Robert Gates won UNANIMOUS approval from a senate subcommittee to be voted on by the full senate for the position of Secratary of Defence. Extraordinary. His presentation was dramatically different from Bush and Rumsfeld, as quoted in this article by Reuters:
Out of context. This is not how it exactly went down. He initially answered a 'no' to 'are we winning?', but he reinterated that it's neither lose nor a victory at this point....The media, like AP/Reuter are screwing the full context of this quote. Now I don't know the full article your quoting from, but I find it distasteful not to put in the full context if it's present. AP also wrote an article (which had a title) that he said we're not winning. But obviously later-on they give a closer version of the truth. In fact you look at the Media at large, they're acting like morons....like usual. http://news.search.yahoo.com/search...inning&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8 But That's the media for you. Focusing on getting your eyes and not your mind. This is merely an opinion or perspective....and looks full of bias. Here's the other perspective. Again, ignore the title. http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003468542&imw=Y
At least he realises that there are major problems in Iraq and in all fairness he cannot possibly be as much of a dangerous crazy lunatic idiot as Rumsfeld was. I thank the lord for that. Now to get rid of the even more dangerous Cheney (ain't gonna happen) but there is no harm in a bit of wishful thinking.
Rick: you are correct. He altered his statement after lunch. My intention was not to promote the "not winning" aspect of his comments but to show the refreshingly different manner of responding to questions. I don't know if we are winning or losing. We are not moving forward. There is no evidence that the efforts we are making are bearing real fruit. While he is not yet a member of the administration his manner of responding was 100% different then that of the administration. One commentator, Tom Friedman, suggested we either need to devote 10 months or 10 years to Iraq, with 10 years suggesting the time frame necessary to see through a developed nation with a democracy and free of the sectarian violence going on. Gates went on to say that all the options are more or less out there on the table, there are no easy solutions, and that it will be tough work to move forward. All in all a much more honest and forthright approach.
I noticed that yesterday. I watched it live on TV. When I saw how dishonest the media was by deliberately reporting false information, I couldn't help but wonder if they watched the same hearings I watched. It's really shameful how low the media will go. Ironically, the ones who scream "think for yourself" and "you get your news from the media" are the one's whose positions most closely resemble the medias. That's always good for a chuckle
Not winning is the same as loosing in my book You really can't do either if the meaning victory hasn't been defined. Sounds like he may at least be a breath of fresh air though.
Don't tell me GTech is finally waking up to the fact that the mainstream media are constantly lying to us. If he is then there is definitely hope for others.
Would you say your positions on Iraq most resemble the media's? Be honest I have no doubt that certain media outlets lie quite frequently: http://floppingaces2.blogspot.com/ http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22391_Fauxtography_Updates&only http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770 http://newsbusters.org/node/6552
Okay, first of all, I genuinely enjoy the forthrightness of Mr. Gates (oy, I think of Bill every time I say that last name). However, wasn’t he speaking to a sub-commity of the house or senate, and giving long involved explanations at times? Normally when the president answers the question he has about 10 sentences he can use before he has to finish, and he’s lucky if 2 of them show up on the television news in context. As such, the president, speaking to a group of TV reporters, the commander of all of his forces, who may see that clip, must package the information and their opinion differently than someone trying to get the senate to confirm them. Still, it seems that George and his new Military right hand man have some differences of opinion… but ones that they can use to their advantage. You’ve got stability of command as the president is still the commander, but you have a new way of looking at things with a new advisor coming in. Still, with all of the non-military duties the President has to consider, perhaps he should take a lesson from Sun Tzu. “When the King does not know the troops are unable to advance, and orders them to advance, Disaster. When the King does not know the troops are unable to retreat, and orders them to retreat, disaster†I’m paraphrasing here, but the basic jest of things is that if the ruler does not steep himself in what the military is doing continuously, it is best he appoints a head general he trusts, and then keeps his nose out of actually ordering the troops around, instead discussing the state of affairs with the general.
I think he's just a smarter guy than Bush. A smarter guy doesn't rely on dogmas, but the practicality of any suggestion. Although I wouldn't say his goals are different from Bush's...I think Bush is realizing that he has to change a bit...there's no chose. I don't know. I think our perception is different. The historical view of Bush's comments and Gate's can get confusing. Is Gates a bit more likely to speak his mind in a better manner? I'm sure he is. I wouldn't say that Gate's is radical different from Bush's current opinion...afterall, he wouldn't have appointed him if he didn't see a similiar vision. Or we can do something similiar to what we did in Germany. Denazification (not that I promote it). Where we round up any militia, and put them in slave labor or give them to their sworn enemy. Many people didn't see that at the end of world war II, because it remained a secret (for the better part)...for twenty years. I don't think 10 months will be it, nor 10 years. Somewhere in the middle, leaning to the shorter amount. I do think we'll always have some presence, though. Yes, I think Gate's is a better option for the job.