to the Council on Foreign Relations website:
“Iran: Time for a New Approach”
“Rejecting the conventional wisdom that Iran is on the verge of another revolution, the report calls for the United States to reassess its long-standing policy of non-engagement with the current Iranian government.
The product of an independent Task Force chaired by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security adviser, and Robert M. Gates, director of central intelligence during the George H.W. Bush administration, the report highlights several areas in which U.S. interests would be better served by selective engagement with Tehran, and breaks with current U.S. policy by encouraging a new strategy.”
Apparently, this new strategy involved giving the Mullahs over $ 1.7 billion in cash and US cover for building a nuclear bomb, unbothered, at some once and future date.
But, isn’t it odd that the inestimable range of strategy, as it regards the Iran Nuke deal, actually began all the way back in 2004, while Iran’s nuclear goals were in their relative infancy?
Even worse, might be the fact that avenues of contrition towards Iran were being strategized by the regime of President Bush, long before the shiny US presidency was only a transformational glimmer in Barack Obama’s eye.
The effort with Iran, no doubt, was at the direction of the globalist elites, themselves, of whom the establishment’s Bush was deeply in league with, as it turns out.
Indeed, what most Americans don’t truly realize is that the Obama regime was more a shifting continuance of the overall Bush dynasty agenda rather than a re-coursing route to transformation.
In fact, the actual bi-partisan transformation of America goes all the way back to 2001, rather than 2008, truth be told.
But, after this bit of history, the following is what Gates has asserted, in comparing Hillary to Trump in his article “Sizing up the Next Commander-in-Chief,” and be forewarned, while Gates waxes alacritous in pointing out Trump’s flaws, his overall aims regarding Hillary bespeaks of a singularly resilient case of amnesia, at best.
Gates: “You wouldn’t know it from the presidential campaigns, but the first serious crisis to face our new president most likely will be international. The list of possibilities is long—longer than it was eight years ago.
Here is the world the new president will inherit at noon on January 20—a range of challenges for which neither candidate has offered new strategies or paths forward.
Every aspect of our relationship with China is becoming more challenging. In addition to Chinese cyber spying and theft of intellectual property, many American businesses in China are encountering an increasingly hostile environment. China’s nationalist determination unilaterally to assert sovereignty over disputed waters and islands in the East and South China Seas is steadily increasing the risk of military confrontation.
Most worrying, given their historic bad blood, escalation of a confrontation between China and Japan could be very dangerous.
Dealing effectively with China requires a president with strategic acumen and vision, nuance, deft diplomatic and political skill, and sound instincts on when to challenge, when to stay silent and when to compromise or partner.
On this most complex challenge, neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump has said or done much to give anyone confidence. All we really know is Mr. Trump’s intention to launch a trade war with a country holding over $1 trillion in U.S. debt and the largest market for many U.S. companies; and Mrs. Clinton’s opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which she helped to craft and the failure of which would hand China an easy political and economic win.”
But, what Mr. Gates fails to undertake is the simple fact that Hillary’s number-one donor, to the tune of tens of millions, is George Soros, who eagerly desires China to be a part of the TPP deal; which is the circumscribed route that Hillary would eventually embrace, no doubt.
Clinton’s year in and year out avowal of the TPP trade deal, at least until her decision to run for President, has become a thing of legend. Yet, in contrast to Gate’s Words, Trump’s regular outpourings regarding international strategy and his disavowal of the TPP, could fill volumes, while, Hillary’s recent rhetoric regarding all things international, couldn’t fill a thimble.
And then there’s this oft-repeated trade war issue as if America must fall on the sword of free trade no matter how tragically one-sided the deal becomes.
All trade is war, point-in-fact, it is at best a gentleman’s war, and with annual trade deficits totaling to half a trillion dollars, China’s been winning the war for at least a generation.
America, as China’s biggest customer, holds all the cards and yet routinely fails to produce a winning hand, time after time after time, as if by rote.
In effect, what has America to lose, at this point? We’re already in a virtual trade war and simply put, have been for quite a long time. China must endlessly snicker at the fact that America’s simpletonian diplocrats still haven’t caught on to this GDP-punishing fact.
What Gate’s and his like-minded ilk would prefer, is for America to continue bowing to China, ala Barack Obama, until the cows come home. But, as they say, that dog will no longer hunt, especially given China’s penchant for aggressively caining America, on a daily basis.
Gates: “Then there is Vladimir Putin’s Russia, now routinely challenging the U.S. and its allies. How to count the ways. There was the armed seizure of Ukraine’s Crimea; Moscow’s military support of the separatist movement in eastern Ukraine; overt and covert intimidation of the Baltic states; the dispatch of fighter and bomber aircraft to avert the defeat of Syria’s Assad; sales of sophisticated weaponry to Iran.”
