Our potentially new Defense Secretary

ThumbingMyWay32

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

He's one of Bush Snr's men, keeping supervision over the neocons (of which he isn't one). He's actually a professional, in marked contrast with Rumsfeld.

Gates kept his hands clean during the Iran contra scandal, when many around him fell, and he is a man who understands Intelligence (not necessarily a pre-requisite for becoming CIA Director).

Bush hasn't any choice but to go back to his father's political peers, for help and experience. The neocons are fucked.


Edit: Forgot my main point. He's there, to engineer a withdrawal. In the meantime, Dubya will be told to shut up, and catch up with Rove in the reading competition.

Yay! A Bush joke!

Cosmo

I tend to agree with Finsbury on this one. The Senior Bush's administration understood the methods of risk assessment... something the Junior Bush just doesn't seem to get. Like, I believe had Colin Powell been appointed as Secretary of Defense, the rush into Iraq would not have gone on the timetables set by Cheney/Bush Jr. and Wolfowitz. A former C.I.A. man has the experience to look at and assess risks that he is willing to place his men in... not taking them for granted to carry out his personal will.
...
And the bottom line... Rumsfeld made poor decisions and failed to take responsibility for them. That whole, "You go to war with the army you have" bullshit really pissed me off. If you are willing to send young men and women into battle, you must provide them with the best equipment to insure their safety and limit their risks... above all costs.
I'm not willing or able to assess Gates because I have yet to see how he performs. I am hoping that he will refuse to follow Bush Jr's failed plan of Staying the Course and chart a new direction to get our guys home and leave the responsibility on the fucking Iraqis... who seem to be okay with having our guys do all the heavy lifting.

bootlegger10

Jeez, you are already judging someone you didn't even know existed yesterday based on a google search. "Bias"

ThumbingMyWay32

Cosmo wrote:

I tend to agree with Finsbury on this one. The Senior Bush's administration understood the methods of risk assessment... something the Junior Bush just doesn't seem to get. Like, I believe had Colin Powell been appointed as Secretary of Defense, the rush into Iraq would not have gone on the timetables set by Cheney/Bush Jr. and Wolfowitz. A former C.I.A. man has the experience to look at and assess risks that he is willing to place his men in... not taking them for granted to carry out his personal will.
...
And the bottom line... Rumsfeld made poor decisions and failed to take responsibility for them. That whole, "You go to war with the army you have" bullshit really pissed me off. If you are willing to send young men and women into battle, you must provide them with the best equipment to insure their safety and limit their risks... above all costs.
I'm not willing or able to assess Gates because I have yet to see how he performs. I am hoping that he will refuse to follow Bush Jr's failed plan of Staying the Course and chart a new direction to get our guys home and leave the responsibility on the fucking Iraqis... who seem to be okay with having our guys do all the heavy lifting.

Bush Sr. didn't finish off Saddam in '91 because the Democrats screamed bloody murder as we sat outside the gates of Baghdad.

And here we are 15 years later and those same Democrats are complaining that we should have finished the job the first time.

I do believe it takes a "majority" of liberals in congress to form a cognizant thought.

Haha, a liberal joke!

On top of this you are without a doubt a Bush hater. Nothing anyone in this administration does will be "good." You've already predetermined that. That I'm sure of.

Ebizzie

Cosmo wrote:

I tend to agree with Finsbury on this one. The Senior Bush's administration understood the methods of risk assessment... something the Junior Bush just doesn't seem to get. Like, I believe had Colin Powell been appointed as Secretary of Defense, the rush into Iraq would not have gone on the timetables set by Cheney/Bush Jr. and Wolfowitz. A former C.I.A. man has the experience to look at and assess risks that he is willing to place his men in... not taking them for granted to carry out his personal will.
...
And the bottom line... Rumsfeld made poor decisions and failed to take responsibility for them. That whole, "You go to war with the army you have" bullshit really pissed me off. If you are willing to send young men and women into battle, you must provide them with the best equipment to insure their safety and limit their risks... above all costs.
I'm not willing or able to assess Gates because I have yet to see how he performs. I am hoping that he will refuse to follow Bush Jr's failed plan of Staying the Course and chart a new direction to get our guys home and leave the responsibility on the fucking Iraqis... who seem to be okay with having our guys do all the heavy lifting.

