Gates: Obama is more analytical than Bush

[Liebling:-)))]

Gates: Obama is more analytical than Bush

Defense secretary says comparing his two bosses would be good book topic


WASHINGTON - Tell us, Robert Gates, what's the difference between working under Barack Obama and working under George W. Bush as defense secretary?

"That sounds like the subject of a good book," Gates said with a smile.

"It's really hard to say," he continued during an interview aired Sunday on "Meet the Press" on NBC.

"I think that probably President Obama is somewhat more analytical. And he makes sure he hears from everybody in the room on an issue. And if they don't speak up, he calls on them."

And the former president?

"President Bush was interested in hearing different points of view but didn't go out of his way to make sure everybody spoke if they hadn't spoken up before," Gates said.

Bush picked Gates to succeed Donald H. Rumsfeld as defense secretary in November 2006. The following June, Gates recommended that Bush appoint Adm. Mike Mullen as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation's top military officer.

When Mullen was asked Sunday to compare the styles of the two presidents, he demurred.

"Well, I think individuals are always different," Mullen said on "State of the Union" on CNN. "But, you know, I mean, I wouldn't characterize them one way or the other."

That said, Mullen remarked that Obama listens to his military advisers.

"He's anxious to get the military's input to all his decisions," Mullen said. "The discussions have been broad and deep, and I've been very comfortable both with the access and the ability to give that advice."

Both Gates and Mullen remained in their positions in the opening weeks of the Obama administration. Gates told NBC that it would be "a challenge" to serve as defense secretary for the entirety of Obama's term.

Gates: Obama is more analytical than Bush - White House- msnbc.com


"Somewhat more analytical"? Huh? Oh well.... :roll:

To me, Obama is brilliant!!!

 

[Reba]

To me, Obama is brilliant!!!

Brilliant? How so? How has he displayed his brilliance in military strategy? What brilliant plans has he successfully executed in the past? Please enlighten me.

 

[Foxrac]

Nothing is news about comment from German member.

The word for more analytical than others aren't negative word.

 

[Jiro]

smells like.... brown-nosing....

"Somewhat more analytical"? Huh? Oh well.... :roll:

To me, Obama is brilliant!!!

brilliant? Why? Let's see - it's nice that Obama is listening and making sure everybody said something... and yet Obama is STILL using majority of Bush's policy regarding military strategy, national security policy, and Gitmo Camp. and now I see that he's considering Admiral Mike Mullen as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (with recommendation of Gates) - the one who was appointed by Bush.

If you ask me - Obama is CLUELESS :scratch:

 

[Frisky Feline]

anyone can correct me, obama has never been in military right? bush have been in military right. so i need to know then i understand where obama comes from.

thank you.

 

[jillio]

More analytical is a good thing. It indicates that Obama is willing to consider all implications and possible consequences of the decisions he makes. That is a sign of fluid intelligence and resposnibility. Likewise, consulting with others who may have varying viewpoints and valid input is also a sign of responsibility to his office, as well as a realistic understanding of the fact that consultation with experts in various fields only strengthens the decisions he makes and allows for greater success in his vision.

 

[Jiro]

anyone can correct me, obama has never been in military right? bush have been in military right. so i need to know then i understand where obama comes from.

thank you.

nope.... Obama was never in military. Here's a rather harsh statement from McCain last year

"I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did," the Arizona senator said in a harshly worded statement issued Thursday.

 

[shel90]

anyone can correct me, obama has never been in military right? bush have been in military right. so i need to know then i understand where obama comes from.

thank you.

U are right...Obama was never in the military and Bush was a pilot in the Texas National Air Guard but never fought in any wars.

 

[Hear Again]

U are right...Obama was never in the military and Bush was a pilot in the Texas National Air Guard but never fought in any wars.

Bush's Military Past

 

[Jiro]

More analytical is a good thing. It indicates that Obama is willing to consider all implications and possible consequences of the decisions he makes. That is a sign of fluid intelligence and resposnibility. Likewise, consulting with others who may have varying viewpoints and valid input is also a sign of responsibility to his office, as well as a realistic understanding of the fact that consultation with experts in various fields only strengthens the decisions he makes and allows for greater success in his vision.