Oops, there’s that wascally Iran, again, but, we thought Gate’s had already fixed the Iran thingy with his phased-in Council on Foreign Relations nuclear deal strategy, going all the way back to 2004.
Oh, and then there was that Obama foreign policy impetus back in 2006, where Senator, at the time, Barack Obama, paved the way for the Ukrainian invasion by Russia, by leading an effort to completely disarm the Ukraine of its defensive weaponry.
In effect, the Obama impetus to disarm the Ukraine, allowing Russia to invade, was the very thing that led to the total and complete breakdown of US-Russia relations, in the modern day. Granted, this is deep history and Gates was probably too busy building his stock portfolio to connect this little fact to the current state of events.
Didn’t work out so well, eh, Mr. Gates? Or.. did it?
Gates: “There is Russia’s luring the U.S. secretary of state into believing that a cease-fire in Syria is just around the corner—if only the U.S. would do more, or less, depending on the issue; the cyberattacks on the U.S., including possible attempts to influence the U.S. presidential election; and covert efforts to aggravate division and weakness with the European Union and inside European countries. And there is the dangerously close buzzing of U.S. Navy ships in the Baltic Sea and close encounters with U.S. military aircraft in international airspace.”
Speaking of the SecState, Russia, and aggression, Hillary hit the now infamous “Russia reset” button going all the way back to Obama’s first term, right? So, what happened there? Indeed, it wasn’t until Hillary meaningfully got involved that America-Russia relations began to dive into the abyss; funny, that.
But, what makes Gates think that things will be different with Clinton as President when she so horribly botched things up as Secretary of State? Or, does the culmination of Parkinson’s disease offer undisclosed advantages that were lacking when Clinton was less beleaguered by the infirmity, perhaps??
Gates: “The only thing longer than the list of hostile Russian actions abroad is the list of repressive actions inside Russia to stifle dissent and strengthen Mr. Putin’s security services run state. Mr. Putin will continue to behave aggressively until confronted and stopped.”
As if the US security state is not at issue? America has effectively dropped through the hangman’s door in the index of freedom since Obama and Hillary burst onto the scene, with Gates riding shotgun.
We’ve been subjected to a massive NSA spying operation on the entire American populace, even while the doors to America’s borders have been flung wide open.
Now, where exactly is the sense in those two incongruities?
And really, Mr. Gates, don’t talk to us about the Russian security state while having furiously waxed the gleaming US police state, in your prior service to America.
Gates: “No one in the West wants a return to the Cold War, so the challenge is to confront and stop Mr. Putin’s aggressions while pursuing cooperation on international challenges that can only be addressed successfully if Russia is at the table—from terrorism to climate change, from the Syrian conflict to nuclear nonproliferation and arms control.”
And yet it seems we’re back in a cold war after numerous repeated efforts by the “O”regime, under the supervision of none other than Hillary Clinton. Further, it now seems that war with Russia, at least under Hillary’s supervision, is a foregone conclusion, based on all the recent saber-rattling by the Obama regime.
Good God,it’s as if both Gates and Hillary have forgotten who was secretary of state during the development of all these nefarious conditions, in the first place!
Gates: “Again, neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Trump has expressed any views on how they would deal with Mr. Putin.”
Wrong again, Clinton has shown, through past experience, exactly how she would deal with Russia, and as it was then, so it would be in the future,disastrously; Clinton would deal with Russia in an ongoing state of extreme befuddlement, at best.
Nevermind Hillary’s aggressive stance towards Russia after their involvement in Syria got serious and they expunged her boss, George Soros, out of Russia altogether and even shut down his Open Borders impetus.
Moreover, Trump has repeatedly indicated how he could deal with Putin in a US-Russian alliance against the ISIS regime; a group which was effectively created by none other than Obama and Hillary Clinton, once again.
The problem, it would seem, is that Putin is at odds with the powers of globalism, as are most Americans, the unspoken reason for these issues belongs more to the category of duplicity than quagmire as it regards Clinton, Obama, Gates, and of course, their ideological master, George Soros, who even now seeks to villanize any who speak ill of Islam.
Gates: “North Korea and Iran are sworn enemies of the U.S.”
Wait, but didn’t Mr. Gates fix the Iran issue with his CFR posting: “Time for a New Approach?” Why does he keep bringing Iran up if it was his co-chair strategy that fixed the thing, going all the way back to 2004?
Gates: “North Korean potentate Kim Jong Un is building more nuclear weapons for his arsenal even as he develops ballistic missiles that now, or very soon, can reach all of our allies (and U.S. military forces) in Asia. During the first term of the next president, these missiles will be able to reach the U.S. mainland.