Agreed...Bush Sr. was actually a pretty decent president when it came to foreign affairs. His son on the other hand.... I think GW may have finally went to his father for some advice.

Incidentally, another interesting thing about Rummy's dismissal and Gates' appointment is the fact that Cheney apparently fought hard against both. Seems that GW is finally getting a clue that he can't lean on those he has in the past for advice.

JD Sal

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Bush Sr. didn't finish off Saddam in '91 because the Democrats screamed bloody murder as we sat outside the gates of Baghdad.

And here we are 15 years later and those same Democrats are complaining that we should have finished the job the first time.

Kind of like how the republicans claim that Clinton was too distracted with Lewinsky and neglected the terror threat when the republicans were to blame for the distraction.

ThumbingMyWay32

JD Sal wrote:

Kind of like how the republicans claim that Clinton was too distracted with Lewinsky and neglected the terror threat when the republicans were to blame for the distraction.

In '93 the WTC was bombed.

Clinton did nothing.

In '93 18 soldiers were killed in Somalia.

Clinton responded by pulling out.

In '95 5 Americans killed and many more wounded by a car bombing in Saudi Arabia.

Clinton did nothing.

In '96 a USAF base was bombed in Saudi Arabia.

Clinton did nothing.

in '96 Saddam whiped out the Kurdish city of Erbil.

Clinton lobbed some bombs into the Iraqi desert.

In '98 US embassies in Keny and Tanzania were bombed.

Clinton did nothing.


yada yada yada...

The only thing Clinton was distracted from was being President of the United States. What's that line liberals are always shouting at me? "The governments job is to protect the citizens of this country!" Right...


Oh.. And his marital vows...

mammasan

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Bush Sr. didn't finish off Saddam in '91 because the Democrats screamed bloody murder as we sat outside the gates of Baghdad.

Bush Sr. didn't finish the job, as you stated, back then because he realized what that would entail. He realized that we where there to get Iraq out of Kuwait and by going beyond that would have damaged the coalition he put together. Unlike Jr. Sr. understood what would happen to Iraq when Saddam fell and knew that it would take hundreds of thousands of troops and years to brink that country to any sense of normalcy. He knew that we wouldn't be greeted with flowers and candy.

JD Sal

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

In '93 the WTC was bombed.

Clinton did nothing.

In '93 18 soldiers were killed in Somalia.

Clinton responded by pulling out.

In '95 5 Americans killed and many more wounded by a car bombing in Saudi Arabia.

Clinton did nothing.

In '96 a USAF base was bombed in Saudi Arabia.

Clinton did nothing.

in '96 Saddam whiped out the Kurdish city of Erbil.

Clinton lobbed some bombs into the Iraqi desert.

In '98 US embassies in Keny and Tanzania were bombed.

Clinton did nothing.


yada yada yada...

The only thing Clinton was distracted from was being President of the United States. What's that line liberals are always shouting at me? "The governments job is to protect the citizens of this country!" Right...


Oh.. And his marital vows...

How many tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died since the invasion?

I'd like to protect the citizens of ANY country personally.

mammasan

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

In '93 the WTC was bombed.

Clinton did nothing.

In '93 18 soldiers were killed in Somalia.

Clinton responded by pulling out.

In '95 5 Americans killed and many more wounded by a car bombing in Saudi Arabia.

Clinton did nothing.

In '96 a USAF base was bombed in Saudi Arabia.

Clinton did nothing.

in '96 Saddam whiped out the Kurdish city of Erbil.

Clinton lobbed some bombs into the Iraqi desert.

In '98 US embassies in Keny and Tanzania were bombed.

