Senate committee approves Gates nomination

CNN ^ | 12/05/06

[TexKat]

What Gates Told the Armed Services Committee - Power Line

As noted below, a lot of the reporting on Robert Gates's confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee will be misleading or trivial. But if you read the answers Gates supplied in advance to the Committee's questions, there is some interesting information. For example, Gates gives the President's enemies no comfort on the decision to go to war in Iraq (p. 13):more...

[TexKat]

The reporter inserts this comment into the story, yet doesn't question whether democrats' actions and comments the past three years aren't meant to demoralize the troops? Unbelievable!

I heard that question put to Maj. Gen. William Caldwell about an hour ago. I will post the transcript of his response when it comes up on the web.

[TexKat]

Bush nominates ‘realist’ to Defense

Robert Gates, President Bush’s nominee for secretary of defense, is in the “realist” camp that advised against war in Iraq.
Gates served as CIA director under Bush’s father and was close then to the elder Bush’s secretary of state, James Baker, and national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft.

Both men are known for their opposition to the broad Bush administration goals of democratizing Iraq and the region.

Jewish insiders close to the Bush administration said that Gates was chosen because of his contrast with Donald Rumsfeld, the neoconservative whose six years as defense secretary are coming to an end in the wake of the repudiation of Bush’s Iraq policy in the midterm congressional election.

Bush emphasized Gates’ moderation in announcing the nomination on Wednesday, a day after the election.

Gates “knows that the challenge of protecting our country is larger than any political party, and he has a record of working with leaders of both sides of the aisle to strengthen our national security,” he said.

http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=5496

[TexKat]

‘We Can’t Afford to Leave’ - Newsweek

As the debate over Iraq intensifies, leading Democrat Silvestre Reyes is calling for the deployment of more U.S. troops.more...

[xzins]

See my #33.

[Adiemus]

If you say we are winning, it is easy to be complacent. When you get the attitude we ar elosing, it usually helps justify more extreme action.

I sure hope you are right. An all-out offensive is badly needed before Iran takes over Iraq, as it is doing in Lebanon. I hope this guy has the balls to do it.

[RetiredArmy]

So, I guess by that thinking we are in TIE or something?? If you ain't winning the damned war, you are losing it. THERE ARE NO TIES!

[graf008]

There are stalemates.

[P-Marlowe]

Pres. Bush is my guy. I've supported him when others wouldn't. I special-pleaded for him on immigration (I was proven wrong by events.) I supported Harriet Miers as a judicial choice. (She's still a possibility if STevens kicks the bucket.) However, it is time to move on.

The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will. (Proverbs 21:1 KJV)

[hosepipe]

[ Senate committee approves Gates nomination ]

There you have it then... Gates is a ringer..
National Security is a joke..

[Clara Lou]

So, I guess by that thinking we are in TIE or something?? If you ain't winning the damned war, you are losing it. THERE ARE NO TIES!
With all due respect, we talk about "ties" when the game is over. This "game" isn't over. At this point, I don't see that we are winning [in the traditional sense], either. Progress toward victory has been stalled. Our troops win their battles, but there's more to this than victory on the battlefield.

[RetiredArmy]

You can't tell me squat about "troops" lady. I've been there, done that. In war and in peace. Try to convince someone else, you are failing in that attempt with me.