Talk:Robert Gates/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled section

The language on the JPII assassination attempt should be removed. The general historical consensus is that the KGB was behind JPII's assassinations -- they just used the Bulgarians as proxies. Since the late 50's the Soviets used the Bulgarian secret service for assassinations in western Europe. I'll also note that sourcing that section from Mother Jones, a NOPV source, does not inspire confidence.


PAC Board Membership

According to BlackBoxVoting (http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/45174.html), Gates was on the board of directors of VoteHere, a company that was the biggest elections industry lobbyist for the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). VoteHere spent more money than ES&S, Diebold, and Sequoia combined to lobby for the HAVA bill. And HAVA was sponsored by convicted Abramoff associate Bob Ney and K-street lobbyist Steny Hoyer. Gates' position should be mentioned.

Minor bug

Nowhere in the article does it clearly state how long he directed the CIA. It states when he started. It states when he became president of Texas A&M. It's not clear if there were thing in between (although I would assume there were, since he wrote his memoirs in between). Someone who can edit should fix this and remove this comment.

He directed from 91 to 93.

Memoirs

http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=25&pid=407737 "From the Shadows", apparently I can't edit right now, I'm not going to go look for my login just for this.  ;-]

another article that should be added to the reading list is this piece from Texas Monthly called Agent of Change: http://www.texasmonthly.com/2006-11-01/feature.php I can't add it, since i don't have edit privileges.

Vandalism

Someone has vandalized this page, putting in references to "vote for groovy" and other non-relevant data, while also making political statements about the person in question. I tried to delete the vandalism, but, upon opening the sections in question for editing, nothing showed up. Perhaps this issue requires someone more tech-savvy than I, but the vandalism on this page needs to be fixed.

does he have a wife?

who is his wife?

He has a wife named Becky.

Preemptive security?

Should we, uh, protect this thread preemptively?


I think this needs careful consideration

Because of his senior status in the CIA, Gates was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran-Contra Affair and was in a position to have known of their activities.

I would be confortable if someone changed the wording or deleted the phrase altogether... Since it was never established that he was involved.

Not the son of Thomas Gates

He is not the son of Eisenhower Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Thomas Gates was an easterner and never lived in Kansas where Robert Gsates grew up.

Birth date

There seems to be some contradiction on his birthday in this article. The first sentence says "(born September 25, 1943)" but the infobox says Sept. 9, 1943. Anybody know which one is correct? -- AuburnPilottalk 22:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Going off of the history of this article and the very few places I could find it mentioned online, I changed the infobox to match the intro paragraph. -- AuburnPilottalk 23:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Support of Sadam

I think it's probably important to note somewhere that Gates encouraged Chilean arms manufacturers to help arm Saddam Hussein in the mid 1980's, as evidenced in the article by Robert Parry: <http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/110906.html>

Nomination Process

The article says "Gates will now face confirmation first in the Senate Armed Services Committee, and if approved, by a majority vote in the Senate." A nominee can still be confirmed by the full senate even if he isn't approved by the senate committee which oversees his department. If Armed Services votes down Gates, the full senate can vote to overturn the committee report.

Note, the article also said that Bush announced his "nomination" of Gates following the midterm election. Technically, there is no "nomination" until such is sent to the Senate. The President announced his "intention to nominate" Gates, while will be followed up by a formal nomination sent to the Senate in the future.

The abclocal link used in the references is dead, but I found the following: Pace leaving as Joint Chiefs chairman http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/08/gates.pace/index.html 08 Jun 2008 CNN's Barbara Starr and Suzanne Malveaux contributed to this report. PinkWorld (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Pink

News: Robert Gates is appointed US Secretary of Defense

At about 1:00 EST on November 8th, 2006, it was announced that Robert Gates is the new US Secretary of Defense, replacing Donald Rumsfeld after his resignation. It has been suggested that this is in response to election results that placed Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House; Ms. Pelosi was critical of Rumsfeld in her speech earlier that day.