On his good days, Kim Jong Un appears to outsiders as a cartoonish megalomaniac; on his bad days, he seems to yearn for a Gotterdammerung finale in which a perishing North Korea takes a lot of Asians and Americans with it. The new U.S. president could face an early North Korean provocation against the South, the Japanese or us, and for sure will be confronted by a long-term strategic nuclear threat to our allies and to America.”
Granted, but Hillary’s “Reset button” simply has to work this time, right?
Gates: “Regarding Iran, whatever value Mr. Obama’s nuclear agreement has brought, the deal has led to no decrease in Iran’s aggressive meddling in the Middle East nor any lessening of its hostility to the U.S.”
Wait, according to CFR history, it was Gate’s suggested strategy towards a “New Approach” to Iran that Obama seemed to have been following, and yet now, it was all Obama’s feckless plan?
Well, at least the Bush regime appears to be finally blaming Obama for something…
Gates: “Mr. Trump has suggested we should walk away from the region and hope for the best. This is a dangerous approach oblivious to the reality that what happens in the Middle East doesn’t stay in the Middle East.”
Trump: “In a Trump Administration, our actions in the Middle East will be tempered by realism. The current strategy of toppling regimes, with no plan for what to do the day after, only produces power vacuums that are filled by terrorists. Gradual reform, not sudden and radical change, should be our guiding objective in that region.
We should work with any country that shares our goal of destroying ISIS and defeating Radical Islamic terrorism, and form new friendships and partnerships based on this mission. We now have an Administration, and a former Secretary of State, who refuse to say Radical Islamic Terrorism.
Gates: “Both candidates have a credibility problem in foreign affairs. Mrs. Clinton was the advocate for using the U.S. military to bring ill-fated regime change in Libya and failed to anticipate the chaos that would follow—the same failure she and other Democrats hung around the neck of the Bush 43 administration in post-Saddam Iraq.
She was for trade agreements before she turned against them in this election campaign, just as she voted for the Iraq war in 2003 and then, several years later—in her first campaign for president—opposed the troop surge there. She has much-discussed credibility issues apart from national security, but these also influence foreign perceptions of reliability and trust.
When it comes to credibility problems, though, Donald Trump is in a league of his own. He has expressed support for building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico”
But it’s now been well publicized that Obama is funding $ 25 million towards a wall between Libya and Tunisia, so, why is funding a US wall to seal US borders urgently ridiculous, even while the US is funding a wall in Tunisia that cannot possibly benefit America?
Gates: “Trump has expressed support for torturing suspected terrorists and killing their families”
Wait, is torturing terrorists far worse than killing terrorists? Obama, as we know, has killed his fair share of them via drone strikes, no doubt. Maybe we should check with the terrorists before jumping to conclusions in this particular regard.
Gates: “Mr. Trump has been cavalier about the use of nuclear weapons”
When has Trump held the nuclear keys, or even a “reset” button, for that matter? Does Trump utilize missile silos at one of his many golf clubs or somesuch?
Gates: “Trump has a record of insults to servicemen, their families, and the military, which he called a “disaster.””
Trump was referring to the way Obama has demolished our military and tied the hands of our soldiers while on the battlefield. Meanwhile. no one ever discusses what John McCain stated about Trump’s followers as being “Whackos”
If Trump has whacked the military so horribly, then, why is that most military members support Trump, to such a dominant degree, hmm?
Mr, Gates expounds in yet another foray into dishonest political sophistry, much as Hillary Clinton, has repeatedly done.
Most certainly when we note that it was Gates who played a part in discontinuing the F-22 Raptor, an air superiority fighter of unquestionable ability. According to the Washington Spectator, “Defense Secretary Robert Gates wanted to close out production of the F-22.”
“Gates has been a critic of the bells-and-whistles guys in the Pentagon, has argued against Cold War weapons systems, and in June fired the fighter jet’s most outspoken advocates—Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff T. Michael Moseley.”
Hmm…so, it seems that Gate’s seems to have had his own Litmus test in play & even helped in Obama’s ongoing disarmament of America, much as in Ukraine, paving the way for the Ukraine’s invasion by Russia.
Gates: “Trump has declared our senior military leaders “reduced to rubble” and “embarrassing our country” and has suggested that, if elected, he will purge them—an unprecedented and unconscionable threat.”
It’s pretty much common knowledge, now, that Obama has already conducted a litmus test and purged the military of soldiers who supported the US Constitution foremost, rather than Obama himself, foremost. Trump, would, by necessity, need to reverse Obama’s actions, and Gates, quite obviously, knows this.
Gates: “As of late, Trump appears to be rethinking some of these positions but he has yet to learn that when a president shoots off his mouth, there are no do-overs.”
