web analytics

CHOOSING LOSING….

By ATWadmin On December 6th, 2006

795151-578415-thumbnail.jpgTalk about a broken Gate. The US Defence Secretary nominee Robert Gates has laid out his credentials, as some of us forecast he would, when he told a Senate committee that the US is not winning the war in Iraq.

Asked by the next chairman of the panel, Democratic Senator Carl Levin, if he believed the US was winning, Mr Gates replied: "No, Sir."

(He later said he believed the US was neither winning nor losing, "at this point". Mr Decisive!)

795151-578411-thumbnail.jpgWell, that’s sending a message all right. I bet the US troops in the field will just love to hear Bobby-boy’s rallying cry – explaining that their sacrifice is in vain. If you are not winning, you are losing. It’s that simple and that brutal.

I dare say every Jihadist and Saddamite scumbag in downtown Baghdad will be jumping with joy as they actually watch the Great Satan’s new talking head admit de facto defeat.

But Gates wasn’t finished. He went on to say that  the US should attack Iran only as a last resort and he would not support military action against Boy Bashar in Syria. Tough talk.

Let’s review. Iran has announced its nuclear intentions and spelt out that Israel will be wiped off the map. Gates obviously believes we have to wait until the second Holocaust takes place before the US steps in. I imagine Hamas and co will have been taking notes.

Meanwhile Iran’s stool pigeon, Syria, is formenting as much trouble as possible in Iraq. But Bob’s got a plan. Yip – he wants "to talk" to them all. That’s the diplomatic way of saying sueing for surrender terms.

Replacing a man like Rumsfeld with a mouse like Gates is tragic, and Bush can be seen to have destroyed his very own doctrine. It’s a tough world we live in folks, and the barbarians will soon be at the gates.

31 Responses to “CHOOSING LOSING….”

  1. It was profoundly depressing to hear Aunty gloat about it this morning with quotes like "Bush must be the only man in America" etc.

    If you actually listened to Gates quotes – pathetic as he was – he hasn’t called for an immediate withdrawal, which Aunty of course thinks he should.

  2. >>Well, that’s sending a message all right. I bet the US troops in the field will just love to hear Bobby-boy’s rallying cry – explaining that their sacrifice is in vain.<<

    Sometimes the truth is more important than propaganda.Such as when you’ve just been asked a direct question by a US Congress Committee!

  3. seems he fits the bill for a top level post in bush administration. ties to big business, links to the iran-contra scandal and the embassy hostage crisis.

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1202-03.htm

    http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111406a.html

    **But as Gates awaits Senate confirmation as President Bush’s secretary of Defense, ethics watchdogs worry about the revolving door between government and private business that allowed Gates to align himself with defense contractors, investment houses and a global drilling company involved with Vice President Dick Cheney’s former employer, Halliburton Co.**

    **President Ronald Reagan had to withdraw Gates’ nomination for DCI in 1987 because of Gates’s involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal. By 1991, after the heat had died down on the whole affair, President George H.W. Bush re-nominated Gates for the post, and he was confirmed.**

    the ‘H’ word should get the usual suspect crawling out from under their rocks. #starts stopwatch#

  4. forgot this link, about the hostage crisis. apologies

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/8/161940/682

  5. Actually, the troops will likely be happy to hear that the proposed Secretary of Defense has the charming notion that the truth might work. Why should he recycle Rumsfeld’s bellicose baloney?

    He clarified his position by indicating that the troops were not losing (ie there are no battles) but that we have not been able to effectively deal with the insurgency. He supported the invasion but (shock) agreed with most sane people that there were an insufficent level of troops and that there were other mistakes made. Recognizing mistakes is the way to correct and/or learn from them.

    As for not committing to attacking Iran and Syria, he is seeking an appointment to run the Defnse Department, not to run a Blog.

    He won the praise of both Republicans and Democrats and will clealry be confirmed. He noted correctly that a generational task such as the fight against Islamic terrorism will require the same type of bipartisan effort that the war against Soviet Communism required through successive presidencies.

  6. He noted correctly that a generational task such as the fight against Islamic terrorism will require the same type of bipartisan effort that the war against Soviet Communism required through successive presidencies.

    Really agree with that bit mahons. The only thing i would ask you is isnt it better that he not undermine the troops morale with his open admissions? I mean however the strategy is devised surely making admissions like this is as bad as being belicose at the opposite end of the scale if you see what i mean?

  7. Alison: The troops morale will be elevated by having a Sec of Defense that who is intent on managing the war rather than managing the news.
    Our boys (and gals) don’t need political commisars to run among them. They need effective leaders who have their interests at heart and will not use them for political reasons or ignore mistakes because to correct them would result in second-guessing and criticism.