Gates has to be confirmed by the Senate first.

Actually its a recess appointment, no vote is necessary. Gdo01 18:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A recess appointment still needs to be confirmed by the Senate when they reconvene.


Which is what Bush has just said in his speech. --Charlesknight 18:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because the Senate is in recess, does not mean that it is a recess appointment. Recess appointments are not generally used unless the President cannot get his nominee through the Senate, because it causes the atmosphere between the President and the Senate to be more difficult. The President will most likely submit this nomination to the US Senate for confirmation, and has not stated otherwise during his news conference.


Again, Gates has been*nominated*. Just because the Senate is in recess does not mean that he is now the SecDef. If Rumsfeld has indicated that his resignation will be effective immediately, then Gates will be the *acting* SecDef until he is confirmed by the Senate. Under no circumstances is he already the SecDef, and that needs to be changed ASAP.Mysticfeline 18:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Gates has been involved in the electronic voting crisis through his appearance on the boards of directors for SAIC and www.votehere.com - see http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Landes_SAIC-VoteHere-Diebold.htm

Also note: He apparently facilitated a sale of cluster bombs to Saddam Hussein.

But on Jan. 31, this bipartisan dike finally sprang a leak. Howard Teicher, who served on Reagan's National Security Council staff, offered an affidavit in the Teledyne case that declared that CIA director William J. Casey and his deputy, Robert M. Gates, "authorized, approved and assisted" delivery of cluster bombs to Iraq through Cardoen (In These Times, 3/6/95).

Introduction

The first line should not be that he's been nominated. He currently has a job, and that should be mentioned first. Encyclopedias first report what "is" - then what "might be". --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I had to revert back to before your edit to restore the categories, so this was not done. Gdo01 18:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
No prob - I fixed it. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"In the wake of" the 2006 election should simply read "After" the 2006 election. Though it is probable that Bush appointed Gates due to the electoral defeat of his fellow Republicans, he alleged in today's press conference that he was going to appoint Gates regardless of the outcome. Thus, the claim that the decision was "in the wake of" the election results is not uncontested. NPOV is fun, thanks 68.46.150.253 04:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The election results came in, Pelosi called for his resignation and the very next day he resigned. The electoral connection is clear, so "in the wake of" is appropriate. -- Hux 07:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Correlation does not imply causation. A more neutral phrasing definitely seems appropriate, unless you have some sourced material to back up the connection. 68.215.226.236


Bio Unclear on Military Service

The article correctly says that the CIA offered no draft exemption, which suggests Gates was drafted. But nobody was drafted into being an Air Force intelligence officer stateside, which was very sweet duty during the Vietnam War. So Gates must have gotten a ROTC commission or gone to OCS or done something to enlist. In other words, the bio makes little sense on this point as it is presently written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.144.184 (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


Biographical Information

Mr. Gates' biography at Texas A&M (tamu.edu) states he "received his bachelor's degree from the College of William and Mary, his master's degree in history from Indiana University, and his doctorate in Russian and Soviet history from Georgetown University" The current article seems to imply he only attended Indiana University.

Mr. Gate's biography states that he has attained the rank of Eagle Scout and has also received the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award. However, in reality, the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award is only awarded to individuals who have never earned the actual rank of Eagle Scout. Which means that either he never earned the rank of Eagle Scout or he never received the Distinguished Eagle Scout award. It is not possible to have earned/received both.

_______________________________________________________________________

Actually, the DESA is awarded only to Eagle Scouts. It wouldn't make any sense for a non-Eagle Scout to be regarded as a Distinguished Eagle Scout. Therefore, he can, and does, have both. 67.72.98.99 19:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

_He is not the son of Thomas Gates , the SECDEF, he is the son of an auto parts wholesale , NY TIMES ___________________________________________________________________________

The BIO lists several companies Gates served on the Board. At least one is missing: SAIC

Scout leader from the future!

