Gates: Congressional Pressure On Iraq "Helpful"

Defense Secretary Bob Gates must be on thin ice with the President tonight. Via Kevin Drum:

...."The debate in Congress ... has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited," Gates told Pentagon reporters traveling with him in Jordan. "The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact ... in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment."

So if you are against the Dems' Congressional pressure on Bush over the Iraq Debacle you are for the terrorists right?

< Dr. Phil Explains It All | Portrait of the Enigmatic, Violent Obsessed Loner >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Gates must want out (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by TexDem on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:20:22 PM EST
    George and the Brain won't stand for this kind of disloyalty. Either Gates is off the reservation or it's a setup.

    I just don't trust any of this crowd. But then again this could be the influence of GHWB.

    I think Gates won;pt sacrifice his reputation (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:50:22 PM EST
    for Bush an dthis Iraq Debacle.

    And what can Bush do to him really? Can't fire him.


    Blind Support for Bush Is Unhelpful (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by john horse on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 06:58:35 AM EST
    So if congressional pressure on Iraq is "helpful" then blind support for Bush must be unhelpful.  Right?  

    Bush is losing control (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Rick B on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:46:36 AM EST
    Bush can't fire Gates. He had to go hat-in-hand to ask him please to give up his dream job as President of Texas A&M in the first place. If Bush fires Gates, who can he get to replace him who might be effective and might be approved by the Senate? No one of any stature would take the job, especially for a mere 18 or so months. The only person damaged would be Bush himself, and he doesn't need even less legitimacy.

    I think that Gates has already let his attitudes be known to the White House, which is why they were looking for a "War Czar." The War Czar would have been an implementer, working out of the White House National Security Council with the power to task the Departments of Defense, State, Homeland Security, and CIA, but he would NOT have been a person who established policy. The War Czar would have been the guy with the whip trying to get Gates to do what Bush and Cheney directed. Guess what - no one wanted that job, either.

    Gates still has the problem of Cheney and his network of acolytes throughout the political positions in the government. Cheney can't get much done, but he can still sabotage any effort he considers insufficiently hawkish. But that's just another reason with no one else would take Gates job, and why no one would take the War Czar job.

    I think we'll hear more out of Gates that counters the Bush/Cheney lines. More power to Gates!

    Re War Czar (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:35:18 AM EST
    I think Bernard Weiner made clear sense yesterday. As usual with Bush and Cheney, remembering that like all rethugs (yes - that's intentionally a broad brush) they do everything they can to avoid responsibility (and the noose) helps in understanding them.

    Noose Tightens on the Bush Bunker Crew
    At least three four-star generals have refused Bush's offer of serving as the "war czar" over the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. See here and here.

    Question: Don't we have a Commander-in-Chief, Secretary of Defense, and General Petraeus for those jobs? Why another level of decision-making? The only reasonable explanations: Under CheneyBush, there is no workable policy and nobody who can make a square peg fit into a round hole; Cheney, Bush and Rove don't fully trust Bob Gates; a "war czar" would provide somebody else for CheneyBush to blame for the disasters they have initiated.

    All in a few short months... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Freewill on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 05:06:14 PM EST
    How the Daily Talking Point Memos handed down from the Whitehouse/G.O.P. headquarters that they perceived as having a huge impact on the American way of thinking completely debunked!

    And they, imo, honestly thought those talking point tactics was going to give them a majority forever!