  8. >>isnt it better that he not undermine the troops morale with his open admissions? <<

    Are you really suggesting he should lie to a Congressional committee just for the sake of deceiving the people even further?

    There comes a time when bluff and bullshit have to stop.

    It was lies that got the US into this mess in the first place.

  9. I’d say he was stating the obvious. If he’d said the US was winning no-one whould have believed him anyway, especially the troops on the ground, who must be well aware of the true situation.

  10. No i wasnt suggesting that Cunningham.

    Well as long as it is accompanied by a firm and forward looking plan for Iraq and the belief that they can win then id go along with that mahons. I heard Blair pick up on this and voice it which is encouraging.

  11. Alsion: Winning in the traditional sense does not seem like a serious option at this point. I am hoping for a contained situtation in which we can ultimately remove the troops and allow the Iraqis (even under a non-democratic form if necessary) keep a lid on their own violence.

  12. >>>He noted correctly that a generational task such as the fight against Islamic terrorism will require the same type of bipartisan effort that the war against Soviet Communism required through successive presidencies.<<<

    yay another Cold War! What was the fool Eisenhower on about, there is no military industrial complex.

  13. Mahons: ‘Winning in the traditional sense..’.i think you have hit the nail on the head there because im not so sure that what Blair (correctly) defined as ‘the future security of the west being played out in these sandy landscapes’ – can ever be fought or won in the traditional sense. The war is also being fought by people willing to blow themselves up on commuter trains and kill their fellow countrymen who by and large were opposed to military action. Its all very non standard.

  14. yay another Cold War! What was the fool Eisenhower on about, there is no military industrial complex.

    If there were a military-industrial complex, why was the US miltary never bigger than that of its prospective adversary, nor the US military expenditure per capita GNP never similarly greater?

  15. Allan,

    Two words: Yankee Ingenuity.

    President: Is there really a chance for that plane to get through?
    Turgidson: Mr. President, if I may speak freely, the Russkie talks big, but frankly, we think he’s short of know-how. I mean, you just can’t expect a bunch of ignorant peons to understand a machine like some of our boys. And that’s not meant as an insult, Mr. Ambassador, I mean, you, you take your average Russkie, we all know how much guts he’s got. Hell, look, look at all them them Nazis killed off and they still wouldn’t quit…if the pilot’s good, see, I mean, if he’s really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low (he spreads his arms like wings and laughs), you oughtta see it sometime, it’s a sight. A big plane like a ’52. VRROOM! There’s jet exhaust, fryin’ chickens in the barnyard.
    President: Yeah, but has he got a chance?
    Turgidson: Has he got a chance? Hell, Ye…ye… (He covers his mouth dumbstruck, suddenly and solemnly grasping the implications of his words.)

  16. Alan – funny movie, yet strikingly unconcerned with the actual Soviet menance. There were those who didn’t understand the gravity of the Cold War then and those who don’t understand the gravity of the one we are in now.

  17. the cold war by and large was a catch all excuse. which was exploited to great effect for all sorts of nefarious goings on. much of which had nothing to do with the security of western nations, or its people.

    everyone was at it.

    for much of planet earth, the prospect of anti-communism was no better than the prospect of communism. a truth we in the west have been protected from.

    ———————————-

    genius alan. "Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War room"

  18. Daytripper – You can revist history, but you cant’change it.

  19. With respect to mahons point Daytripper can I ask you what you actually feel about this please?:-

    There were those who didn’t understand the gravity of the Cold War then and those who don’t understand the gravity of the one we are in now.

  20. Alison – save your time. He can’t help his anti-Western obsession. The fact that people were only trying to escape from East Berlin and not into it is lost on him.

  21. I was in Estonia recently and I visited the Museum of Occupation in Tallinn. For Estonians (and the others occupied by communism), the Cold War wasn’t the charade that Daytripper believes it to have been.

  22. Allan,

    Here’s a link to the Museum’s web site:

    http://www.okupatsioon.ee/english/index.htm

    My wife has spent time in Finland (and visited Estonia) and found the Finns to be decidedly anti-Russian following centuries of occupation.

  23. It’s a disgrace what is happening to the adminstration. However, no matter what lie the NYT happens to be printing now, I do not believe that there is any plan at all for an immediate pull-out of Iraq. In fact there is some serious discussion about increasing the level of American troops temporarily.

    We will have to wait for the B.S. that flying around the place to land, then we’ll have a clearer picture of how the administration will proceed.

  24. and found the Finns to be decidedly anti-Russian following centuries of occupation.

    Alan ill think you will find that anyone who is occupied by a foreign power will develop a hatred of that country its human nature.

