The Gates of Defeat
Not a clever pun but apparently true. I just heard most of the testimony. A Defense Secretary designate open-minded as to the various avenues of appeasement. He'll listen to everyone, explore every possible means to defeat, and make his suggestions to the Commander In Chief. The buck stops there.
That's what I heard anyway. It was so extreme I have to conclude it was a performance: "These Democrats will believe anything they hear as long as it's what they want to hear. I'll get confirmed, then ignore what I said." That's got to be it. Or Bush nominated him because he intends to ignore everything Gates says...? He just doesn't want a public battle at this point...? I have to say this is politically "clever" beyond anything I can understand.
...Guess I will start posting again. It has been a month.
............................
I've read a little bit now. I have to say that Gates guy seems pretty dangerous. Take a look at what he said:
--"I will warn the president to consult with Democrats before changing Iraq policy."
--"I will be fearless --I repeat-- fearless, in giving advice to the president."
--"I face the monumental challenge of picking up the pieces from broken policies and mistaken priorities in the past few years."
Actually... that isn't what he said. Those were admonitions given to him by Senator Warner and Senator Levin. I just placed those quotes in his voice. What he did say, apropos of these matters, was this:
--"It is the president who will decide what, if any, changes are made in our approach."
--Bipartisanship is crucial so terrorists and insurgents "don't think we're going to walk away from this war on terrorism and so that they don't think it's going to be easy to start attacking us here at home because we're not willing to take them on abroad."
--And said: he would consult military commanders in the field and politicians back home... but would give "most serious consideration to the views of those who lead our men and women in uniform." And:
--"Our military forces win the battles that they fight. Our soldiers have done an incredible job in Iraq, and I'm not aware of a single battle that they have lost,"
And so forth. There was this extension of his remark after saying "No Sir" to the question: "Are we winning in Iraq?"
--"The situation is clearly much more complex than just the military action. The areas we are having our challenges, frankly, are principally in the areas of stabilization and political development and so on." Which is completely true.
In responding to questions by Senator Byrd: Do you support and attack or Iran? Do you support an attack on Syria? He answered in this manner, respectively:
--"I think that their capacity to potentially close off the Persian Gulf to all exports of oil, their potential to unleash a significant wave of terror both in, ah, in the Middle East and in Europe, and even here in this country is very real."
--"I think that it would give rise to significantly greater anti-Americanism than we have seen to date."
So, who says he's wrong?
I've only managed to read a limited amount of transcript, but if I ignore his milque toast manner, his refusal to say anything aggressive in terms of pursuing war, his absolute avoidance of any phrase that might tie a Democrat's underwear in knots; if I simply focus on the sense of his analysis, then I actually can't see anything he said that was wrong. As an example. When he said that to attack Syria would create anti American feeling in the region, that's true, but he didn't say "therefore we won't attack"; and he didn't say "But it would stabilize Lebanon, eliminate jihadist infiltration through Anbar Province, and embarrass Iran and suggest to them that they might be next." That would be to speak as a Hawk, and that absolutely was what he did not want to do. That doesn't mean he's not a hawk. It does mean that in terms of getting confirmed he's a diplomat.
My initial response in listening to his spoken presentation was that he had either to be lying or putting on a performance. From what I've read in text now I'm pretty certain it was a performance and that there was nothing in it of a lie but merely a refusal to broach any phrase that was "warlike". But nothing stated precluded war. Nothing stated necessitated surrender, appeasement, or even pull-back. He will be confirmed as bland but it's possible yet that he's bold. I suspect I'm more correct on this than I was on the election.
(11:52 PM)
That's what I heard anyway. It was so extreme I have to conclude it was a performance: "These Democrats will believe anything they hear as long as it's what they want to hear. I'll get confirmed, then ignore what I said." That's got to be it. Or Bush nominated him because he intends to ignore everything Gates says...? He just doesn't want a public battle at this point...? I have to say this is politically "clever" beyond anything I can understand.
...Guess I will start posting again. It has been a month.
............................
I've read a little bit now. I have to say that Gates guy seems pretty dangerous. Take a look at what he said:
--"I will warn the president to consult with Democrats before changing Iraq policy."
--"I will be fearless --I repeat-- fearless, in giving advice to the president."
--"I face the monumental challenge of picking up the pieces from broken policies and mistaken priorities in the past few years."
Actually... that isn't what he said. Those were admonitions given to him by Senator Warner and Senator Levin. I just placed those quotes in his voice. What he did say, apropos of these matters, was this:
--"It is the president who will decide what, if any, changes are made in our approach."
--Bipartisanship is crucial so terrorists and insurgents "don't think we're going to walk away from this war on terrorism and so that they don't think it's going to be easy to start attacking us here at home because we're not willing to take them on abroad."
--And said: he would consult military commanders in the field and politicians back home... but would give "most serious consideration to the views of those who lead our men and women in uniform." And:
--"Our military forces win the battles that they fight. Our soldiers have done an incredible job in Iraq, and I'm not aware of a single battle that they have lost,"
And so forth. There was this extension of his remark after saying "No Sir" to the question: "Are we winning in Iraq?"
--"The situation is clearly much more complex than just the military action. The areas we are having our challenges, frankly, are principally in the areas of stabilization and political development and so on." Which is completely true.
In responding to questions by Senator Byrd: Do you support and attack or Iran? Do you support an attack on Syria? He answered in this manner, respectively:
--"I think that their capacity to potentially close off the Persian Gulf to all exports of oil, their potential to unleash a significant wave of terror both in, ah, in the Middle East and in Europe, and even here in this country is very real."
--"I think that it would give rise to significantly greater anti-Americanism than we have seen to date."
So, who says he's wrong?
I've only managed to read a limited amount of transcript, but if I ignore his milque toast manner, his refusal to say anything aggressive in terms of pursuing war, his absolute avoidance of any phrase that might tie a Democrat's underwear in knots; if I simply focus on the sense of his analysis, then I actually can't see anything he said that was wrong. As an example. When he said that to attack Syria would create anti American feeling in the region, that's true, but he didn't say "therefore we won't attack"; and he didn't say "But it would stabilize Lebanon, eliminate jihadist infiltration through Anbar Province, and embarrass Iran and suggest to them that they might be next." That would be to speak as a Hawk, and that absolutely was what he did not want to do. That doesn't mean he's not a hawk. It does mean that in terms of getting confirmed he's a diplomat.
My initial response in listening to his spoken presentation was that he had either to be lying or putting on a performance. From what I've read in text now I'm pretty certain it was a performance and that there was nothing in it of a lie but merely a refusal to broach any phrase that was "warlike". But nothing stated precluded war. Nothing stated necessitated surrender, appeasement, or even pull-back. He will be confirmed as bland but it's possible yet that he's bold. I suspect I'm more correct on this than I was on the election.
(11:52 PM)
posted by mouse at 9:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home