Clinton did nothing.

I'm nottrying to get into apissing match of who was betterClinton or Bush, becausein my opinion they both sucked, but how do you know Clinton did nothing. How do you know that Clinton didn't have the CIA working on this or other covert operations or is militray action the only way you see fit. The purpotrators of the 93 WTC bombing where apprehanded, tried, and convicted of their crime. That tome is doing something. Somalia I believe he did the right thing by pulling the troops out. They where involved in a situation they should have never been involved in. I can't say wether Clinton did or didn't do anything about the other attacks you mentioned because as I statedthere may have been operations underway that the public had no knowledge of.

ThumbingMyWay32

mammasan wrote:

I'm nottrying to get into apissing match of who was betterClinton or Bush, becausein my opinion they both sucked, but how do you know Clinton did nothing. How do you know that Clinton didn't have the CIA working on this or other covert operations or is militray action the only way you see fit. The purpotrators of the 93 WTC bombing where apprehanded, tried, and convicted of their crime. That tome is doing something. Somalia I believe he did the right thing by pulling the troops out. They where involved in a situation they should have never been involved in. I can't say wether Clinton did or didn't do anything about the other attacks you mentioned because as I statedthere may have been operations underway that the public had no knowledge of.

I'm pretty sure if Clinton would have done something, he would have taken credit for it. Besides, our government shouldn't be hiding things like this from us should they? Right.

The WTC bombers recieved financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed. Looks like someone forgot to "connect the dots." Not only did poor Khaled fail the first time, but he had a second chance. Luckily for liberals, everyone forgets about the first time around and just blames Bush for 9/11 (Which he should apologize for immediately!).

Were the 9/11 hijackers worried about being convicted of anything? Hopefully that stamps an answer to your "atleast he did something" statement.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

I'm pretty sure if Clinton would have done something, he would have taken credit for it. Besides, our government shouldn't be hiding things like this from us should they? Right.

The WTC bombers recieved financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed. Looks like someone forgot to "connect the dots." Not only did poor Khaled fail the first time, but he had a second chance. Luckily for liberals, everyone forgets about the first time around and just blames Bush for 9/11 (Which he should apologize for immediately!).

Were the 9/11 hijackers worried about being convicted of anything? Hopefully that stamps an answer to your "atleast he did something" statement.

i thought 9/11 was an inside job.....

ThumbingMyWay32

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

i thought 9/11 was an inside job.....

Ohhhh that's right!

Clinton just couldn't get'em to fall the first time!

How silly of me.

mammasan

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

I'm pretty sure if Clinton would have done something, he would have taken credit for it. Besides, our government shouldn't be hiding things like this from us should they? Right.

The WTC bombers recieved financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed. Looks like someone forgot to "connect the dots." Not only did poor Khaled fail the first time, but he had a second chance. Luckily for liberals, everyone forgets about the first time around and just blames Bush for 9/11 (Which he should apologize for immediately!).

Were the 9/11 hijackers worried about being convicted of anything? Hopefully that stamps an answer to your "atleast he did something" statement.

Getting a little hostile aren't you. Yes Clinton didn't do enough and I agree that nothing should be hidden from the American public. I just bringing up a counter to your statement that he did nothing when he did try, not good enough in my book but that's for another discussion. I also think it's a pretty big assumption on your part to simply state that "liberals" forget about the first one.

flywallyfly

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

In '93 the WTC was bombed.

Clinton did nothing.

In '93 18 soldiers were killed in Somalia.

Clinton responded by pulling out.

In '95 5 Americans killed and many more wounded by a car bombing in Saudi Arabia.

Clinton did nothing.

In '96 a USAF base was bombed in Saudi Arabia.

Clinton did nothing.

in '96 Saddam whiped out the Kurdish city of Erbil.

Clinton lobbed some bombs into the Iraqi desert.

In '98 US embassies in Keny and Tanzania were bombed.

Clinton did nothing.


yada yada yada...

