We're not winning in Iraq

**min0 lee** · 12-06-2006, 01:25 PM

Honest Gates stings Bush

We're not winning in Iraq, defense chief nominee says
BY RICHARD SISK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - Robert Gates, picked by President Bush to be the new defense secretary, contradicted his future boss yesterday by making it clear the U.S. is not winning the war in Iraq.

"No, sir," Gates replied when asked by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), "Do you believe that we are currently winning in Iraq?"
Gates again distanced himself from Bush when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked, "We are not winning in Iraq, is that correct?" Gates answered, "That is my view, sir."
His answers stood in stark contrast to Bush's bullish statements about the war. As recently as October the President declared, "Absolutely, we're winning."
Later during the hearing, Gates dialed back from his initial remarks by adding, "We're not winning, but we're not losing."
Gates, a 26-year veteran of the CIA, also took a few swipes at how the Pentagon and the White House have run the Iraq war, saying the U.S. invaded Iraq with "insufficient forces" and erred by disbanding the Iraqi Army and banning former Baath party members from government.
He also said he was open to talks with Iran and Syria.
Gates said he would be an independent voice at the Pentagon and that he didn't leave a cushy job at Texas A&M to be "a bump on a log."
The White House insisted Gates was not undermining the President's position on Iraq.
"I know you want to pick a fight between Bob Gates and the President, it doesn't exist," Press Secretary Tony Snow told reporters.
Gates even suggested Bush knows the obvious by telling Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), "I think that, frankly, if the President thought that the current tactics and strategy that we were employing were successful, he wouldn't be looking for fresh eyes and looking for new approaches and new tactics in our situation in Iraq."
The nominee's soft-spoken and brief responses to questions contrasted with the often hectoring and lecturing style of outgoing Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld.
Clinton praised Gates' candor as "something sorely lacking in the current occupant. We need a strong secretary of defense, but that doesn't mean strong-headed."
Republicans on the the Senate Armed Services Committee made little attempt to defend Bush or Rumsfeld, and the committee voted 24-0 to approve Gates. He could be confirmed by the full Senate as early as today.
Gates, 63, of Kansas said he was ready for the pressures of the new job, noting that he recently was approached by a woman who said, "I have two sons in Iraq. For God's sake, bring them home safe." Gates said, "Now that's pressure."
The Gates hearing came as the White House braced for the release of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report on a possible overhaul of U.S. strategy and tactics that could lead to troop withdrawals.
Gates acknowledged that study as well as others in the works and said wryly, "It's my impression that, frankly, there are no new ideas on Iraq." Former Secretary of State James Baker had lunch with Bush yesterday at the White House to discuss the report but did not give him a copy, White House aides said.

Originally published on December 6, 2006

**DOMS** · 12-06-2006, 01:56 PM

Nobody wins in the Middle East. It's like when I take a dump. "No one" in the toilet is going to win.

**BulkMeUp** · 12-06-2006, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by DOMS

Nobody wins in the Middle East. It's like when I take a dump. "No one" in the toilet is going to win.

GWB says he is winning in that toilet.

**DOMS** · 12-06-2006, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by BulkMeUp

GWB says he is winning in that toilet.

Well then, he's talking shit.

**BulkMeUp** · 12-06-2006, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by DOMS

Well then, he's talking shit.

He should know. He is upto his neck in it in Iraq

**jasone** · 12-06-2006, 02:59 PM

Of course we are winning the war. Just look at the score. Our troops are killing more bad guys than they are killing troops. In fact, we have found a way to turn the fanitical rags against each other. Now all we have to do is leave and watch them kill each other. BRILLIANT!!

**Dale Mabry** · 12-06-2006, 03:18 PM

As long as there is beer available to the masses, we are winning.

**Witmaster** · 12-06-2006, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

As long as there is beer available to the masses, we are winning.

I've always admired your optimistic viewpoints

**ALBOB** · 12-06-2006, 04:03 PM

Gates is trying to earn confirmation. He gets in front of the panel and tells them what he knows they want to hear so he can win that confirmation. No news here. Everybody can go home now.

**KelJu** · 12-06-2006, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by DOMS

Well then, he's talking shit.

Well played, sir!

**maniclion** · 12-06-2006, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by jasone

Of course we are winning the war. Just look at the score. Our troops are killing more bad guys than they are killing troops. In fact, we have found a way to turn the fanitical rags against each other. Now all we have to do is leave and watch them kill each other. BRILLIANT!!

I believe that was our tactic before when we were friends with Saddam while supplying arms to Iran...then another of our compadres whom we supported in Afghanistan realized "Hey we're being played here and started small attack s on Embassies, ships and flying jetliners into New York SkyScrapers and the Pentagram...

**BoneCrusher** · 12-06-2006, 04:26 PM

It's a pretty good bet if you bash BushCo you get the nod from the Dems ...

**goandykid** · 12-06-2006, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

It's a pretty good bet if you bash BushCo you get the nod from the Dems ...

It goes both ways.

**DOMS** · 12-06-2006, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

It's a pretty good bet if you bash BushCo you get the nod from the Dems ...

It's pretty much all they have going for them.

**goandykid** · 12-06-2006, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by DOMS

It's pretty much all they have going for them.

Yeah, taking the house and the senate doesn't really count.

**DOMS** · 12-06-2006, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by goandykid

Yeah, taking the house and the senate doesn't really count.

They underperformed. Based on past performance (of both groups), this last election they should have won more seats.

Bush could eat a baby live on national TV and the Dems still might lose the next election.

**maniclion** · 12-06-2006, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by DOMS

They underperformed. Based on past performance (of both groups), this last election they should have won more seats.

