The "New" Secretary of Defense Robert Gates - Weak, Uncommitted, Embarrassing

It's a sad thing to see what happens when a Defense Secretary goes from serving a patriotic, strong President to a new President who is more concerned about every other country in the world than America. Each day, we see the feminization of Robert Gates and it's gotten to the point where you want to look away. This article over at The Jerusalem Post speaks to how Gates has a different story about Israeli chances of attacking Iran versus what General Petraeus said to Congress this week. Here's some of the excerpts of that stark contrast:

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates played down the chances of an IDF strike on Iran, a day after one of the US's top generals warned Israel might do just that.

The mixed messages highlight the different roles played by Gates, a political appointee implementing the Obama administration's program, and military personnel who are not advocating certain policy goals, according to analysts here. They also pointed to the different assessments with the US government about how close Iran is to obtaining a nuclear weapon and the best way to handle the issue.

"Secretary Gates has a boss. The boss has articulated a course of action. It's not good office politics to outline a threat scenario which is undermining of that policy, at least in public," Berman said, contending that if Iran is seen as being closer to producing a nuclear weapon it hurts the administration's argument that there's time to pursue diplomacy.

While Petraeus told Congress that Israel may very well find itself in a position where they have to destroy or derail the Iranian nuke program, here is what the Obamaized Gates said:

He also said that Iran would "probably not" cross a nuclear "red line" within the year, even as Israeli officials talk about Iran having crossed the technological threshold for making a bomb and setting a timeline for dealing with the issue in months rather than years.
"I think we have more time than that. How much more time I don't know," Gates said of the end-of-2009 benchmark. "It is a year, two years, three years. It is somewhere in that window."

Are you serious, Secretary Gates? The American people put their overall safety in your hands and your take on it is that Iran could have the weapons "somewhere in that window" ??!! Let's say it is one year. What happens then? We've seen the past two weeks how the Obama administration has weak-kneed its way through the North Korean missile launch....are we supposed to feel all safe and comfy when our top Defender has NO CLUE if it will be one year or three years when Iran is ready to start world war?

If we don't think we will pay a supreme price for this new personna of weakness that is being put out there by Obama and Gates, we're in for a painful surprise. We have piss ant countries looking to push America around economically and environmentally because Obama has opened the door for them to do that and now, we are seeing a Secretary of Defense, at the direction of the King Surrenderist, open the door for every fly-by-night islamic regime to hold our nation hostage. Disgusting.

Why is Gates downplaying Iran strike?

"I guess I would say I would be surprised…if they did act this year," Gates told the Financial Times in an interview published late on Wednesday.
He also said that Iran would "probably not" cross a nuclear "red line" within the year, even as Israeli officials talk about Iran having crossed the technological threshold for making a bomb and setting a timeline for dealing with the issue in months rather than years.
"I think we have more time than that. How much more time I don't know," Gates said of the end-of-2009 benchmark. "It is a year, two years, three years. It is somewhere in that window."
His comments contrasted with those of Gen. David Petraeus, the top US army commander in the Middle East, who told Congress Wednesday that Israel "may ultimately see itself so threatened by the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon that it would take preemptive military action to derail or delay it."
And Gates's take Wednesday on Iranian nuclear capabilities echoed his comments moderating Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen's more aggressive assessment in February, when he said Teheran had enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb only to have Gates say the Islamic republic wasn't close to having such a weapon.

"The US is clearly schizophrenic in terms of how it views the Iranian threat," asserted Ilan Berman of the American Foreign Policy Council, saying the disagreements over intelligence implications and the correct approach did not end with the Bush administration.
On top of that, he said, the civilian Gates faces a different task than the men in uniform who serve under him at the Pentagon. While the latter present their assessments - often not in the greatest concert with their plain-clothed superiors - Gates has an administration to represent.
"Secretary Gates has a boss. The boss has articulated a course of action. It's not good office politics to outline a threat scenario which is undermining of that policy, at least in public," Berman said, contending that if Iran is seen as being closer to producing a nuclear weapon it hurts the administration's argument that there's time to pursue diplomacy.