posted on December 5, 2006 10:13:18 AM new
Ask if we were winning the war in Iraq, Gates replies, "No".
Good start. But then no one could be worse than Rummydummy. The Democrats are for this guy, too......obstructing nothing....
Old Names, Old Scandals
Robert Gates was a controversial figure in the Iran-contra affair. Will his Reagan-era activities hamper his confirmation as Rumsfeld’s successor?
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 5:56 p.m. CT Nov 8, 2006
Nov. 8, 2006 - By choosing Robert Gates as his new Defense secretary, President George W. Bush is once again turning to a trusted warhorse from his father’s administration. But the Gates nomination also could remind the new Democratic Congress about controversies from the George H.W. Bush era as well.
Gates was investigated during the late 1980s and 1990s by independent counsel Lawrence Walsh over whether Gates had told the truth about the Iran-contra affair, which occurred during his tenure as deputy to Ronald Reagan’s CIA director, William Casey. Questions about Gates's knowledge of secret arms sales to Iran—and the diversion of proceeds to support the Nicaraguan contras—caused Gates to withdraw his nomination to succeed Casey as CIA director in 1987.
Gates was again nominated by President George H.W. Bush to be CIA chief in 1991, setting off an intense and spirited confirmation hearing in which charges and countercharges about Iran-contra flared anew. Gates also was publicly accused by former CIA subordinates of slanting intelligence about the Soviet threat—a criticism that evokes an eerie parallel to accusations hurled against the current Bush administration over its handling of pre-war intelligence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to Al Qaeda.
After months of partisan wrangling and debate, Gates was confirmed as CIA director in November 1991 and served in that capacity until the end of the first President Bush’s term in January 1993. He later served as interim dean of the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and, after that, as president of Texas A&M, where both the school of government and the Bush library are located. After Congress passed "intelligence reform" legislation in 2004 creating the post of a national intelligence director to coordinate the activities of feuding intelligence agencies, the White House approached Gates to see if he wanted to become the first new intelligence czar. But on that occasion, Gates turned George W. Bush down.
Bush today praised Gates as a “steady, solid leader who can help make the necessary adjustments in our approach to the current challenges.” And indeed some former associates describe Gates as a savvy and seasoned bureaucratic veteran who is almost certain to establish a more co-operative relationship with the uniformed services and other agencies.""""
posted on December 5, 2006 03:24:02 PM new
What do you expect from a appointed Aggie... "“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on December 5, 2006 05:27:31 PM new
We must ALWAYS be VERY aware...that what mingotree/crowfarm states....is RARELY the truth...the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
She often lies...as she has here again. tsk tsk tsk
BOTH Fox News and Chron.com reported this same thing:
"Asked directly by Levin whether the U.S. is winning in Iraq, Gates replied, "No, sir."
That response appeared to contradict Bush, who said at an Oct. 25 news conference, "Absolutely, we're winning."
Gates later said he believes the United States is neither winning nor losing, "at this point."
The WHOLE truth makes it sound quite a bit different....than only reporting PART of what Gates actually said.
So now we'll get to see just what this guy is made of. AND tomorrow the Iraqi Report is due to be made public....should be interesting to see which of their recommendations President Bush will agree with.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 5, 2006 05:54 PM ]
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 5, 2006 05:55 PM ]
posted on December 5, 2006 06:07:30 PM new
And once again, linduh will be unable to point out where I lied....keeps calling me a liar but has NEVER shown where I've lied, not once.
I not only heard Gates say what he did but saw him...it's video taped and shown on all stations.....so that makes linduh the liar as usual....but be kind to her...those dry drunks can be tough...
keep trying linduh...you still provide some mild entertainment....
[ edited by mingotree on Dec 5, 2006 08:33 PM ]
posted on December 5, 2006 07:03:03 PM new
Careful you don't pull a muscle with that stretch Linda. The bottom line, according to Gates, we're NOT winning.
Having said that, there's no way the President didn't know this was coming. This, in my opinion, is the White House's way of admitting a problem without the President ever having to admit a problem. Classic Bush.
____________________________________________
May 1, 2003, America brings "democracy" to Iraq. November 7, 2006, Iraq brings democracy to America.
posted on December 6, 2006 05:39:03 AM new
Linda--I know you think you are never wrong, but nobody is right all the time. Smart people realize that fact early on. Hope you are listening to the news this morning about the bi-partisan committee's recommendations regarding the war. Can't wait to hear your spin on it.
posted on December 6, 2006 07:25:21 AM new
"The US now has a secretary of defense who knows that we are not winning in Iraq, who wants to do something about it, and who doesn't think nuking Iran is just a dandy idea. Although his involvement in Iran-Contra dogged Robert Gates in the build-up to the confirmation hearings, it did not emerge as a big issue. It may be that by now having a SecDef who once was involved in selling US weapons to Khomeini and who therefore has a potential back channel to leaders in Tehran, is not seen as such a bad thing. Let's see if Gates can finally redeem university presidents who enter high federal office, after Woodrow Wilson gave them a bad name."
posted on December 6, 2006 10:48:50 AM new
Juan Cole???? ROFLOL......kind of like your koz. Both not on Americas side. That must be why helen loves them so much.