Can someone change this line to make temporal sense: "He also served as President of the National Eagle Scout Association during the mid-2000s."?

Um, you may want to take a look at a calendar: it's the mid-2000s right now! ;) I take that line to mean that he is either currently serving in that position or that he did so in the last couple of years (anywhere from, say, 2004-2007 could be considered "mid-2000s"). It needs a rewrite either way, mind you, because it's certainly not clear. -- Hux 07:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What about adding the fact that during hearings regarding his nomination to the Directorate of the CIA nalyst, Melvin Goodman, said that "Gates's role . . . was to corrupt the process and the ethics of intelligence." Gates had been "responsible" for "misleading and false information" that had "cost lives." According to another, Jennifer Glaudemans, Gates contributed to "the culture of fear and cynicism among frontline analysts" and had left her "scarred." Lets have some truth here!

Photo

We need a higher quality photo or a way to force that one smaller. It looks terrible as it is. Rmhermen 18:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the photo was changed as you wrote this. I think the new one is better but still not colored. Gdo01 18:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, you'll get a newly created, four-day old account to put a nice, brightly-coloured penis up there soon.</BEANS> ;-) --198.185.18.207 18:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

here's a more recent pic http://www.tamu.edu/home/spotlight/gatesannouncement.html

  • The photo looks really washed out. I just tweaked it in Photoshop, and uploaded it at Image:Robert-Gates-adjusted.jpg. If you prefer my version (I adjusted levels in Photoshop), please change the one in the article accordingly. Fogster 06:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I updated it myself. Fogster 00:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Recess Appointments

This needs to be clarified -- I believe the President can simply appoint an official (some officials?) by executive order during a Congressional recess, and that official holds the position until confirmed or not confirmed by the Senate after the recess.

Is the official titled "acting" or not during this period?

What has Bush officially done so far? Can he officially make the appointment prior to Rumsfeld's actual departure date -- or only informally indicate intent to do so? Then Bush signs an executive order when the office is actually vacant?? So Gates would be the "proposed" new secretary, not "nominated"?

The recent prominent example of a recess appointment (against Congress's will), for your diligent research purposes, is Bolton as ambassador to the U.N.

But actually... this all depends on Rumsfeld's departure date -- he might remain in office until January, and then there is no recess appointment issue...

Via the wiki on them: Recess appointments are authorized by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." With that, recess appointments allow an individual to exercise the full rights and privileges of his or her office until the end of 'session,' which in this case will effectively last for over a year, when the 1st session of the upcoming 110th Congress ends sometime in December of 2007. Gates can therefore act in the capacity of SecDef without confirmation of the Senate for a year's time, should Bush determine the Democratically controlled 110th is unlikely to appoint him. Bush has the authority (via II.2) to use any recess, perhaps one as short as a day, to do so.

According to the BBC, "US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is to stand down," and, "Former CIA Director Robert Gates has been nominated to replace Mr Rumsfeld." I take that to mean that Rumsfeld is currently still occupying the position and that Bush is going through the standard procedure of nominating a replacement, the vote to be taken when the Senate is next in session, with Rumsfeld stepping down once the vote has gone through. I don't think that recess appointments and executive orders are relevant here. -- Hux 07:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Iran-Contra

What exactly was Gates' role in Iran-Contra? Merely mentioning in a single sentence that he was involved doesn't seem like sufficient info to me. 71.203.209.0 18:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's some detailed info from the actual Iran-Contra affair independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh. Gates has his own chapter: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_16.htm. Here's the main page for the "Final Report of the Independent Counsel For Iran/Contra Matters" http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/. --Eric Silva 15:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Intelligence: Crisis in Spooksville As the Senate grilling of Robert Gates begins, the CIA starts to rethink its own mandate in a rapidly changing world By RICHARD LACAYO SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR Posted Monday, Sep. 23, 1991 Life could be worse for the Central Intelligence Agency. There are no jeering crowds in front of its headquarters in Langley, Va., and no one has tried to pull down the statue of agency founder William ("Wild Bill") Donovan. Nonetheless, the meltdown of Soviet power has startled the CIA nearly as much as it has the KGB. So long as the Soviet Union faced off against the U.S., the chief mission of American intelligence gathering could be summarized in a microdot: watch Moscow and all its worldwide doings. Now, confronted by the spectacle of a dissolving Soviet Union, intelligence agencies face the question of whether they should be refashioned for a world in which counting Soviet missile silos may be less important than tracking the intentions of well-armed Third World dictators or keeping tabs on the Japanese trade ministry.

That's one reason why the stakes are unusually high this week as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence conducts hearings on George Bush's choice of Robert Gates, the Deputy National Security Adviser, to be the next director of the CIA. Whoever holds that job will have to put the sprawling intelligence community on a new path and defend the agency against critics who are calling for it to be downsized or disassembled.

The discussion about the CIA's future, however, has been overshadowed by questions about Gates' past, most notably the extent of his involvement in the Iran-contra affair. That issue scuttled his first shot at the job four years ago, when Ronald Reagan proposed him as agency chief following the resignation of William Casey. Gates had to withdraw because of skepticism in Congress over his claim that Casey had kept him in the dark about the contra-supply operation. The job went instead to then FBI Director William Webster. When Webster announced his retirement in May, Bush nominated Gates in the hope that Congress had lost interest in Oliver North's misadventures.

That might have been the case if Iran-contra prosecutor Lawrence Walsh had not unveiled a major surprise in July. Just days before the scheduled start of Gates' hearings, Alan Fiers, a former top CIA official, pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress about his own knowledge of the contra- supply operation. With Fiers willing to testify about the involvement of former CIA colleagues, Walsh's investigation was suddenly rejuvenated: How much of the Iran-contra operation had been directed by the CIA? And just which CIA officials took part?

Fiers' testimony led to the indictment two weeks ago of his boss, Clair George, the CIA's former chief of covert operations. In a federal courtroom last week George pleaded innocent to the 10-count felony indictment, which alleges that he lied to three congressional committees and to the grand jury that Walsh convened to probe the Iran-contra scandal. If convicted on all counts, George faces up to 50 years in prison.

Page 1 of 4 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next >>

CIA connection

I don't know how this would be mentioned, but it seems pretty important to me that a former DCI is now in charge of the Pentagon, especially because Rumsfeld had major turf wars with the CIA. Also, just as a point of reference, the current Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is a military man. Joshdboz 19:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

President Bushs Speech

I was just reading this page while listening to Bush talk about this guy, he followed several parts of it nearly exactly and kept to the same order as well. Wiki is making its way to the desks of Whitehouse speechwriters. Tsoldrin 20:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

Can someone either source those quotes or remove them? Without context or a source, they don't belong. Thanks. --198.185.18.207 21:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, in particular I'd be shocked if the was the first person to make the "new spouse of person who has had many spouses" joke. Repeating a cliche'd joke doesn't count as quotable.--132.239.29.139 23:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with wikipedia is that oftentimes the hard-core people who live and breath wikipedia often get this academic tunnel-vision that inhibits intimate viewpoints that used to make wikipedia a great grass-roots program. I added the original quote by Gates. It's a joke he would ALWAYS make at A&M in several speeches. How do you source that? And maybe it's not wholly original, but Fonz wasn't the first one to say "Heyyyyyyyyyy!" It was his trademark forever. Academic tunnel vision is going to be what destroys the beauty of this project, that being anybody can edit it. Instead somebody will always be trumped by somebody who lives on this site. Txtimetraveler 19:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Clair E. George