  25. Hi, Sub.

    I agree, and I don’t fault the Finns. My point was that the occupation was not limited to the Soviet era. They were like a football kicked back and forth between the Swedes and the Russians for all those centuries. They weren’t a country until 1917. That partly explains their "alliance" with the Nazis to fight off the Russians and regain their hard won independence.independence.

  26. >>anyone who is occupied by a foreign power will develop a hatred of that country its human nature<<

    Generally true, sub, but it depends on the political situation. Germany was occupied by the Yanks after WWII and the Germans have been big fans of America and the Americans ever since (the recent blip in that friendship is because Germans don’t like someone tearing up the rulebook and coming up with naive solutions to complex problems)

  27. >>>Daytripper – You can revist history, but you cant’change it.<<<

    mahons

    very true. but the ignorant are capable of repeating it. which is what im suggesting is happening.

    >>>With respect to mahons point Daytripper can I ask you what you actually feel about this please?:-

    There were those who didn’t understand the gravity of the Cold War then and those who don’t understand the gravity of the one we are in now.<<<

    alison

    im not claiming the cold war didnt exist. im merely pointing out that the majority of the hype surrounding it was just that. hype. much intervention in that period had less to do with preventing the spread of communism and more to do with protecting economic interests over seas. infact you could take it a step further and suggest that some interventions aided the spread of communism. This is certainly true of much of SE Asia.
    as far as i can see, not much has changed. the west has its new bogeyman (the war on terror) and it uses it at every oppurtunity as a cover for gaining or protecting economic interests. afghanistan and iraq only the first two examples.
    as for my own veiws of the era, i would have been with churchill and not roosevelt. standing up to stalin would likely have been much more productive. far from the myth that he was never open to negotiation, he was infact capable of being bargained with. churchill knew this. the naive US administration didnt.

    >>>He can’t help his anti-Western obsession. The fact that people were only trying to escape from East Berlin and not into it is lost on him.<<<

    mahons

    You can make nonsense up if you want, be my guest. but if your not willing to accept that our freedoms came at the expense of many other nations liberties then there’s not much more i can say. accepting unsanitised versions of our own history doesnt make me anti-western. on the berlin wall subject, i recommend Stasiland by Anna Funder.

    >>>I was in Estonia recently and I visited the Museum of Occupation in Tallinn. For Estonians (and the others occupied by communism), the Cold War wasn’t the charade that Daytripper believes it to have been.<<<

    alan

    the post war occupation of eastern europe has nothing to do with im saying.
    btw, was there much in the estonian museum about how the fervor of the estonian led slaughter of its own jewish population shocked even the germans?

  28. Daytripper: Your bottomless pit of anti-western diatribes serves as the primary source for nonesense on this site.

  29. does that im talking bollocks, or just that you dont like to hear such points raised?

    just because im not particularly proud of considerable portions of our history doesnt mean im a "self-hater" or "anti-western". im just unwilling to buy into the "were so great" attitude that western culture goes to great lengths to foster.

    of course this is automatically taken by many as a defacto support of the alternative. nothing could be more untrue. if forced to make a choice, go live in the USSR or remain in the west. its a no brainer, im staying put. but that doesnt mean i have to shove the darker parts of our history under the carpet like most other people.

    being left wing doesnt mean communist. you need to get over that. its the same idiotic malady that was the root to many pointless interventions, especially in latin america.

  30. "the post war occupation of eastern europe has nothing to do with im saying."

    The weaponry developed by America’s ‘military-industrial’ complex ensured that Daytripper’s preferred ideology was kept at bay. I’m only making the inference that he considered our western liberal system to be no better than Stalinism because he wrote:
    "for much of planet earth, the prospect of anti-communism was no better than the prospect of communism. a truth we in the west have been protected from."

  31. >>>The weaponry developed by America’s ‘military-industrial’ complex ensured that Daytripper’s preferred ideology was kept at bay. I’m only making the inference that he considered our western liberal system to be no better than Stalinism because he wrote:
    "for much of planet earth, the prospect of anti-communism was no better than the prospect of communism. a truth we in the west have been protected from."<<<

    well wide of the mark yet again, but no surprise.

    many democratically elected "liberal systems" were promptly dispatched all around the world. mainly because private interests were threatened, and not, as is historically claimed, to prevent the spread of communism. communism was in many cases was never a factor until extreme-right dictatorships were installed and natural laws (due to supression and state brutality) forced opposition to the extreme-left.

    where you are obviously content with one. i am content with neither. i just would have preferred if the west had left these countries on their own.

    what my statement is saying is that for many of those countries the end result of western intervention was no better than the alternative. and that in many cases where the alternative was not communism it was likely much worse. it has nothing to do with life in western europe or the states, which id be a fool to claim is/was no better than stalinist russia.

    if you could get over you preconceived notions about what you think people are saying, as opposed to what they are saying you wouldnt even be asking such questions.