And yet, neither Obama, who never worries about Islam’s penchant for “bitterly clinging to its guns and religion,” nor Hillary, who considers half of all America, “Deplorable,” as if these two have learned their lessons?
Gates: “Mr. Trump is also willfully ignorant about the rest of the world, about our military and its capabilities, and about government itself. He disdains expertise and experience while touting his own—such as his claim that he knows more about ISIS than America’s generals. He has no clue about the difference between negotiating a business deal and negotiating with sovereign nations.”
Actually, Trump is willfully ignorant on seeing the world as Gate’s and his Globalists see it. However, one cannot serve two masters, although Gates has made at least a splendid effort of appearing to do just that, truth be told.
Trump has made it resoundingly clear that he will put America first, and if indeed Mr. Gates had done that under his purview, the world would most likely not be on fire, at this point, nor would we be sitting on $20 trillion in debt, quite frankly.
Gates: “All of the presidents I served were strong personalities with strongly held views about the world. But each surrounded himself with independent-minded, knowledgeable and experienced advisers who would tell the president what he needed to hear, not what he wanted to hear. Sometimes presidents would take their advice, sometimes not. But they always listened.”
But, is that entirely true?
of Obama, Mr. Gates even stated in his own book, “All too early in the [Obama] administration,” he writes, “suspicion and distrust of senior military officers by senior White House officials — including the president and vice president — became a big problem for me as I tried to manage the relationship between the commander in chief and his military leaders.”
So, which version of presidential leadership & listening to expert’s advice, should we believe from Gates?
Gates: “I understand the broad anger and frustration against political leaders in both parties. I have written about my disgust as secretary of defense as I watched politicians repeatedly place re-election above the nation’s best interests. Polls make clear that most Americans are dissatisfied with the two major party candidates for president. But as I used to say in the Pentagon, we are where we are—not where we might wish to be. We have to make a decision. Perhaps the debates, if the candidates focus on substance rather than personal attacks, will clarify the choice.
Mrs. Clinton has time before the election to address forthrightly her trustworthiness, to reassure people about her judgment, to demonstrate her willingness to stake out one or more positions on national security at odds with her party’s conventional wisdom, and to speak beyond generalities about how she would deal with China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, the Middle East—and international trade. Whether and how she addresses these issues will, I believe, affect how many people vote—including me.”
Gates:”At least on national security, I believe Mr. Trump is beyond repair.”
Good Heavens man! As we’ve all seen, Hillary Clinton is an unmitigated disaster on national security, especially, certainly, more than any other presidential candidate in history, including Barack Obama.
Is it any wonder that the world lies on fire, and the US continues teetering, after men like Gates, with his obviously questionable judgment, have done their flimsy part on the stage?
Gates: “He is stubbornly uninformed about the world and how to lead our country and government, and temperamentally unsuited to lead our men and women in uniform. He is unqualified and unfit to be commander-in-chief. ”
Wiki: “Time magazine, in 2010, notes that Gates and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have “forged a formidable partnership”, speaking frequently, “comparing notes before they go to the White House”, meeting with each other weekly and having lunch once a month at either the Pentagon or the State Department.”
Love is in the air, as they say….and then there’s this:
In a March 2010 speech to a NATO conference in Washington, Secretary Gatessaid that “The demilitarization of Europe—where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it—has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st”.
Hmm…is not that almost exactly what Trump’s been saying, all along?
Point being, the globalist club of elites, which include both Clinton and Gates, will always look to their own even before their party’s own interests, and certainly before their nation’s best interests, no matter what, which is exactly what we’re seeing in Gate’s certifiably dishonest opinion of Clinton on the one hand and Trump on the other.
See what I Mean?
Gates carries the water for his globalist cohorts so often, in fact, that the man needs to be fitted with a yoke; from his views on the climate change hoax as being a national security issue to his obscenely ridiculous defense of Hillary Clinton on her divulgement of classified data, to America’s enemies.
Ironically, yet another incongruity surfaces, when we note that despite blithely dismissing Hillary’s security offenses as merely innocent infractions, under Robert Gates tenure as supreme leader of the US Armed Forces, the Espionage act had been employed to prosecute armed service personnel, leakers, and whistleblowers, more than all other administrations combined.
Gates, apparently, requires a few future lessons on proper journalist disclosure, if indeed the former secretary truly wishes to play anti-patriot games as an inner-beltway discard.
But, the simple and undeniable fact remains that under Gate’s leadership, no matter his superior, America has experienced some of the most tumultuous periods in its history, including the managed decline of her military, her culture, and her economy.
In this regard, Gates is nothing if not wholly inadequate if not completely disqualified, in preaching to America about who might make the better commander-in-chief.