Bush could eat a baby live on national TV and the Dems still might lose the next election.

Hopefully to a Libertarian...

**goandykid** · 12-06-2006, 05:49 PM

I agree, I don't see the dems winning the presidential election, noone wants Hillary and Warner isn't well known.

Mccain is the current favorite IMO, Guiliani as his VP would be pretty sweet.

However, I do think Barack Obama will eventually win the presidency.

**maniclion** · 12-06-2006, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by goandykid

I agree, I don't see the dems winning the presidential election, noone wants Hillary and Warner isn't well known.

Mccain is the current favorite IMO, Guiliani as his VP would be pretty sweet.

However, I do think Barack Obama will eventually win the presidency.

Oprah will win the 2008 Presidency, Negrodamus says so!

**BigDyl** · 12-06-2006, 06:37 PM

I don't believe this report for a second, it's 100% liberal spin, and bush's mission has been righteous all along even if every single reason he gave for doing this is false.

**andyo** · 12-06-2006, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by BigDyl

I don't believe this report for a second, it's 100% liberal spin, and bush's mission has been righteous all along even if every single reason he gave for doing this is false.

Ok, Sean Hannity, give it a rest. We've known for a LONG time now that shit just wasn't going our way over there, things need to change for real. You wanna explain to your kids why we have 8 Trillion in debt still left to pay off 20 years from now?

Everyone who praises anything Bush has done is an utter moron, I know, cause I was once one myself. I voted for him the first time, I wouldn't be so retarded a second time. The only thing Bush convinces me of is that Fascism in this country is real, satan for sure is real, and that being a republican in this day and age ain't what it used to be.

**DOMS** · 12-06-2006, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by goandykid

However, I do think Barack Obama will eventually win the presidency.

Over his dead body.

**Witmaster** · 12-06-2006, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by BigDyl

I don't believe this report for a second, it's 100% liberal spin, and bush's mission has been righteous all along even if every single reason he gave for doing this is false.

Another intellectualy vapid moment brought to you by BigDyl

**DOMS** · 12-06-2006, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by Witmaster

Another intellectualy vapid moment brought to you by BigDyl

"Vapid" isn't the word, "vacuum" is. I swear that every time I read one of his posts, my IQ drops.

**jasone** · 12-06-2006, 09:37 PM

I don't understand the logic. Arabs in the name of their god hate the U.S. and Israel. So what do they do? They kill their own kind. If they hate non arabs then they should band together and fight the enemy they claim to be the infidel. Insted they blow up other muslims on their way to the mosque in the name of who?
They don't love their god, they just want an excuse to kill. If they can't kill our troops, they will kill each other.

**KelJu** · 12-06-2006, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by BigDyl

I don't believe this report for a second, it's 100% liberal spin, and bush's mission has been righteous all along even if every single reason he gave for doing this is false.

Good to see you again man, did you drop off of the face of the earth?

**clemson357** · 12-07-2006, 12:06 AM

If anything, I think Iraq teaches us that we need a more isolationist global military policy. I like swedens idea: "we don't give a fuck what you do, just don't fuck with us."

However, this does not mean we need to drastically cut the military as Clinton did. In fact, we probably wouldn't be in the situation we are now if the military had been in the position that Bush senior left it when Bush junior inherited it. If you cut the military for eight consecutive years, don't be surprised when even the strongest nation in the world cannot quash an uprising in a 3rd world country in the middle of the desert.

**goandykid** · 12-07-2006, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by DOMS

Over his dead body.

Most likely

**ZECH** · 12-07-2006, 07:36 AM

I think everyone is missing the point here. We have the capability to wipe them off the map. No sweat. But we aren't going to do that. That would give us a win though, right?
What I don't get is this. We are trying to train the Iraqi police force so they can take over and maintain control. The Iraqi leader Nuri Kamal al- Maliki has shown he is incapable of any control.
Abdul Aziz al- Hakim, a Shiite said after meeting earlier with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that "we have asked for the American forces to stay in Iraq" to help fight terrorists. We liberated them from a dictator and yet they keep fighting among themselves. How do you control a civil war? How can you bring a country under control that doesn't want it. They have been fighting since the beginning of time and they always will. They are crazy. I think we should just take the country over and control it. That is the only way you will stabilize the country and region and keep the oil flowing for the global economy.

**DOMS** · 12-07-2006, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by dg806

I think everyone is missing the point here. We have the capability to wipe them off the map.

And we should have.

Originally Posted by dg806

We liberated them from a dictator and yet they keep fighting among themselves. How do you control a civil war? How can you bring a country under control that doesn't want it. They have been fighting since the beginning of time and they always will. They are crazy.

Well said!

Originally Posted by dg806

I think we should just take the country over and control it. That is the only way you will stabilize the country and region and keep the oil flowing for the global economy.

I have to disagree with you here. It's just not worth it to take over. Both in terms of lives and money. It's better to just pull out, let the next dictator take over and buy the oil from him.

And from this point forward, all war waged by the US will be nothing more than bombing the shit out the enemy and going back home.

One of the largest problems the USA has it that, because of that pussy Clinton and GWB's stupid-ass attempt to rebuild in Iraq, the rest of the world doesn't fear us as much as they should. North Korea should be made an example of. We should annihilate the country in less than 24 hours and offer no help of any sort.

Thread: We're not winning in Iraq

Thread Tools

Display

We're not winning in Iraq

Similar Threads

Winning is winning

So who's winning THE TOURNAMENT?

Better than winning the lottery

What is a competition winning max?

Posting Permissions