Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   


U.S. not winning in Iraq: Gates

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives
Author Message
JesusLopezViejo
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 570
Location: Tri-State

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:57 pm    Post subject: U.S. not winning in Iraq: Gates Reply with quote
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Robert Gates, President George W. Bush's choice to take over the Pentagon, said on Tuesday America was not winning in Iraq and warned that the Middle East could explode into violence.

The Senate Armed Services Committee voted unanimously to approve Gates as Defense Secretary after the former CIA director's testimony. Gates said Bush wanted him to take a fresh look at the war and that all options were on the table.

Asked by Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan if the United States was winning in Iraq, Gates replied: "No, sir."

Gates was less forthcoming on how he thought U.S. fortunes in Iraq could be improved, saying he wanted to consult first with military commanders and others.

Gates' nomination now goes to the full Senate, where he is also expected to win easy approval.

"America got a good look at this extraordinary nominee," armed services committee chairman John Warner, a Virginia Republican, said in announcing the panel's vote.

He said Gates would be "a strong adviser to the president of the United States."

In the more than three years since U.S.-led forces invaded Iraq, the conflict has claimed the lives more than 2,900 American troops and at least tens of thousands of Iraqis.

"Our course over the next year or two will determine whether the American and Iraqi people and the next president of the United States will face a slowly and steadily improving situation in Iraq and in the region or will face the very real risk of a regional conflagration," Gates told the hearing.

He said his impression that America was not winning was based largely on his work in the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that is to make recommendations to Bush on Wednesday. Gates served on the panel until he was nominated.

He said he believed the United States was not losing the war either "at this point."

Concerned about the impact of his remarks on troops in Iraq, he later stressed his comments on winning and losing related to overall efforts to stabilize Iraq, not to military combat.

"Our military forces win the battles that they fight," he said.

Bush nominated Gates to replace Rumsfeld -- an architect of the unpopular war -- after the president's Republican Party lost control of both houses of Congress in elections last month, driven largely by voter anger over Iraq.
Back to top
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2079

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:44 pm    Post subject: Re: U.S. not winning in Iraq: Gates Reply with quote
i have to like this guy at the moment. i didn't read the article but saw clips from is hearing. i loved it when he said something to the effect of i am not leaving my job at A&M to come to washington and keep my mouth shut.
Back to top
haywood
Newbie


Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
the first time he pisses off the libs, remember that.
Back to top
Anym
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 1288
Location: Jersey

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I reserve judgment till I see what he can do.
Back to top
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Location: Richmond, IN

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Honestly, the fact that the Bush administration is bringing in someone who is speaking against the line we've heard repeated for three years marks a dramatic shift in their strategy. Hard to say much about this guy yet, but I'll be watching where he takes this. Up to now, dissent and change of strategy have not exactly been primary factors of the Bush administration.
Back to top
JoeysAngyl
Newbie


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 45
Location: So Cali

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Being as the those that are close to George Jr. are republican, this is more than likely a strategy on their part to win back supporters after their loss of both house and senate in the recent election. I like the fact that this man was honest and was not trying to operate as a yes man, but I have yet to hae a firm opinion of him. It will take some time to see what he does before I can really form any sort of opinion on him.
Back to top
giventofly
Newbie


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm confused on what to make of this guy. I applaud, deeply, the Bush Administraton's effort for nominating someone to such a stature when they are critical of the Administration's policy, as we desperately need such a person as the Secretary of Defense in our current situation. I hate to say this, and pray it not true, but I am questioning whether he said that simply to get past Congress and into the seat. For those who said that's ridiculous, remember that it would be much harder for a man who was a copy of Rumsfield to get approval of the Senate given the current situation. I would hope someone wouldn't do that, but given what I've seen of the Administration in the past, I question whether they would suddenly switch their perspective and attitude towards such a thing. We'll have to see, and I'm not making accusations yet, as I said before I pray it not true, although it is something to be considered.
Back to top
corey michael
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 77
Location: Gulf Coast USA

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree with most of you, in that I am waiting to see how this is going to pan out. Of course, there are a few things about the guys past that are worth mentioning. One, in particular, is that he served as the Director of the CIA (91-93 if I remember correctly) during H.W. Bush's Presidency.

I went ahead and checked out Wikipedia's info on the guy.

He left the CIA in 93 and took the job at Texas A & M.

Personally, that is a little odd in itself. I'm not sure how I would feel going to a school where the President was recently Director of CIA.

Anyways, Gates was a member of the recently released report from the Iraq Study Group. I think most of you probably know how critical that was to the past policy in Iraq. No more "stay the course," just to put it short.

Oh, and Gates was also the first person picked to head Homeland Security when it was created, but he declined the job.

Just on a side note, that I thought was kind of odd, he has a Ph.D. in Russian and Soviet History from Georgetown. Who the hell gets a Ph.D. in Russian and Soviet History? Hmm...to each their own I guess.

Gates played a role in the Iran/Contra scandal.

The final report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters, issued on August 4, 1993, said that Gates "was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities. The evidence developed by Independent Counsel did not warrant indictment..." [10]

There is a very informative piece at Wikepedia. I know how people feel about that source sometimes, but this entry appears to be credible. Well, there are credible sources cited anyways.