=============
You all just keep your panties on now.
OUR C-I-C will be making the FINAL decision.
Live with it.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Linda, Your ROTFLOL attack against a good American like Juan Cole was expected.
Anti-American describes YOU.
By offering to translate, publish and distribute American thought and literature and promote American studies in the Middle East, Juan Cole hopes to increase understanding of America and our real ideals.
The project is non profit and will be a charitable foundation.
The project will begin with a selected set of passages and essays by Thomas Jefferson on constitutional and governmental issues such as freedom of religion, the separation of powers, inalienable rights, the sovereignty of the people, and so forth.
I hope to have all the founding fathers translated—Madison, Franklin, Washington, Paine, and so on. I would also like to see works that treat issues in democracy and multi-culturalism. I cannot find in OCLC, an electronic catalogue of over 40 million books held in participating libraries, any Arabic translation of the major speeches and letters of Martin Luther King or of the works of Susan B. Anthony. Eventually it would be nice to see in Arabic a good solid book about, e.g., the history of the American Jewish community, and other important minority groups about which most Arabs know nothing.
Likewise, it would be nice to put into Arabic Western books about Iraq. Our Middle East Studies programs and university presses publish a great deal of interest to the Arab world, and yet little of it gets translated, and even where books are translated they sometimes take a long time to get into print.
Contributions will allow me to locate and fund qualified Arab translators, to arrange for printing (possibly in Baghdad), to subsidize the printing so as to ensure the book is affordable and that there is a paperback version, and to subsidize and ensure wide distribution, to bookstores, street vendors and libraries. Although we will definitely launch a web site and try to make things available on the internet, readers should remember that that is still a small and underdeveloped medium in the Middle East. Inexpensive and well-distributed paperbacks will have more impact at this point in time.
Eventually, if we can attract enough funding, it might also be possible to subsidize courses on American studies at Arab universities or even to endow some chairs. The translations of source material would then be available for use in the classroom as texts. It is especially important to begin offering Arab high school teachers some training in American studies so that they can work it into social studies and literature classes, e.g.
The Global Americana Institute and the translation project are non-partisan and welcome support from and cooperation with all persons committed to democratic principles and human rights.
The Institute also hopes to build on past such efforts, which it acknowledges, and for which it is grateful. We would like to help with distribution and reprinting of suitable works already published. There is a small US government translation project that has done some excellent work, but its backlist on Americana is just a handful of works and it is not clear that most of them could be bought at bookstores in most of the Arab world. There was also an important Social Science Research Council translation project headed by Steve Heydemann and Dan Brumberg and published in Arabic by Saqi Books, which paid special attention to modern political philosophy.
In the middle decades of the twentieth century and until 1977, the Franklin Book Program helped publish hundreds of books in the Middle East, including a few on American subjects, but few of these are still in print or widely available. Franklin’s main emphasis was on fostering an independent book industry, and translations of Americana were a small part of its interest in the region. Some of the works it supported, such as `Abbas Mahmud al-`Aqqad’s biography of Benjamin Franklin, would be worthwhile republishing, assuming rights can be acquired.
Among our main goals, which I think are distinctive, is the formation of a large corpus of Americana in Middle Eastern languages, maintaining them in print and available inexpensively, and ensuring continued distribution and availability.
posted on December 6, 2006 11:35:37 AM new
As usual no spine, no brain, it's a wonder linduh can sit upright!
Anyone, according to our resident Fascist, who doesn't goose-step in tune to the prez is anti-American....what a cop out....hasn't the courage to admit she erred in calling me a liar (once again), and was wrong about Gates, so she resorts to her standard blab, "anybody who doesn't agree with me is anti-American."
posted on December 6, 2006 11:53:45 AM new
I've read most of what is written here and I've yet to see Linda substantiate her repeated claim that you or anyone else is a liar.
Now, she is focused on panties and if they are being worn or not....a strange interest, especially for an elderly woman.
posted on December 6, 2006 12:01:22 PM new
Linda, when asked specifically if he thought we were winning the war, Gates said "no"! After the break for lunch he came back and said, "we were neither winning nor losing". What he meant with that statement was, the troops win every battle they're in, but we aren't winning the war. There is a difference.
I'm sure he got a talking to from someone during the lunch break. But, that doesn't change his original answer of "no".
Yes, we will have to wait until Bush comes forward with what he thinks. But, don't hold out hope that it will be, "stay the course". He's already lost that battle, and our country, our citizens, and the rest of the world won't let him continue on that road.
You and he will have to admit and accept not many are listening to him anymore. He will not have the final decision. Of course he'll make it sound that it was to save face, and give his hangers on (like you) to say what a good president he is.
Why can't you finally say here and now, that this war has failed, and there has to be more talking and less gun fire. I know you and the neocons hate negotiating, but this has to be one of the major changes. When your children were young, did you hit them first or try to talk to them, when they misbehaved?
posted on December 6, 2006 12:03:46 PM new
She's awfully quiet today. Must be listening to the reports about the bi-partisan study group--5 dems-5 repubs, who offered 79 recommendations to Bush. Hope he is not as thick-headed as Linda and will actually listen to someone else's opinion. She's probably searching frantically for C & P's to spin this very critical report.
posted on December 6, 2006 12:14:33 PM newNow, she is focused on panties and if they are being worn or not....a strange interest, especially for an elderly woman.
Last year this time it was the hair dye. Maybe this year in order to get a date she's gonna try the Britney Spears thing?
posted on December 6, 2006 12:57:40 PM new
"What HE MEANT by that statement was".....
ROFLMHO that YOU would EVER think I'd believe YOUR interpretation of what HE MEANT
....I'll take what HE ACTUALLY SAID.
Sure you won't mind. Liberals have GREAT distortion abilities....always have.
OUR C-I-C will be making the FINAL decision. Live with it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 6, 2006 01:05 PM ]
posted on December 6, 2006 01:02:04 PM new
hellen said, in part: I've read most of what is written here and I've yet to see Linda substantiate her repeated claim that you or anyone else is a liar.
No surprise there. Heck...each and everytime you continue to point out that America has such a terrible infant mortality rate....I continue to post the FACTS. You still repost your continuing MISCONCEPTIONS.....and can't grasp WHY the numbers don't tell the whole story.
I doubt since you can't 'get' that little message....that you'd EVER see others as misleading/false/half truths or out and out lies either.
BLIND.....in denial....that's where YOU live helen.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 6, 2006 01:13:34 PM new
OK Linda, this is what he actually said.
"Our military wins the battles that we fight," Gates said. "Where we're having our challenges, frankly, are in the areas of stabilization and political developments and so on." He said other federal agencies should do more in Iraq."
What is your interpretation of what he said, Linda?
posted on December 6, 2006 01:45:51 PM new
already stated when I pointed out how mingo was only doing a typical 'leftie' job of reporting only HALF of what he actually said.
The liberals do just as the liberal press does....either out and out lies...or only gives half truths...which usually gives one a totally FALSE view on what actually occurred.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 6, 2006 01:55:52 PM new
Oh come on Linda, I'm sure you watched him live, as I did, or you read what he said. Even Fox news showed clips. It would be impossible to post the whole transscript for you.
I know you just go on like this to argue. But, still how would you interpret just that one paragraph that were his own words.
There is nothing stopping you to quote anything he said, for debate. He was pretty forthright and open as far as I could see.
posted on December 6, 2006 02:34:14 PM new
Looks like there may well be MILLIONS of anti-war voters who are going to be REAL pissed with the dem party/liberal leaders.
I remember telling dems/liberals here that IF their party won....we weren't going to be doing anything like 'cutting and running' THEY wanted their party to support. And now....what do we see? That I was AGAIN correct.
All those who HEARD the dem leaders saying we NEEDED to GET OUT OF IRAQ IMMEDIATELY....and even got people to vote for them BECAUSE of that FALSE promise.....can NOW see the truth. They LIED.
Now...that they've gained power are they calling for us to 'cut and run'???? LOL LOL LOL Nope...they're calling for MORE troops.
Funny how that always works out that way with a party who promises one thing and then actively works towards another. tsk tsk tsk
'We Can't Afford to Leave'
As the debate over Iraq intensifies, leading Democrat Silvestre Reyes is calling for the deployment of more U.S. troops.
Web Exclusive
By By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Dec. 5. 2006 -
In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to "dismantle the militias."
The soft-spoken Texas Democrat was an early opponent of the Iraq war and voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade that country. That dovish record got prominently cited last week when Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi chose Reyes as the new head of the intelligence panel.
But in an interview with NEWSWEEK on Tuesday, Reyes pointedly distanced himself from many of his Democratic colleagues who have called for fixed timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Coming on the eve of tomorrow's recommendations from the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission, Reyes's comments were immediately cited by some Iraq war analysts as fresh evidence that the intense debate over U.S. policy may be more fluid than many have expected.
[Read the Iraq Study Group Report]
"We're not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies," Reyes said. "We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq . We certainly can't leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan" was before the 2001 invasion by the United States.
Reyes also stressed that there needed to be greater "political accountability" demanded of the Iraqi government.
