take off your shoes...
Helps are on the way!
Posted on 12/05/2006 10:10:32 AM PST by jveritas
Based on what on what Defense Secretary nominee Mr. Gates has said so far in the Senate confirmation hearings, it is easy to conclude that he is a “Defeatist”. No matter how tough the situation is in Iraq he must not say in public that we are not winning the war in Iraq. That is totally demoralizing to our troops and will further embolden our enemies there like Al Qaeda, Iran, and Syria. Moreover the man has shown extreme ambiguity and uncertainty in his answers to many questions.
I doubt very much that he told the President that we are not winning in Iraq or else the President would not have nominated him. It may be too late to withdraw his nomination now, but our country and most importantly our brave troops deserve a better person to be the Secretary of Defense.
I am sure the White House called him and told to correct his stupid, false, and defeatist remark. Glad to know, that he knows who the boss is.
Fortunately, Gates just issued a statement in front of the Senate correcting his previous statement that "we are not winning". Please see post # 142.
This has to be some sort of a first, not making it through a half day of confirmation hearings, without issuing a retraction/clarification. Not a hopeful sign.
You realize this is simply a very nice way of saying, "We're winning all the battles. Just not the war."
We're losing in Iraq, but not because the military is unsuccessful. How reassuring.
Agree. I do not think I like Gates so far and I hope that I will be terribly wrong because being right here means that we are coming to a bigger problem than what we have now.
My gut says stick with Rumsfeld, if Gates is the alternative.
"I know. We are a decadent civilization. Might as well get it over with."
Maybe we should join those folks who protest at military funerals (sarcasm).
Of course, there are enemies in Iraq, which is why we need to be there. But they're not 'Iraq' or 'sectarian violence' or 'innocent people dying, including women and children' or other such nonsense, they're al-Qaeda and Iran (with whoever their proxy of the moment is), the members of Axis of Evil that remain to be dealt with. Simple, but not what most people hear or read in the "news".
Muslims killing Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere is not a problem, it's part of the solution, they've been doing it for centuries and as long as it keeps them from killing others, they should keep at it until they're tired in any particular part of the world (like Iraq or "Palestine").
The pace of gang war... er, 'sectarian violence', in Iraq is a bit slow, maybe that's what's frustrating, but WE are not losing THAT "war". If anything, it helps our intelligence and actions against al-Qaeda, in Iraq and elsewhere.
"Stabilization" of Iraq or Middle East is not the goal, and hasn't been since WOT started, winning is (or at least should be).
The academic has a lot to learn, I am afraid it is not time for someone to learn, it is a time of war, a time to act and lead, a time to fight and win. Still the President has the final say and he is the only Commander in Chief, however the President has enough problems on his hands and he does not need to correct his secretary of defense when the latter issue a defeatist statement as he did earlier today in the hearings.
The problem that if Rumsfeld stayed on he would have been paraded like a criminal from one investigation to another since the traitors control the Congress now. In other words, Rumsfeld would not have been able to conduct his role with efficiency as Secretary of Defense and in time of war.
Correct his statements?
If I said, "The car is not running", and later said, "While the car is not running, I don't mean that the mechanics have not been successful in their endeavors.", what would you take that to be? I can think of a number of words, but 'correction' isn't one of them.
Same as in Vietnam, the only way we can lose in Iraq, is if we (or the media) will convince ourselves that we did.
He screwed it up in this statement, I agree, and his correction is not strong enough. As I said the academic needs a lot to learn and it is not a time of learning, it is a time of war and winning the war.
Very well stated. I agree. Elections have consequences.
I've seen that argument put forth many times, but Rumsfeld is still Secretary of Defense, and will remain so until his successor jumps through all the appropriate hoops, not all of which should be held by the left. This Gates fellow would appear to have the soul and imagination of a career bureaucrat, and his nomination should not go through.
Do you know of any person, nominated by Pres. Bush, who was able to be confirmed by giving direct answers?
Right on! That's why he resigned (not fired as some suggested), and that's exactly why Gates is in there, to be a diplomat for "show trials", not an acting SecDef.
Condi is in the same mode, when she was Bush's NSA it was personal non-public advice, now that she is in State, she publicly tells everybody what they want to hear (they call it "diplomacy", particularly when she has to buy time when dealing with weaklings like Olmert), but privately she is part of the overall ME strategy.
Rumsfeld.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.