If you are interested in learning more about the guys past, check it out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates
Back to top
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2079

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
corey michael wrote:
I agree with most of you, in that I am waiting to see how this is going to pan out. Of course, there are a few things about the guys past that are worth mentioning. One, in particular, is that he served as the Director of the CIA (91-93 if I remember correctly) during H.W. Bush's Presidency.

I went ahead and checked out Wikipedia's info on the guy.

He left the CIA in 93 and took the job at Texas A & M.

Personally, that is a little odd in itself. I'm not sure how I would feel going to a school where the President was recently Director of CIA.

Anyways, Gates was a member of the recently released report from the Iraq Study Group. I think most of you probably know how critical that was to the past policy in Iraq. No more "stay the course," just to put it short.

Oh, and Gates was also the first person picked to head Homeland Security when it was created, but he declined the job.

Just on a side note, that I thought was kind of odd, he has a Ph.D. in Russian and Soviet History from Georgetown. Who the hell gets a Ph.D. in Russian and Soviet History? Hmm...to each their own I guess.

Gates played a role in the Iran/Contra scandal.

The final report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters, issued on August 4, 1993, said that Gates "was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities. The evidence developed by Independent Counsel did not warrant indictment..." [10]

There is a very informative piece at Wikepedia. I know how people feel about that source sometimes, but this entry appears to be credible. Well, there are credible sources cited anyways.

If you are interested in learning more about the guys past, check it out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates


i hear you on this. all of these fools who bush is associated with are fucked up and they all serve a hidden agenda. anyone who directed the CIA has their hands dirty from at least several incidents. i do not trust anyone who was high in the ranks of the CIA, but at this point anything new will be an improvement.

i don't know if you heard this (and i have no source because i heard it during a debate on gates) but from what i gathered was that gates was a member of a think tank that was cited by the democrats to assist in pointing out how fucked up iraq is and how bush is in denial. with this, the democrats created a situation in which they could not block the nomination of gates because if they did they would be you know "flip flopping".

b.t.w. the only reason any of this is taking place is because of what happened in november. had the republicans retained control, we would still be seeing dick cheney on fox news telling us of how things have come to a point where it can only get better....agreed?
Back to top
corey michael
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 77
Location: Gulf Coast USA

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
jusdeadphunky wrote:
corey michael wrote:
I agree with most of you, in that I am waiting to see how this is going to pan out. Of course, there are a few things about the guys past that are worth mentioning. One, in particular, is that he served as the Director of the CIA (91-93 if I remember correctly) during H.W. Bush's Presidency.

I went ahead and checked out Wikipedia's info on the guy.

He left the CIA in 93 and took the job at Texas A & M.

Personally, that is a little odd in itself. I'm not sure how I would feel going to a school where the President was recently Director of CIA.

Anyways, Gates was a member of the recently released report from the Iraq Study Group. I think most of you probably know how critical that was to the past policy in Iraq. No more "stay the course," just to put it short.

Oh, and Gates was also the first person picked to head Homeland Security when it was created, but he declined the job.

Just on a side note, that I thought was kind of odd, he has a Ph.D. in Russian and Soviet History from Georgetown. Who the hell gets a Ph.D. in Russian and Soviet History? Hmm...to each their own I guess.

Gates played a role in the Iran/Contra scandal.

The final report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters, issued on August 4, 1993, said that Gates "was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities. The evidence developed by Independent Counsel did not warrant indictment..." [10]

There is a very informative piece at Wikepedia. I know how people feel about that source sometimes, but this entry appears to be credible. Well, there are credible sources cited anyways.

If you are interested in learning more about the guys past, check it out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates


i hear you on this. all of these fools who bush is associated with are fucked up and they all serve a hidden agenda. anyone who directed the CIA has their hands dirty from at least several incidents. i do not trust anyone who was high in the ranks of the CIA, but at this point anything new will be an improvement.

i don't know if you heard this (and i have no source because i heard it during a debate on gates) but from what i gathered was that gates was a member of a think tank that was cited by the democrats to assist in pointing out how fucked up iraq is and how bush is in denial. with this, the democrats created a situation in which they could not block the nomination of gates because if they did they would be you know "flip flopping".

b.t.w. the only reason any of this is taking place is because of what happened in november. had the republicans retained control, we would still be seeing dick cheney on fox news telling us of how things have come to a point where it can only get better....agreed?


agreed. As for the flip-flopping. Seriously, that is one of the most ridiculous ideas that has ever been fed to American by the media. The fact that people in this country now have negative connotations for "flip-flopping" is outrageous. It is as simple as this... In time, things change. When things change, it is often necessary for any politicians position to change. That is exactly what flip-flopping is, yet the people of this country have been brainwashed to think there is something wrong with changing one's mind. It is redonkulous!
Back to top
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2079

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
corey michael wrote:
jusdeadphunky wrote:
corey michael wrote:
I agree with most of you, in that I am waiting to see how this is going to pan out. Of course, there are a few things about the guys past that are worth mentioning. One, in particular, is that he served as the Director of the CIA (91-93 if I remember correctly) during H.W. Bush's Presidency.

