Even Democrats admit that Democrats can't run the military.

[03_SHOOTER]

Liberals Angry Over Obama Keeping Gates as Pentagon Chief

President-elect Obama's expected selection of Robert Gates as his defense secretary and retired Gen. Jim Jones as his national security adviser is raising eyebrows among liberals.

More than a month before he takes the oath of office, President-elect Barack Obama already is testing the loyalty of his liberal base.

On Monday, he is expected to announce his national security team, which will include Robert Gates as his defense secretary, a carry-over from the Bush administration, and retired Gen. Jim Jones, who supported John McCain for president, as his national security adviser.

Liberal blogger Chris Bowers of The Open Left says the message sent by the selection of Gates undermines Democrats.

"The message would be clear," he writes in his blog. "Even Democrats agree that Democrats can't run the military."

Obama's outspoken opposition to the Iraq war before he became a U.S. senator was one of the reasons he was embraced early in the presidential race by the anti-war faction of the Democratic Party's base, so his apparent decision to keep a Bush adviser as defense secretary for at least a year has raised some eyebrows within that faction.

Bowers, a member of the Pennsylvania state Democratic committee, argues that Gates provided support and cover for practices from waterboarding to the use of psychotropic drugs on terror detainees. The blogger isn't as negative toward Jones but still called it "very disappointing."

"It is just so very frustrating," Bowers writes. "It seems like the only place progressives are making any gains is in the House. We are being entirely left out of Obama's major appointments so far. I guess everyone gets to play in Obama's administration, except progressives."

Democratic blogger Brent Budowsky, who served as a congressional assistant in the 1970s and 1980s, said he would have preferred to see Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska or former Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia get the nod for defense secretary.

Budowsky said he fears that Obama's national security team will steer him toward a longer military commitment than the one he made on the campaign trail.

"It is unfortunate that on an issue so momentous as who runs the Pentagon at time of war, the views that were stated in the campaign, and supported so deeply by the base of the Democratic Party and the new voters and small donors who were the heart of the Obama campaign, are sacrificed so quickly, for Bob Gates," he writes in his blog.

GOP strategist Dave Winston told FOX News that some pushback was to be expected.

"The base is clearly going to say, where are you headed in terms of this policy?" Winston said. "And I think it will cause him some headaches with the base, although for the overall country, I think they will see it quite favorably."

Democratic consultant Bob Beckel told FOX News that objections from liberals over Obama's Cabinet selections isn't all bad.

"Not so sure, from Obama's standpoint, it's bad politically," he said. "It helps him in his negotiation with Congress."

Obama's national security team also will include several former members of Bill Clinton's administration, eliciting some complaints about recycling people from the Clinton White House. And Obama is expected to pick Hillary Clinton to be his pick for secretary of state.

But Beckel says Obama needs experience from the last Democratic White House.

"If he went to a Democratic administration before that, he'd have to go to the nursing home," he said.

FOX News' Wendell Goler contributed to this report.

Awww, poor babies, crying because once again they were sold a "Bill of Goods" by their "Messiah".

Liberal, they name is SUCKER!!!

.
.
.

[JohnP]

"The base is clearly going to say, where are you headed in terms of this policy?" Winston said. "And I think it will cause him some headaches with the base, although for the overall country, I think they will see it quite favorably."

Actually, I do see it as favorable. I may not be the public, but I do see an individual that's not dropping the axe on someone just because he's not in the same party. It would be the same as having a new commander come into a combat unit and replace all leadership with his strap-hangers.

Don't get me wrong '03, I still tread the path of an experienced point man, but this gives me cause to furl my deeply lined brow.

[03_SHOOTER]

I know, I just think that it's funny that so many of the extreme left wing loons are already starting to "feast on their own", and he hasn't even taken office yet. To me, it only serves to further amplify the point that I've been making for years, that the lunatic fringe barking moonbats will never be happy until they've completely eviscerated this nation that the vast majority of us love so much.

[JohnP]

What was that old saying about, We the Unwilling, Led by the Unqualified?

[Billyd]

They seem to forget that their great "hero" William Jefferson (BJ) Clinton had a Republican for SecDef as well. While not exactly a resounding endorsement of Republicans at the top at the Pentagon, Bill Cohen didn't step on his unit too many times.

[HairyEyeball]

Whatever else Baraq Hussein may be, he isn't stupid - he's well aware that he knows jack about the job, and having some experienced 'help' with demonstrable successes gives his future actions both some credibility and some sacrificial lambs if any go bad.

As to predecessors like wet willie having nominal 'Republicans' in the cabinet, need we look any further than the recent primary elections to ascertain the party an individual registers with is more a political decision than one necessarily having even tenuous connection to his principles (or, in the case of most professional politicians, lack thereof)?

[03_SHOOTER]

Originally Posted by JohnP

What was that old saying about, We the Unwilling, Led by the Unqualified?

"We the unwilling, led by the unknowing, have been doing so much, with so little, for so long, that we are now capable of doing anything...with nothing".