Robert Gates' Confirmation Hearings

[Frances Bavier]

Has there ever, in the history of the United States, been a more certain outcome for a nominee?

 

I'm sure that there will be some political posturing (God knows we couldn't do without it), but in the big picture, Gates has to be considered a stone cold lock to be nominated.

 

 

 

Frances

[Hearsay]

Everybody supports him and he is a solid candidate from the standpoint of his resume.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Everybody supports him and he is a solid candidate from the standpoint of his resume.

In DC and the world of politics, is this relevant????

[H]

He's a straight talker, which is a major departure for the Bush cabinet. He admitted in his confirmation statements that he didn't believe the U.S. was winning the war in Iraq and speculated that, given another opportunity the administration would not make the same decisions regarding troop strength at the onset of the war. It'll be interesting to watch Tony Snow try to spin Gates' comments as a validation of President Bush's war leadership.

 

They're probably tearing the White House apart right about now looking for a leash and a muzzle for this guy...

[Diamond Dandy]

Even though he has been known to cherry pick intelligence, ie Mandella is a communist....and did not shine in the Iran Contra fiasco....he looks like a million dollar man in contrast to what we currently have.

[Frances Bavier]

... It'll be interesting to watch Tony Snow try to spin Gates' comments as a validation of President Bush's war leadership....

 

You have to hand it to Tony Snow. He's nothing, if not a "good soldier".

 

His spin started the very next morning, when he downplayed the statement by Gates that "we are not winning in Iraq", while stressing (repeatedly) that he did not say that we are losing the war, either.

 

At some point, this administration is going to have face the fact that Iraq is a disaster of the first magnitude, on virtually every level. Denying reality, and spinning the facts are not going to solve this problem.

 

This is like watching a car wreck in slow motion - except that we are inside the car.

 

 

Frances

[Bandit29]

A FREE Iraq is going to be a great place.

[Frances Bavier]

A FREE Iraq is going to be a great place.

 

Yes it will.

 

And just as soon as they finish killing each other in this headlong grab for power in the vacuum that we have created, I'm sure that whichever faction wins will install a duly elected government that will rule in the finest example of democracy.

 

This is exactly the same situation that is being played out in the streets of Mogadishu. These people do not want peace - they want power. And they are willing to slaughter their countrymen to get it.

 

 

Frances

[Booge]

Yes it will.

 

And just as soon as they finish killing each other in this headlong grab for power in the vacuum that we have created, I'm sure that whichever faction wins will install a duly elected government that will rule in the finest example of democracy.

 

This is exactly the same situation that is being played out in the streets of Mogadishu. These people do not want peace - they want power. And they are willing to slaughter their countrymen to get it.

 

 

Frances

 

So the right thing to do as far as the weak are concerned is to get out of their way so we don't get anyone hurt, and let the slaughter continue...

[H]

A FREE Iraq is going to be a great place.

 

So will cars that get 5000 miles per gallon, never break down, and cost $2.99. I doubt we'll ever see either.

[Frances Bavier]

So the right thing to do as far as the weak are concerned is to get out of their way so we don't get anyone hurt, and let the slaughter continue...

 

At this point, I don't think we can stop the weak from getting slaughtered. We didn't stop it in Bosnia, we didn't stop it in Chechnya, we can't stop it in Mogadishu (a small city, relatively speaking), and we aren't going to stop it in Iraq. Ultimately, they live there, and will continue to do so, long after we are gone.

 

I think our goal should be to get our people out of harm's way, while the Iraqis sort it out for themselves.

 

 

 

Frances

[Booge]

At this point, I don't think we can stop the weak from getting slaughtered. We didn't stop it in Bosnia, we didn't stop it in Chechnya, we can't stop it in Mogadishu (a small city, relatively speaking), and we aren't going to stop it in Iraq. Ultimately, they live there, and will continue to do so, long after we are gone.

 

I think our goal should be to get our people out of harm's way, while the Iraqis sort it out for themselves.

 

 

 

Frances

 

We can't stop any abominations from happening, we can't win any wars (just read this quote from G Clooney lol...) we can't secure our borders...Dems are notoriously weak on national defense...why don't we just fire all these people in the military, since they serve no purpose...

 

I think Dems want the military to be yet another government handout...

[H]

So the right thing to do as far as the weak are concerned is to get out of their way so we don't get anyone hurt, and let the slaughter continue...

 

Another stunning oversimplification of the situation. Do you think the 71% of Americans who now oppose Bush's handling of Iraq believe that interceding in the sectarian savagery is a legitimate justification for further American bloodshed?

 

It's time for an end to the simplistic, naive foreign policy views that got us bogged down in Iraq in the first place. If Bush and his handlers had had a 10% awareness of the complex realities of Iraq and the Middle East, he never would have been foolish enough to start this war.

[H]

We can't stop any abominations from happening, we can't win any wars (just read this quote from G Clooney lol...) we can't secure our borders...Dems are notoriously weak on national defense...why don't we just fire all these people in the military, since they serve no purpose...

 

I think Dems want the military to be yet another government handout...

 

 

Rush Limbaugh used to say that the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. He doesn't say that any more because the President he is carrying water for has given the overstretched military a much different mission (i.e. trying to police a failed state in a civil war). In 2000, while he was campaigning, W told us no nationbuilding. Why are we now trying to nationbuild? Dare I use the term flipflopper?

[Frances Bavier]

We can't stop any abominations from happening, we can't win any wars (just read this quote from G Clooney lol...) we can't secure our borders...Dems are notoriously weak on national defense...why don't we just fire all these people in the military, since they serve no purpose...

 

I think Dems want the military to be yet another government handout...

 

As a Democrat, I disagree. I think that if we wanted to, we could easily whip the entire nation of Iraq with one aircraft carrier tied behind our back. Why don't we? Oh yeah - in November, we said that we don't want to.

 

On the other hand, wiping out half of the civilian population of Iraq doesn't seem like it would garner us much goodwill in todays world. In all honesty, I think even W realizes this. Without question, he has had three years to do as he wishes, with virtually no checks. If he had wanted to conquer Iraq, he could have done so. This tells me that even W realized that the cost of doing so was too high. Unfortunately, his ego wouldn't (and apparently, still won't) allow him to admit that he had his head in his backside when he decided to invade a sovereign nation without provocation.

 

At this point, not only has the rest of the world told him he's wrong, the people of this country have told him he's wrong, a bipartisan committee has told him he is wrong, it would appear that even Rumsfeld was trying to tell him he's wrong.

 

I'm not sure when, but I'm hoping that before too long, this highly educated, successful businessman will look around and see that he's the only one still thumping on the drums of war.

 

 

Frances