I went ahead and checked out Wikipedia's info on the guy.

He left the CIA in 93 and took the job at Texas A & M.

Personally, that is a little odd in itself. I'm not sure how I would feel going to a school where the President was recently Director of CIA.

Anyways, Gates was a member of the recently released report from the Iraq Study Group. I think most of you probably know how critical that was to the past policy in Iraq. No more "stay the course," just to put it short.

Oh, and Gates was also the first person picked to head Homeland Security when it was created, but he declined the job.

Just on a side note, that I thought was kind of odd, he has a Ph.D. in Russian and Soviet History from Georgetown. Who the hell gets a Ph.D. in Russian and Soviet History? Hmm...to each their own I guess.

Gates played a role in the Iran/Contra scandal.

The final report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters, issued on August 4, 1993, said that Gates "was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities. The evidence developed by Independent Counsel did not warrant indictment..." [10]

There is a very informative piece at Wikepedia. I know how people feel about that source sometimes, but this entry appears to be credible. Well, there are credible sources cited anyways.

If you are interested in learning more about the guys past, check it out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates


i hear you on this. all of these fools who bush is associated with are fucked up and they all serve a hidden agenda. anyone who directed the CIA has their hands dirty from at least several incidents. i do not trust anyone who was high in the ranks of the CIA, but at this point anything new will be an improvement.

i don't know if you heard this (and i have no source because i heard it during a debate on gates) but from what i gathered was that gates was a member of a think tank that was cited by the democrats to assist in pointing out how fucked up iraq is and how bush is in denial. with this, the democrats created a situation in which they could not block the nomination of gates because if they did they would be you know "flip flopping".

b.t.w. the only reason any of this is taking place is because of what happened in november. had the republicans retained control, we would still be seeing dick cheney on fox news telling us of how things have come to a point where it can only get better....agreed?


agreed. As for the flip-flopping. Seriously, that is one of the most ridiculous ideas that has ever been fed to American by the media. The fact that people in this country now have negative connotations for "flip-flopping" is outrageous. It is as simple as this... In time, things change. When things change, it is often necessary for any politicians position to change. That is exactly what flip-flopping is, yet the people of this country have been brainwashed to think there is something wrong with changing one's mind. It is redonkulous!


but it worked
Back to top
JesusLopezViejo
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 570
Location: Tri-State

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
corey michael wrote:
jusdeadphunky wrote:
corey michael wrote:
I agree with most of you, in that I am waiting to see how this is going to pan out. Of course, there are a few things about the guys past that are worth mentioning. One, in particular, is that he served as the Director of the CIA (91-93 if I remember correctly) during H.W. Bush's Presidency.

I went ahead and checked out Wikipedia's info on the guy.

He left the CIA in 93 and took the job at Texas A & M.

Personally, that is a little odd in itself. I'm not sure how I would feel going to a school where the President was recently Director of CIA.

Anyways, Gates was a member of the recently released report from the Iraq Study Group. I think most of you probably know how critical that was to the past policy in Iraq. No more "stay the course," just to put it short.

Oh, and Gates was also the first person picked to head Homeland Security when it was created, but he declined the job.

Just on a side note, that I thought was kind of odd, he has a Ph.D. in Russian and Soviet History from Georgetown. Who the hell gets a Ph.D. in Russian and Soviet History? Hmm...to each their own I guess.

Gates played a role in the Iran/Contra scandal.

The final report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters, issued on August 4, 1993, said that Gates "was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities. The evidence developed by Independent Counsel did not warrant indictment..." [10]

There is a very informative piece at Wikepedia. I know how people feel about that source sometimes, but this entry appears to be credible. Well, there are credible sources cited anyways.

If you are interested in learning more about the guys past, check it out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates


i hear you on this. all of these fools who bush is associated with are fucked up and they all serve a hidden agenda. anyone who directed the CIA has their hands dirty from at least several incidents. i do not trust anyone who was high in the ranks of the CIA, but at this point anything new will be an improvement.

i don't know if you heard this (and i have no source because i heard it during a debate on gates) but from what i gathered was that gates was a member of a think tank that was cited by the democrats to assist in pointing out how fucked up iraq is and how bush is in denial. with this, the democrats created a situation in which they could not block the nomination of gates because if they did they would be you know "flip flopping".

b.t.w. the only reason any of this is taking place is because of what happened in november. had the republicans retained control, we would still be seeing dick cheney on fox news telling us of how things have come to a point where it can only get better....agreed?


agreed. As for the flip-flopping. Seriously, that is one of the most ridiculous ideas that has ever been fed to American by the media. The fact that people in this country now have negative connotations for "flip-flopping" is outrageous. It is as simple as this... In time, things change. When things change, it is often necessary for any politicians position to change. That is exactly what flip-flopping is, yet the people of this country have been brainwashed to think there is something wrong with changing one's mind. It is redonkulous!


I agree with your statement wholeheartedly.
Back to top
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Add to My Yahoo!

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites