Blogs of War

President to Nominate Robert “Bob” Gates for Secretary of Defense

There are 16 comments in this article:

1. 8/11/2006Michelle Malkin says:

   Rumsfeld is out…

   He served this country honorably. Here’s all the latest news. I’m traveling today and will post more soon. A quick word for Bush critics who have lambasted him as a stubborn cowboy who doesn’t respond: Well, there goes that myth,……

2. 8/11/2006Imperial Crusader says:

   Tis a sad day when a country dumps one of the best SecDefs it has ever known, because one political party (and the “mainstream” media) wishes it was still September 10th.

   Alas, it will never be September 10th again.

   Our enemies celebrate.

3. 9/11/2006Nemesis says:

   Unfortunately, we all know this is just the beginning. The funding for the military in Iraq will soon start drying up due to yesterday’s events and many more so called “hawks” will have their wings clipped.

   I just hope the voters have the decency to hold up their hands and accept responsibility when Iraq becomes a free fire zone.

4. 9/11/2006aritchie says:

   Rumsfeld is the greatest Secretary of Defence that ever servered his country. He has the guts to stand up to the rest of the world when they ran down this great nation. He stood up for freedom no matter who the critic. If it weren’t for George Bush holding him back, this war would be over.

5. 9/11/2006jon purizhansky says:

   Too bad. Rumsfeld was great!!!

6. 9/11/2006kb says:

   When people make such statements as “Rumsfeld was great!!!”, “Rumsfeld is the greatest Secretary of Defence that ever servered his country”, and “one of the best SecDefs it has ever known”, would someone tell me what this means? In what sense was he great? How do you define “great”? As the entire planet had no difficulties recognizing him as a criminal, if not the more serious ‘war criminal’, I mean, folks were held responsible and hanged in Japan for similar or less crimes. Please simply tell me what you think you are seeing taking place when you make comment like those above. And try and be serious, if possible, and don’t give me any pseudo-patriot dribble. Just try and answer the questions.KB

7. 9/11/2006somercet says:

   kb: I have no doubt you are a great prosecuting attorney. Aside from a few dweebs at Abu Graib (prosecuted and convicted) exactly how many Bataan Death Marches did Rumsfeld oversee? How many bellyslaps to a Gitmo unlawful combatant (as defined by the Geneva Convention) equal a beating with a cane inflicted on a uniformed G.I. for the fun of it by a Japanese non-com? I wish all the American prisoners in the WWII PTO were treated as well as we’re treating the former al Qaeda murderers at Gitmo, where prisoners flush Korans to lure guards into ambushes. (And Newsweek gets all the facts wrong and sparks fatal riots in the Middle East.)

   “Crime! Criminal! War crimes!” No, no, my dear boy, it takes more than that… which is to say, it takes more than you will ever have.

   Farewell, Rumsfeld. You will trade war stories with Caspar Weinberger in Heaven.

8. 9/11/2006LargeBill says:

   KB,

   He meets the definition of great in many ways. I serve under around 10 SECDEF’s in my 25 year in the Navy and he was clearly the best of the lot. Most came in, made tours of bases shaking hands and trying not to rock the boat. Rumsfeld had the courage to rock the boat. Part of the reason some retired generals have come out and criticized him is because he actually asserted civilian control over the military as directed by our Constitution. He was vilified by the halfwits in the media because he doesn’t suffer fools easily. Same could be said for the “experts” in congress.

   He has been an honorable and able public service and I thank him. I hope he has a long and enjoyable retirement.

9. 9/11/2006Dan says:

   Just a dumb country boy from mississippi, who served in Bosnia and later Iraq. You could say I worked for Don. I liked working for him. I don’t have the insights of the people above, or the education. But Jon Curry showed me that you can still be ignorant and have a degree. Anyway, as I see it, Don was strong in all the ways he should have been, and few are. War is dirty. If you are going to win; lives will be lost and money will be spent. Alot of both! History will remember him well. I don’t believe the same can be said for Democratic leadership of the last four years. I look forward. I want to see what the Dems can do for us in the next two years. I will be watching as will many Americans. They have two years to show us something positive and then it’s back to the polls. Thay had their chance to cry, now—what are they going to do. I have South Korea, (ROK) on my mind, as well as the death tax. Will I have to sell my Moms land to pay the Death Tax on it? Retired Soldiers don’t bring home a big retirement check like Retired Postal workers do.