The only thing Clinton was distracted from was being President of the United States. What's that line liberals are always shouting at me? "The governments job is to protect the citizens of this country!" Right...


Oh.. And his marital vows...

I think he was taking after every Republican's wet dream, Ronnie Reagan, when he pulled out of Beirut after 300 Marines were bombed and killed by terrorists. Yes, tough guy Ronnie did nothing but cut and run.

ThumbingMyWay32

flywallyfly wrote:

I think he was taking after every Republican's wet dream, Ronnie Reagan, when he pulled out of Beirut after 300 Marines were bombed and killed by terrorists. Yes, tough guy Ronnie did nothing but cut and run.

Case in point. Democrats in congress threw a hissy fit and drafted a resolution demanding the troops be withdrawn. All of the Democratic presidential candidates that year demanded the same. He caved in an election year. He did bomb some Syrian controlled areas on the way out only to hear more of the same bitching.

Care to compare the handling of the Iranian hostage crisis and the Achille Lauro?

flywallyfly

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Case in point. Democrats in congress threw a hissy fit and drafted a resolution demanding the troops be withdrawn. All of the Democratic presidential candidates that year demanded the same. He caved in an election year. He did bomb some Syrian controlled areas on the way out only to hear more of the same bitching.

So you are saying Ronnie was a pussy and caved in to public opinion and the Democrats? Wow, he was a tough guy.

flywallyfly

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Case in point. Democrats in congress threw a hissy fit and drafted a resolution demanding the troops be withdrawn. All of the Democratic presidential candidates that year demanded the same. He caved in an election year. He did bomb some Syrian controlled areas on the way out only to hear more of the same bitching.

Care to compare the handling of the Iranian hostage crisis and the Achille Lauro?

Reagan -- "Those who directed this atrocity must be dealt justice, and they will be," he said four days after the attack, adding: "Let me ask those who say we should get out of Lebanon: If we were to leave Lebanon now, what message would that send to those who foment instability and terrorism?"

Four months later, Reagan ordered what was called the "redeployment" of U.S. troops to ships offshore. "We're not bugging out; we're just going to a little more defensible position," he said at the time.

flywallyfly

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Case in point. Democrats in congress threw a hissy fit and drafted a resolution demanding the troops be withdrawn. All of the Democratic presidential candidates that year demanded the same. He caved in an election year. He did bomb some Syrian controlled areas on the way out only to hear more of the same bitching.

Care to compare the handling of the Iranian hostage crisis and the Achille Lauro?

In July 1985, President Reagan denounced Iran as part of a "confederation of terrorist states" which had committed "outright acts of war" against the U.S. He declared Iran to be an enemy of the United States:


"Iran, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua -- continents away, tens of thousands of miles apart, but the same goals and objectives. I submit to you that the growth in terrorism in recent years results from the increasing involvement of these states in terrorism in every region of the world. This is terrorism that is part of a pattern, the work of a confederation of terrorist states. Most of the terrorists who are kidnapping and murdering American citizens and attacking American installations are being trained, financed, and directly or indirectly controlled by a core group of radical and totalitarian governments -- a new, international version of Murder, Incorporated. And all of these states are united by one simple criminal phenomenon -- their fanatical hatred of the United States, our people, our way of life, our international stature."
And yet only 39 days after making that speech, Reagan's men began furnishing some of these fanatical America haters with what would eventually amount to 107 tons of anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles. These shipments continued for more than a year. They even continued beyond August 1986, when President Reagan signed into law a federal ban on arms sales to terrorist nations, which included Iran.

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/political-scandal/iran-contra/

ThumbingMyWay32

flywallyfly wrote:

So you are saying Ronnie was a pussy and caved in to public opinion and the Democrats? Wow, he was a tough guy.

No, I'm not calling him a pussy Mr. Purveyor of the English Language.

But, on that day he did cave. Yes. I was solidifying your claim by the way incase you missed it. You may stop cut and pasting.