Defense Secretary Nominee Gates is a Defeatist

December 5th 2006 | jveritas

[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.

[traditional1]

"Next time I'd like to see you use "cut and run" THREE times in one sentence!"cut and run, as the Democrats intend, will be implemented as soon as they unanimously cut and run with the cut and run Gate's confirmation.

Now, are you really the "Lunatic Fringe" as your screen name implies?

You are probably delusional enough to think the SEC has even a backup-capability to a Big Ten Conference team, too.

[lugsoul]

When did it happen? When did it become the case that simply saying something with enough decisiveness magically makes it so?

Saying we are winning in Iraq does not make it happen. Saying we are not does not prevent it from happening.

[Alter Kaker]

Cut and Run is now being supported by the new Defense Secretary

Bush could have just as easily appointed Carl Levin SecDef. I don't see a difference between their positions and we'd at least have had a chance of picking up the open Senate seat.

[bnelson44]

We are not winning in Iraq. He is coming on board to make sure we do. I don't read that as defeatism. Patton would have said the same thing... well, maybe a little more colorfully.

[Yo-Yo]

You prefer maybe this?

"ALL IS WELL!"

[traditional1]

"Bush could have just as easily appointed Carl Levin SecDef"

That's what Lunatic Fringe had hoped!

[bnelson44]

Where did Gates say anything about cutting and running?

[Lunatic Fringe]

By maintaining the current course, defeat is assured.

"[Somalia] started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests."

-Gov. George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

[gaijin]

This is just the beginning from Gates --he's completely uninspiring, and typifies W's judgement in appointees.

> Just wait.

[Alter Kaker]

President Bush is a Lincoln surrounded by McClellans.

President Bush is a McClellan surrounded by Lincolns. That's why he's throwing Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and John Bolton under the bus.

[RexBeach]

I can tell you this, Chruchill sure as hell didn't say the UK was losing the war during the Blitz. That's the point. Mr. Gates just laid a very big egg with regard to American morale in Iraq; and he just gave the terrorists a reason to cheer.

[Tallguy]

Defeatist? Why? Because he told the truth? Are you suggesting he lie?

Seems to me the Democrats would reject out-of-hand any SecDef designate who didn't toe their rhetorical line. I think that Gates may just be telling a Dem Senator what he wants to hear.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Or perhaps he is telling them what they want to hear? The guy is CIA.

[Lunatic Fringe]

The Gators are going to destroy OSU.

[billbears]

Didn't say all the things to make you feel warm and fuzzy? He's not a defeatist, he's a realist. It's about time the children are put to bed and the adults get back in charge. Good to see Gates as the nomination. The only thing that would be better would be to bring some of Reagan's staff back in. The ones that realized the idiocy of this campaign in the first place

There's no way to back out of Iraq now so best thing is to reduce the losses, get as much of a win out of it as possible (which won't be much), and turn it over to the Iraqis as quickly as possible. Get the troops home to defend and put an end once and for all to this spreading democracy nonsense. The Iraqis seemed quite happy with democracy and purple fingers a few months ago, if they want it it's up to them to keep it.

[NeoCaveman]

The voters have spoken.

They said 'we are a bunch of surrender monkeys"

[RobbyS]

Well, we are NOT winning in Iraq, as soldiers who have been there several times can tell you. On the other hand, we are not losing. The problem is the inability of the government of Iraq to take hold.

[Jim W N]

A half-truth is the same as a lie. We can certainly win in Iraq. All we need is the WILL to win. Resources and winning strategies would follow.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Then at least we would have Cheney in the White House, Rummy still at DOD, Porter Goss at CIA, Ashcroft at DOJ, and John Bolton at UN.

Great team! The only person missing from the line up is a new secretary of state. I hear that Pangloss might be available. He'd be perfect team player with that group.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Chruchill sure as hell didn't say the UK was losing the war during the Blitz. Gates didn't say we're 'losing' either.