Our potentially new Defense Secretary

my2hands

flywallyfly wrote:

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/

bingo!

my2hands

ok, so the GOP has fucked up everything and got swept out by a pissed off american public

and the right just goes back to trying to blame clinton? pathetic isnt it?


one thing clinton seemed to understand, which these armchair generals dont, is that you cant invade or bomb everyone that you have a problem with. remember oklahoma city? it was handled just as it should have been, a fringe radical organization was arrested, tried, convicted, and dismantled. period.

Ott

Rumsfeld: 'My Half-Assed Job Here Is Done'
November 8, 2006 | Issue 42•45


WASHINGTON, DC—After nearly six years of much-publicized service as Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld announced his resignation Wednesday afternoon, saying that he had "proudly accomplished everything [he'd] set out to bungle." "Years ago, I decided to bog this great nation down in an extended, grueling foreign occupation, and I'm happy to say that's exactly what I've done," said Rumsfeld in a farewell address at the White House, during which he urged Americans to continue waging the ill-conceived, mismanaged, and evidently unwelcome fight for democracy in the Middle East. "Each of my actions—from undersupplying troops with body armor to focusing on capturing Saddam Hussein while Osama bin Laden remained free—has led America inexorably toward our current state of extreme crisis. Well, anyway, goodbye!" President Bush expressed confidence that Robert Gates, his new nominee for Secretary of Defense, will be able to "fuck everything up the rest of the way."

gue_barium

This was a desperate appointment, a forgone conclusion. Or both.

I think this guy was in the wings from the time Rumsfeld started talking about resigning a few years ago.

What is so obvious about this desperation is, not only is Gates carrying the neocon-Bush doctorine, he's 2 years too late.

Cosmo

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.

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.

...
Boy... you are so far off base here that you are acutally standing in the adjacent ball park.
Democrats didn't call for the end of hostilities... the invasion/occupation of Iraq was not the military objective in 1991. Ejecting the Iraqi Military from Kuwait was. It was clearly defined, goals and objectives were drafted, worst case scenarios accounted for and prepared for. That was the Colin Powell/Norman Swartzkopf under command of G.H.W.Bush administration's call. The 'Highway of Death' was part of the reasoning. You need to read Powell's or Swartzkopf's book... or just a history book in general.
...
And I don't hate Bush for the sake of being Bush. I believe he has consistantly made one poor decision after another regarding Iraq. I was a full supporter after September 11, 2001 and during the Afghanistan War... that was a 'Just Cause' in my eyes. Iraq is a 'Just 'Cuz' and more analysis was required before undertaking this campaign. The Former Bush Administration did this and knew of the downfalls and the effort and resources required to pull it off. The Powell Doctrine worked to perfection in 1991... Clearly defined military objectives executed with overwhwelming forces with overwhelming support from the homefront. Worst case scenarios accounted for and prepared to face with contingency plans in place and the War conducted from the Command and Control in the battle zone, not directed by the civilian authorities in Washington.
I believe the resignation of Rumsfeld is a step in the right direction and has been well over due. Rumsfeld's decisions on troop levels and resource deployment, as well as the vaguely defined goal of 'Getting the Job Done' is detramental to our military personel. He has failed to define what the Job is... maybe you know. What exactly IS the 'Job' that needs to be done and how, specifically, are we supposed to fulfill it? What are the goals, objectives and specific tasks involved?
So, if you believe that I hate Bush and form opinions about him just because he is Bush... then the adverse must apply.... you must love George W. Bush because you simply like the taste of his cock. I do not believe that is true.
...
You should also look into ending your belief that everything is politicized into Democrats versus Republicans... it isn't. Everything you see on FOX News isn't true. You should really attempt to see things as they really are... not the way your television tells you it is.
Trying to label me a 'Liberal' doesn't do anything to me... it only makes you look like an ass.

ediger

anyone else read that after his time in the CIA, Robert Gates was an oil and energy consultant. What does that could have to do with national defense?

Cosmo

ediger wrote:

anyone else read that after his time in the CIA, Robert Gates was an oil and energy consultant. What does that could have to do with national defense?

...
I think it has something to do with oil being a vital resource for our National Defense. All of our machines need oil in order to operate. No diesel fuel, no tanks... no avation fuel, no jets. I understand the strategic requirement for securing the world's largest accessable oil reserves as a National concern... which is why drilling for oil in our 'Strategic Reserves' to run SUVs to and from soccer practice is purely idiotic. They are labeled as 'Strategic' for a reason.
But... I think that squatting on those Middle Eastern Reserves or taking them by force is not in our best interests. Our best interests would be better served if we make those Middle Eastern countries part of our Allied base, not our enemies. Our enemies will sell the bulk of their reserves to our enemies.