P Squared, Pt. II

Fine sounding phrases,
hiding hollow arguments
--Hendrick Van Loon

The president does not have power
under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize
a military attack in a situation that does not
involve stopping an actual or imminent threat
to the nation
--Barack Obama, 2007
__________________

[Oh, the difference a few years makes . . .]

Understanding the Petraeus - Panetta shuffle is a lot like understanding a terrorist incident: The meaning goes beyond the immediate target and has more significance than the action alone.

The key player in this mise en scène is Robert Gates, and not P². The timing is auspicious, and Gates' exit eerily coincides with his negative input on the Libyan air piracy campaign being run by the Obomba wunderkind. Gates has been more statesmanlike and restrained in the Libyan scenario than our erstwhile C in C, qualities which = presidential material.

It is Gates -- not Petraeus -- who is the threat to Obama's 2012 reelection bid. In a sane world, he would be a strong Republican contender. Unlike the rest of the wannabes Gates has a depth of government service extending back to the Reagan administration. He understands budgets, government policy and precedents, strategic planning, intelligence and statecraft. He is bipartisan and could attract the cross-over Democratic vote, unlike the other opposition candidates.

Gates is similar to Bush 41 in his knowledge of Washington's back streets. He is untainted and respected by the Legislative Branch and held in esteem by the citizenry. The personnel shuffle is a shell game. The reality is that Gates is the most respectable and electable potential candidate for the Republicans -- and the irony is, he is more restrained than either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

In short, Gates is more democratic than the Democrats. Obama couldn't put a glove on him.