The discussion of Robert Gates' connection to Iran-Contra mentions his connection to Clair E. George's indictment for perjury and false statements but seems to exonerate Gate without mentioning that Clair E. George received a presidential pardon from George H.W. Bush before sentencing even occurred. As such, what Clair E. George knew about Robert Gates connection to Iran-Contra is subject to the knowledge the Bush got Clair E. George out of a serious (felony) criminal conviction on multiple counts. Clair E. George having received a pardon from Bush should not be left out of the discussion of the relationship between Robert Gates and Clair E. George. —204.42.17.216 22:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely cannot stand sentences like these:

"In the wake of the 2006 midterm election result, President George W. Bush announced his nomination of Gates to succeed the resigning Donald Rumsfeld as U.S. Secretary of Defense on November 8, 2006[1] [2]."

The edits need to be made with more of a realization that these articles will be read 20 years from now.Allthewhile 23:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

iraq

Nice to see the mudrakers did a good job taking editorial control of this article. Until this morning, the article didn't have one instance of the word "iraq." --129.133.127.52 23:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Director of Central Intelligence

The title he held was Director of Central Intelligence, not Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The last title was subsumed by the first one until the recent creation of the National Intelligence Director to oversee all the US intelligence agencies. I'll change it in the 1st sentence. Ryanluck 01:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Military.com

The article at military.com, Who is SECDEF Nominee Robert Gates?, is a nearly verbatim cut-n-paste of this article. It gives credit to Wikipedia as the source, but then slaps on its own copyright notices: Copyright 2006 Military.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed., which is clearly a violation of the GFDL. linas 15:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest somebody inform them of this violation immediately. Flying Hamster 20:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I sent a note through their e-mail contact form. I'm sure they'll alter the article or remove the copyright stuff immediately... *sigh* --EEMeltonIV 21:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Still not fixed.--Gkklein 03:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Note I got from them today: "Thanks for emailing Military.com. Thanks for making us aware of the issue. The item has been removed from the site." Looks like the article's down, too. --EEMeltonIV 00:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good article on old conflicts

Here is a recent link to a newsweek article [1] that talks about past conflicts that could be brought up in the confirmation hearing. I thought some of this information might be helpful to this article, but I don't have time to add it now. Remember 19:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

--Spelling/grammar errors-- Can someone with sufficient priveleges please fix the following spelling and grammar errors?

"According to media reports, the conclusion of the Commission is that the US will not achieve it's (s/b "its") goal of an Iraqi democracy. Policy recommendations included stabalizing Bagdhad(s/b "stabilizing Baghdad") while working out diplomatic agreements with violent factions.[17]

Fixed. Thanks for pointing those out. CMacMillan 23:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Endnotes?

Fairly abnormal for a wiki entry to have endnotes instead of footnotes. Someone else mind fixing them? I would break out my account, but I have an exam to study for and no time to fix this. 68.215.226.236

I don't know what version of the article you looked at (and you might want to follow Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages, which would make it easier to figure out, since the normal signing of a comment includes a date/time stamp), but the following, from WP:CITE, essentially says that in wikipedia there is no difference between endnotes and footnotes:
Technically, footnotes appear at the bottom of a page; endnotes appear at the end of a chapter or book. Since Wikipedia articles may be considered to consist of one long page, or of no pages at all, Wikipedia footnotes appear at the end of an article, but are nevertheless called footnotes. -- John Broughton | Talk 06:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please fix typos

In the two quotes from "Mother Jones", November is spelled Noveber - someone fix please...

Done. John Broughton | Talk 07:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section needs repair?

I removed the two separated lower criticisms for now, because there was no reference. It looks like there used to be some sort of reference (the footnote has no text and no link, nothing). Maybe a messed up edit? I have no problem with them being there, I was just here to read the article, but went to look for the reference, to read that, and it didn't exist. Please fix if appropriate and you know where the reference went, as I would love to read it!--65.219.213.109 23:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Mother Jones is also not a reputable news source, their articles aren't worthy of inclusion, someone should find something in mainstream outlets rather than ideological rags either right or left. 69.143.125.221

You really cannot decide on your own that MJ is not a RS per WP policy with respct to facts and quotations contained therein. One can attack the choice of topics MJ addresses or its editorial policy, but there is no basis for stating MJ is not a RS for information it contains. --NYCJosh 22:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote from wikipedia: "Also, according to U.S. Senate transcripts, Gates, as deputy director of CIA, vouched for the comprehensiveness of a CIA memo presented to the Senate and President Reagan alleging that the Soviet Union played a role in the 1981 shooting of Pope John Paul II."
Quote from source: "According to Senate transcripts, the CIA prepared a memo outlining the case for Soviet complicity in the attack on the pope and in a cover letter forwarding the document to Reagan. Gates allegedly stated that the intelligence review upon which the memo was based was comprehensive. However, a CIA internal review later denounced the memo as being skewed, and Gates himself later admitted the document had been based on thin evidence."
My comment: U.S. Senate trascripts did not state that Gates vouched for something. Rather, U.S. Senate transcripts stated a case for Soviet complicity. Newsweek wrote that the statement was alleged. How did Wikipedia make the jump from an "allegedly" stated comment to a comment seemingly backed by a U.S. Senate transcript? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.189.114 (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

As per WP:BLP, I deleted the "Criticism" section because it contained unsourced negative material. The "Level of involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal" section also seems to be negative and unsourced. Does one of the current references listed include the information in there? 159.153.129.39 18:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do. Trying reading the cited source before posting here and asking us. --NYCJosh 21:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Homeland Security

"He was also the first pick to head the Department of Homeland Security when it was created following the September 11, 2001 attacks."

Does anyone know why it went to Tom Ridge instead? Richard75 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Gates' advocacy to remove democratically elected Sandinista gov't

The Los Angeles Times, Nov. 25, 2006 article cited states that the Sandanistas were democratically elected. Just do a quick Google search if you wish to find many other reliable sources. Please read the cited source before taking upon yourself to delete material from the article. --NYCJosh 21:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Need a Ray McGovern link, Jennifer Glaudemans article.

Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Two oppose votes

Any idea why Bunning and Santorum voted to oppose? //// Pacific PanDeist * 01:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Bunning's webpage has a PR saying Gates criticizes Iraq policy without offering any real solutions, and that he wants to bring terrorist-sponsoring states like Syria and Iran to the table. Santorum's page has nothing; it's barely been touched since he was defeated. I'm looking through the Congressional Record now to see if I can find if he said anything. --zenohockey 19:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not yet

Though he's been confirmed, Gates only becomes Secy of Defense on December 18th, 2006. Therefore, he's now Defense Secy-designate. GoodDay 22:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Um, the lead paragraph reads: Robert Michael Gates, Ph.D. (born September 25, 1943) was confirmed as the 22nd United States Secretary of Defense on December 6, 2006, and is scheduled to be sworn in to that position on December 18. This doesn't seem right for the first sentence. I would suggest a change, but I'm not knowledgeable enough on him, and I have to go anyway. -Patstuarttalk|edits 19:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Iraq study group

any idea why he resigned from the group? the article says he resigned before the deliberations. Sambae 08:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Date Conflict?

In the leadin for the article, it states that Gates declined the nomination to become Secretary of Homeland Security following the 9/11 attacks so that he could remain President of Texas A&M. In the section talking him becoming President of TA&M, it mentions that he didn't become President until August, 2002. What did he do in the interim? UndercoverParrothead 01:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

criticism

I've always thought these sections were unencyclopedic. There ought to be some way to integrate the criticisms section into the article. Otherwise, NPOV suggests we should have a praise section. After all, a TIME magazine pundit has observed that "Gates ... has been a superb Secretary of Defense, as good in that post as his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, was awful." (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1815849,00.html)Bdell555 (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference this passage: "according to Newsweek, Gates, as deputy director of CIA, allegedly ...." since when did Newsweek become a NPOV? I wouldn't believe a Newsweek hack under oath! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Expose-inator (talk • contribs) 22:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Under Obama

Been reading a good deal of speculation Obama may be considering keeping Gates as SOD. Worth adding to the article or is it too crystal ballish? 58.178.2.176 (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering how much speculation there is, I don't think it would have been a problem. But as of today, it wouldn't be a problem at all because sources told ABC that he will be staying on for at least one year. Therefore, I've created an "Obama Administration" subsection. Any future details could be included there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockwood Like (talk • contribs) 21:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


Following is information for news.yahoo.com link: Names surface for top Obama administration jobs http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081107/ap_on_el_pr/obama_potential_appointees By The Associated Press The Associated Press – Fri Nov 7, 6:23 pm ET —Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkWorld (talk • contribs) 23:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that is change you can believe in. --Sophroniscus (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"If confirmed..."

According to Associated Press report dated December 2, 2008, Gates does not require confirmation to continue as Secretary of Defense. I've therefore deleted the words "If confirmed" from the article. -- JeffBillman (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Gates of Hell?

Working for the CIA and the Pentagon for all of those years, he has certainly earned this title. Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.230.218 (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Political Party

I am not entirely sure, although I could easily be wrong, that Gates is an Independent as listed in the article. My impression was that Gates is a Republican and will remain so under the Obama administration. 58.178.61.43 (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Especially since this article itself states that he was an active member of the Young Republicans, which would indicate that he was a Republican at least at one time. Kuralyov (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Since he was he can change his mind. Presidential appointments do not necessarily share the same political affiliation of the nominator. Independent seems the most accurate given his stated [lack of] affiliation and support of an administration from each side. — BQZip01 — talk 03:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Relationship to Bill Gates?

Is Robert Gates related to Bill Gates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.154.72 (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

no. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate and irrelevant affirmation of "recent American history"

The sentence in question read, after my recent edit, "Gates is the fourteenth Cabinet member in history to serve under two Presidents of different parties, and the first to do so as Secretary of Defense."

User:Courthouseman has reverted edits to read, "Gates is the fourteenth Cabinet member in history to serve under two Presidents of different parties, and the second to serve two Presidents as Secretary of Defense (Gates' immediate predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, was the first, having served as Secretary of Defense for both President Ford and President George W. Bush)."

However, Courthouseman's version is erroneous. Although he offered no edit summary, he argued at my talk page that "I reverted to my changes regarding Robert Gates. He is the SECOND individual to serve as Secretary of Defense under two different presidents; Donald Rumsfeld was the first (Ford and Bush II). Anybody who knows recent American history will affirm this. So don't change it back and put erroneous info back up."

Anybody who so affirms recent American history doesn't know enough American history. He is not only factually incorrect about Rumsfeld, but he fails to understand the point of that sentence in the Gates article. During the past twelve presidencies, there have been four Secretaries of Defense who served under more than one president. Rumsfeld was not the first to do so, he was the third. What this article sought to explain is that what Robert Gates has been the first to do is to serve as Defense Secretary under two presidents of different parties, as not only my edit but my edit summary noted.

Anyone who edits an encyclopedia would do well to read up a bit on the subject prior to reverting an editor who has indicated that they are in error. The very first link in the Robert Gates article is to the article United States Secretary of Defense, where anyone interested can find that in the 63 years since the position was created, four individuals have served in the post under more than one president. Robert McNamara served under both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson (that's in the 1960s; both Democrats, Johnson was Kennedy's Vice President prior to Kennedy's assassination) and James Rodney Schlesinger served under both Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford (that's in the 1970s; both Republicans, Ford was Nixon's Vice President prior to Nixon's resignation). It was a few decades later, in 2000, that Donald Rumsfeld became the third (more than one Nixon/Ford-era Republican returned to office under George W. Bush, including his Vice President Dick Cheney).

