Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Baptist in Richmond, Nov 8, 2006.
President Bush is appointing Gates as Secretary of Defense?
I don't get that one......
I don't either. He's got lots of experience in intelligence operations, but I think he is a Clark Kent on defense. Maybe he'll bear that big "S" under his dress shirt.
See, Bush can learn. You just have to get his attention, first.
What don't you get about Gates? He has a 25 year record in the CIA and national security, doesn't he? He worked with both Republican and Democratic presidents I think.
I don't know anything about him other than the little bit I saw on the news yesterday.
Here is the prediction of SourceWatch.org (linkie):
Or Sean Kelly's prediction. Declare victory and go home - would this be this good or bad?
It might be better than what liberal democrats want...to declare defeat and go home.
What I don't get is in the title of this thread, which are the words used to describe Gates. They are not applicable in this particular sense, given the short biography you have offered.
Hope all is well,
It's not just the LIBERAL Democrats anymore, carpro.
When I watched the press conference yesterday, I understood "fresh perspective and new ideas" to be in reference to the Iraq War, not in reference to having no experience. Based on his resume, and knowing nothing about him personally, I would think a guy with a 25 year history, including time in a war that was won, would be a big plus. He comes from outside rather than being one of the Defense Department's under secretaries.
So I don't really know. But I would imagine that the Dems will give him a hard time.
Nice post Larry. Why dont all of you give the guy a chance? The election is over. Time to move on.
I refuse to believe that all democrats want to declare defeat like the liberal democrats do. Some of them are smarter than that.
All that really matters to most democrats is that Bush wants him. That's enough reason to oppose the nomination.
Who are the "liberal democrats" that "want to declare defeat?"
Good post, Pastor Larry.
I disagree with the notion that this will be a fresh perspective. Gates has been around for many years. As I recall, he was involved in the whole Iran/Contra affair. Why not turn to one of the generals or admirals who have military experience? Why not use someone that is less motivated by politics?
No, I don't think the Democrats will automatically oppose Gates just because Bush wants him. I do think, however, that we need to be watchful when Bush does something; he makes so many mistakes and is prone to exaggerating information, like the intelligence they cherry-picked in the run up to the war in Iraq. Bush and his administration have shown that they cannot be trusted with making the right decisions and really need some Congressional oversight. Now this Democratic Congress will give him this needed oversight.
As I understand it, the lame duck Congress will vote on Gates prior to the new Democratic majority taking over.