But on the core issue of the U.S. commitment, Reyes-a Vietnam War veteran who partially lost his hearing in that conflict-even compared his position to that of another Vietnam vet, Sen. John McCain, a staunch supporter of the Iraq war. Like Reyes, McCain also has called for an increase in U.S. troop strength.
When asked how many additional troops he envisioned sending to Iraq, Reyes replied: "I would say 20,000 to 30,000-for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 6, 2006 02:41 PM ]
posted on December 6, 2006 02:47:42 PM new
Look what gates OPINION is doesn't matter ANY MORE than what EVERYONE'S opinion/suggestions mean.
The fact remains....EVERYONE has opinions on what would be best to be done.
What YOU fail to grasp...and why I don't wish to spend large amounts of time discussing gates....is because the FINAL decision REMAINS in the hands of our C-I-C.
HE will take ALL recommendations...ALL reports...from SEVERAL different agencies...including the Pentagon and HE will make the final decision. He hasn't SEEN/read ALL the reports yet...they're NOT all in yet.
Gates works FOR our CIC....you appear to be overlooking that FACT. Gates will make 'recommendations' he WILL NOT make the final decision. The President will.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 6, 2006 02:57:49 PM new
Looks like the Iraqi leaders are none too happy with the Iraq report either. How surpising.
The liberals continue to force Iraqi leaders into the 'waiting' arms of Iran and Syria by their continued actions/blather about the US not continuing to support their Nation until they can by themselves.
Think an Iraq that turns to Iran and Syria are going to HELP things in the ME? LOL I hope no one is STUPID enough to believe that.
===
'This is unfair' say Iraqis on US panel threat
Dec 06 1:35 PM US/Eastern
Associated Press
A call for President George W. Bush to reduce US support to Iraq if Baghdad fails to improve security drew a sour response from Iraqi politicians, who said Washington had an obligation to back their government.
"The US calls itself an occupying force in Iraq and, according to the Geneva Conventions, if you are an occupier then you are responsible for the country," said parliamentarian Mahmud Othman, a Kurd.
"They have no right to to do this. This is unfair."
Bassim Ridha, a top advisor to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, said the White House has to support Baghdad "all the way".
"If they do not support the government then it will look as if they do not do what they preach," Ridha said. "We need their support to go forward."
A high-level, bipartisan panel urged Bush Wednesday to act to halt a "grave and deteriorating" crisis in Iraq by holding talks with Iran and Syria and starting to withdraw US combat forces.
The report said Washington must step up action -- including the threatened reduction of political, military and economic support -- to make the Iraqi government improve security.
Haidar al-Abadi, a member of Maliki's Dawa party and close associate to the prime minister, said most of the panel's recommendations, including a dialogue with Iran and Syria and increased training for Iraqi security forces, had been expected.
But the threat to reduce support was new.
"We were told there would not be pressure as such," said Abadi. "In our dialogue with the US administration, we said that we would work together."
While recognized US concerns over where its money goes, he emphasized that this was everyone's fight.
"We are all in the same boat; we are not fighting only internal criminals but we are fighting international terrorism," Abadi said. "We need support for that."
The Iraq Study Group also proposed a major drawdown of US troops in Iraq, including the withdrawal by 2008 of all combat brigades not necessary for force protection.
Not all lawmakers saw the report in a negative light, with one even saying it gives an opportunity for the government to address the grievances of its fractious components.
"There are measures, I think, that if Maliki commits to, will spare it from these threats of withdrawing support," said Zhafer al-Ani of the Sunni Iraqi Concord Front, the largest Sunni bloc in Iraqi parliament.
Despite being part of the national unity government, Sunnis have accused Maliki and his fellow Shiites of running the country in an sectarian manner, and of freezing them out of the decision-making process.
Ani detailed a series of measures the government could take to address Sunni grievances, which he said would go a long way to meeting the recommendations of the study group.
"Most importantly, the Iraqi government in its decisions, needs to show a national face and not a sectarian one," he said.
Even before the report came out, the prime minister of the Kurdish autonomous region, Nechirvan Barzani, dismissed its significance -- at least for Kurds.
"None of the people in the Iraqi Study Group have ever visited the Kurdish region," he said in a press conference just hours before the reports release.
"They haven't asked us about our opinion so we think there will be great shortcomings in the report."
On Tuesday, Maliki announced plans to resume efforts at achieving national reconciliation and for holding a regional conference -- two key recommendations of the report.
However, since taking office, Maliki has issued a number of calls for national reconciliation, and the Arab League has had a conference in the works for well over a year that has never materialized.
Relations between the sectarian and ethnic-based parties in the national unity government have become so strained, that journalists were barred last week from covering parliamentary debates to keep from publicizing the harsh exchanges.
In Baghdad itself, a six-month-long US-Iraqi operation to pacify the restive capital has yet to stem the grim daily diet of violence.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 6, 2006 03:02 PM ]