It's not uncommon for someone to serve in the cabinets of two different presidents. What is uncommon — only fourteen times in our history (221 years and eight days), apparently — is for someone to serve in the cabinets of presidents of two different parties. What was unprecedented, however, is that the Obama administration nominated a Secretary of Defense from a presidency of a different party. It may be unpopular with some Democrats and independents who nominated/elected Obama because he "voted against the war" and was seen as an outsider who'd bring in all fresh faces; it may be unpopular with some Republicans and Libertarians whose rhetorical tactics are at odds with Obama's moderate bipartisanship. But it is a fact and it is a first, and the point of that sentence is to succinctly and neutrally note that. Abrazame (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Robert Gates/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last sentence in the Iran Contra section is the work of a vandal.


Seems to praise him quite a bit.76.201.156.0 (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Religion?

Any information on his religion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.242.34 (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam Service?

What does "Battles/Wars: Vietnam War" mean in the sidebar? Mr. Gates official biography only says "In 1967 he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force and served as an intelligence officer at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri." This is certainly during the Vietnam War, but there is no indication that he had any connection whatever with the actual war. Does anyone who served in the military in any capacity whatsoever between 1965 and 1975 receive the "Battles/Wars: Vietnam War" expression? It seems to significantly reduce the meaning of the expression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fideo (talk • contribs) 02:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No one has commented since I made this observation. I'm going to remove the ,"Battles/Wars: Vietnam War" entry in the sidebar on the grounds that to merit this distinction, the person should have more of a connection than simply being in the military during the time a war is being conducted. Serving in-theater is an obvious qualification. Serving in some support capacity from a distance would possibly qualify, depending on circumstance. There is no indication that Mr. Gates had any connection at all with the Vietnam war, beyond being an Air Force Lieutenant in Missouri during the war. Fideo (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone has a reference for that point, I would support Fideo's removal. I have done a brief search and found uncitable sources alleging that Gates was not deployed to Vietnam, and no suggestion that he was. Anyone re-adding this point should do so only if they're able to cite a reference to actual service in the war, not merely during it. Abrazame (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I would caution such removal (caution, not disagree). It was during the Vietnam War era and therein lies the distinction. Many people served supporting the war effort (even indirectly). As an intelligence officer at Whiteman, he was responsible for providing intelligence and information to B-52 squadrons. This intelligence directly contributed to the war effort. — BQZip01 — talk 09:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
If there's any relevancy to that war of his service, it would be most welcome in the article text if you or any editor or visitor are able to reliably source that. However, this was an infobox section entitled "Battles/Wars", the purpose of which is to indicate which battles and wars in which the person was actually a participant, as in "track his position", not "place the era".
That's not to take away from any role he may have had; indeed, contrasted to the way life goes on during our wars of the past 35 years, the support roles played by even the average American in previous war eras was massively greater than now before you even get to the draft, but if that's relevant to any individual's biography it should be sourced and specified, rather than hinted at or, I would argue, over-represented, given the infobox section. I have relatives who served during Vietnam and Korea, but they would be the last people who would want their service to be too closely associated with those wars given that the gist is to conflate their service with that of people whose lives and physical and emotional intactness were on the line in-country. In other words, removing the data point in this instance is not to diminish the honor of one's service during wartime but to preserve it. When someone's service stations them in a war zone or places them at a battle but there is no other detail that can be sourced, this infobox point is the only differentiation between them and the remote direct support role you raise. Abrazame (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ref for death of Uwe Barschel

http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article11104929/Uwe-Barschel-der-Tote-in-Zimmer-317.html

Seems a bit lightweight to me. Hcobb (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no evidence and it's the only source for such a charge. BTW, here's the english translation. Buffs (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Iran–Contra affair

"his role in the Iran-Contra affair." This needs elaboration.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.106.210 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Robert Gates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Robert Gates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Robert Gates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Gates/Archive_1&oldid=1167250958"