That is true but on the other side - for a very important leadership like POTUS - not really. It shows that you are incompetent, inexperienced, and indecisive.... needing to hear more information (mostly trivial) to refine your final decision. That's how CEO rolls. Many reputable management books, including Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, would criticize Obama's way of making executive decision.

After all - most of Obama's decisions regarding military/security are same as Bush.

 

[Jiro]

U are right...Obama was never in the military and Bush was a pilot in the Texas National Air Guard but never fought in any wars.

point is - the public servant especially the higher seat should at least serve in armed service for some time (even 3-years). it's the fitting image of esteemed leadership. That's why Prince William and Prince Charles are currently serving in armed force - the fitting image of king.

 

[jillio]

That is true but on the other side - for a very important leadership like POTUS - not really. It shows that you are incompetent, inexperienced, and indecisive.... needing to hear more information (mostly trivial) to refine your final decision. That's how CEO rolls. Many reputable management books, including Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, would criticize Obama's way of making executive decision.

After all - most of Obama's decisions regarding military/security are same as Bush.

Actually, it shows none of the above.

 

[Jiro]

Actually, it shows none of the above.

Actually it does

 

[Hear Again]

Actually it does

If we're going to criticize Obama for not serving in the military, let's also do the same for past Presidents as well.

 

[Jiro]

If we're going to criticize Obama for not serving in the military, let's also do the same for past Presidents as well.

that's fine. What can somehow compensate it is the extensive background in civil duty. Again - I would prefer POTUS to at least serve in armed force even for 3 years because after all - POTUS is the Commander in Chief as well. POTUS has a duty not only to serve for citizens but to lead soldiers as well. Their lives depend on POTUS.

 

[jillio]

that's fine. What can somehow compensate it is the extensive background in civil duty. Again - I would prefer POTUS to at least serve in armed force even for 3 years because after all - POTUS is the Commander in Chief as well. POTUS has a duty not only to serve for citizens but to lead soldiers as well. Their lives depend on POTUS.

Well then, given Obama's extensive background as a grass roots organizer, i.e. civil duty, he would apparently have fulfilled your requirements.

But the argument is actually moot. He has already been elected.

 

[Hear Again]

that's fine. What can somehow compensate it is the extensive background in civil duty. Again - I would prefer POTUS to at least serve in armed force even for 3 years because after all - POTUS is the Commander in Chief as well. POTUS has a duty not only to serve for citizens but to lead soldiers as well. Their lives depend on POTUS.

There are more important kinds of experience a President should have such as leadership, the ability to communicate effectively, the ability to draw upon his own personal life experiences to strengthen the morale of our country, etc. Obama does all of these things which is why he was elected in the first place.

 

[Jiro]

Well then, given Obama's extensive background as a grass roots organizer, i.e. civil duty, he would apparently have fulfilled your requirements.

yes but pretty light on that experience for President. IMO - His wife Michelle should have ran for POTUS seat

But the argument is actually moot. He has already been elected.

too bad I was forced to vote for lesser evil. oh well - 4 more years

the fact still remains that despite of what you said - "Willingness to consult and consider varying viewpoints".... Obama still follows Bush's policy. Not bad for a guy who "was interested in hearing different points of view but didn't go out of his way to make sure everybody spoke if they hadn't spoken up before," eh?

 

[jillio]

yes but pretty light on that experience for President. IMO - His wife Michelle should have ran for POTUS seat


too bad I was forced to vote for lesser evil. oh well - 4 more years

the fact still remains that despite of what you say=id - "Willingness to consult and consider varying viewpoints".... Obama still follows Bush's policy. Not bad for a guy who "was interested in hearing different points of view but didn't go out of his way to make sure everybody spoke if they hadn't spoken up before," eh?

The difference would be that Obama has decided to follow a similar course after consultation. That, in and of itself, shows that he is a more fluid thinker and has a greater willingness to consider the impact of any decision made than did Bush. As important as the final decision is, more important is the way in which those decisions are reached.

Obama's experience as a grass roots organizer is not light...it is very extensive and spans years.

 

[Jiro]

The difference would be that Obama has decided to follow a similar course after consultation. That, in and of itself, shows that he is a more fluid thinker and has a greater willingness to consider the impact of any decision made than did Bush. As important as the final decision is, more important is the way in which those decisions are reached.

and still follow Bush's policy......

Obama's experience as a grass roots organizer is not light...it is very extensive and spans years.

ok if you say so