Live Thread - Hearing on Robert Gates as Sec. of Defense

Cspan ^ | Dec 4, 2006

[txrangerette]

Thanks, Bahbah. Time will tell.

Glenn Beck is trashing Gates now. And President Bush, too. Most of the time I like Glenn, but I would ask him this. How come men like Senators Imhoff and Sessions voted for Gates and did not appear to be upset by his appointment? Hmmm? They are far from appeasers and cut and run types. Something is afoot, I think, that we in flyover country don't quite get, yet. I'm betting it's the WAY Gates operates in DC and not a big change in policy (although I don't rule out a superficial appearance of major policy changes).

Glenn is apoplectic that Gates once advocated sitting down and talking to Iran and trying to find a "regional settlement in the Middle East". I think he said it was in 2004 at a meeting of the CFR. I don't care. Gates will do what the President wants him to do or he won't last.

I don't think we have seen all or even a fraction of this President's "cards on the table".

[Miss Marple]

I heard that interview. President Bush asked his father, AFTER he had decided pretty much on Gates, what kind of guy his dad thought he was. I think that is a pretty normal question, and does not indicate that his father is running the show.

[Miss Marple]

It is wise that the committee got this approved today, so it can go for a floor vote this week. We don't need the pundits getting their knickers in a twist again. I am not paying any attention to them, anyway.

[txrangerette]

Amen to that.

[Bahbah]

I learned a little more about Gates at Powerline. You may be interested. Here is the link: http://www.powerlineblog.com/

[Mo1]

Glenn is apoplectic that Gates once advocated sitting down and talking to Iran and trying to find a "regional settlement in the Middle East". I think he said it was in 2004 at a meeting of the CFR. I don't care. Gates will do what the President wants him to do or he won't last.

Is that the part of the question Hellary asked??

If it is .. Gates' response was it was something that was reporting in the newspaper .. and left it at that

[OldFriend]

Thanks once again for clarity on the actual statement about the President discussing Gates with his father.

[OldFriend]

I am profoundly disturbed by the difference in Gates' written comments and his public comments today.

do you have any insight as to what this is all about?

[OldFriend]

Bahbah posted a link to Powerline and it has the written responses by Gates to the committee. It appears to be the polar opposite of what he said in public today.

To say I am confused would be an understatement.

I don't think I can take much more confusion.....my head is spinning. LOL

[Mo1]

Thanks for that link

[Bahbah]

The only thing I can think of regarding the "discrepancies" is that the fix was in on Gates and it didn't make a hill of beans worth of difference what he said or wrote.

Maybe the guy really does know how to play Washington, he has confused everyone.

[Txsleuth]

bttt

[21stCenturyFreeThinker]

Are you sure that production used to be as high as you claim, or is that more propaganda from the leftist press?

Here is a reference for the oil production. I've seen that figure several other places.

prewar oil production from VOA

I didn't cite the prewar electricity but here is a passing reference to it running at half capacity from Douglas Feith.

prewar electricity reference from American Forces Press

Here is another reference to prewar electricity from American Forces Press that cites prewar electricity at 4,300 megawatts vs. March 2006 levels of 4100 megawatts. Of course these raw megawatt figures aren't directly comparable with the hours per day figures in the original document because of the increased demand you noted. The increased demand should have made the available hours go down since they are still 200 megawatts behind the prewar level.

prewar electricity reference from American Forces Press

I've seen the same thing you have with regards to Baghdad getting electricity at the expense of the rest of the country. I guess politics go on even in blood thirsty dictatorships.

I would expect that if these sources were going to slant the news they would slant it in favor of our government. I really haven't seen much discussion of either figure recently in any kind of press.

I think there's a slant in all kinds of press. Note that the original document didn't have a reference to the prewar levels of electricity or oil. Were they far ahead of prewar levels you can bet they would have been included.

One of the main causes of the election disaster was the Administration's loss of credibility from its rosy Iraq assessments IMHO. Admitting we aren't winning the war is not the same as supporting a phased withdraw. We need to take our rose colored glasses off with regards to both the war and the Administration.

I'm not sure what the right approach is. On the one hand a phased withdraw might put pressure on the Iraqis to get serious about defending their country. They remind me of a dachshund we once had. It was brutally vicious as long as it was on a leash and couldn't get at its prey. Let it off the leash and it hid with its tail between its legs :).

Of course a phased withdraw might be interpreted by Al-Queda as a defeat for us.

On the other hand staying might allow a chance to make progress towards a stable democracy and all its virtues but keep our troops pinned down in Iraq fighting an Insurgency made up primarily of Iraqis.

If they're determined to fight a civil war it might be best to just get out of the way and let them fight it. Maybe they're all dachshunds and will come to their senses once we aren't restraining them. In any event we could keep forces close by to keep an eye on our interests.

General Abizaid's statement that he couldn't deploy 20,000 additional soldiers in Iraq for more than a short time should be a wakeup call for all of us. This needs to be fixed no matter what happens. Empires fall when they become overextended.

[rahbert]

I suspect that the President asked him to play to the
distinguished Senators so as to be confirmed. He really
really doesn't need this headache; being the president of A&M is more renumerative and a lot less headache.

After that, he will carry out the Presidents policy.

Its not as if these are binding statements of intention
he's making to Byrd et al.

[OldFriend]

Can't tell you how much I appreciate your posting the link to his written statements to the committee.

[Bahbah]

You are most welcome.

[maica]

Sorry, your links do not work for me. I must have been thinking of the export guantity during the Oil-for-food years, rather than the production quantity.

More troops will not do anything but create more chances for mishaps and counter-productive news articles. What is needed is less central control of ROE for the troops in the field, a different approach to Mookie and his pals, and a different approach to all journalists.

[maica]

I agree with you, Bahbah. I felt like I was watching Kabuki theatre yesterday. It was so pro forma, and cutting into the 'esteemed' Senators' holiday time, and they knew before hand that the committee was going to give him a unanimous vote. Gates could have recited some Dr Seuss tales and the outcome would have been the same.

[Bahbah]

Gates could have recited some Dr Seuss tales and the outcome would have been the same.

LOL. Maybe "Green Eggs and Ham."

[maica]

LOL! One of the top-selling children's books of all time. The anti-Bush media could even find fault with 'subversive' messages in those pages if they were so inclined to bash the nominee.