10. 10/11/2006kb says:

    somercet said:

    “I have no doubt you are a great prosecuting attorney.”

    That’s an interesting deduction. Not sure what it’s based on though. And example perhaps?kb

    “Aside from a few dweebs at Abu Graib (prosecuted and convicted) exactly how many Bataan Death Marches did Rumsfeld oversee?”

    Well, do you want a list of the numbers of deaths he was directly responsible for, or shall I include those which he was indirectly responsible for, but supported? And I’ll leave the almost 3,000 U.S. soldiers deaths aside for now. Let me know.kb

    “How many bellyslaps to a Gitmo unlawful combatant (as defined by the Geneva Convention) equal a beating with a cane inflicted on a uniformed G.I. for the fun of it by a Japanese non-com?”

    “bellyslaps”? And you aren’t even inferring that U.S. soldiers have never done anything like “beating with a cane”, are you? I can give you a long list of atrocities from any side you want. Comparing ones own crimes to those of others in no way, shape, or form, excuses them. Your logic would seem to infer that as long as your torture isn’t as bad as theirs it’s okay. You DO know you are infering this, right?kb

    “I wish all the American prisoners in the WWII PTO were treated as well as we’re treating the former al Qaeda murderers at Gitmo”

    Once again you’re acting as though one crime justifies the other. And you’ve inferred that all of the folks at Gitmo are “murderers”. That’s odd. I thought many had hadn’t even had any sort of trial, and that many have been released due to their innocense. But I guess they were just the lucky murderers.kb

    “where prisoners flush Korans to lure guards into ambushes.”

    And? So? What’s your point? That they’re more clever with less to work with?kb

    “(And Newsweek gets all the facts wrong and sparks fatal riots in the Middle East.)”

    And where do you get your “facts”?kb

    “”Crime! Criminal! War crimes!”

    Yes? This is what I said. Nothing really to duscuss, determine, deiberate, or anything else that I can see other than what the punishment should be handed down for the criminals.kb

    “No, no, my dear boy, it takes more than that…”

    Oh, you mean that illegally invading another country, illegally occupying it (this itself is a war crime as well as a defintion of terrorism), killing a bunch of people who live there, not to mention the deaths caused to your own people who have no business whatsoever of being there, causing who knows how much long-term damage, and on and on…isn’t enough? Geez! When the imperialist have their foot on the gas they really don’t know when to stop, do they? It’s quite interesting as well as consistant, that they usually hit a wall head on being so blinded by their own magnificance. Perhaps you should look up sometime soon.kb

    “which is to say, it takes more than you will ever have.”

    What’s that supposed to mean? You aren’t inferring that Rumsfeld has something other than some severe pathology that I don’t have, are you? It’s not like he, or anyone associated with him, could do a damn thing to me, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.kb

    “Farewell, Rumsfeld.”

    Yes! Don’t let the door of civility and humanitarianism hit you in the depraved ass.kb

    “You will trade war stories with Caspar Weinberger in Heaven.”

    Sorry to have to tell you this, but there ARE no war stories in Heaven. Where on earth would you have gotten a silly notion of something that absurd? If there is a Heaven, no one who has ever been involved in war, and I mean NO ONE, will be anywhere near the vacinity.(I’m not sure about the actual soldiers, as they don’t really have much to do with starting the wars. But the leaders who start them, as Reagan did in Nicaragua, are most definitely going down. WAAAAAY down!kb

    LBIll said:

    “KB, He meets the definition of great in many ways.”

    Yes, so did Hitler, Mussolini, and many other “great” figures from the past. It is only in this sense that “great” can be used with Rumsfeld.kb

    “I serve under around 10 SECDEF’s in my 25 year in the Navy and he was clearly the best of the lot.”

    Best of the lot in what sense? For you, what qualifies someone as “the best of”? SOme say that Reagan was “the best of” the presidents, and there is virtually no evidence for anything coming close to this at all depending on what you’re using for measures.kb

    “Most came in, made tours of bases shaking hands and trying not to rock the boat.”

    Most folks familiar with the sea, or any water for that matter, believe that “rocking the boat” is to be avoided, for the obvious reasons.kb

    “Rumsfeld had the courage to rock the boat.”

    It doesn’T take counrage to stand up in a paddle boat and start trying to turn it over and ignoring the owner of the boat to sit down and shut the hell up, or get out of the boat, which, fortunately, albeit a little too late, has finally happened. I have no clue what you’re referring to.kb

    “Part of the reason some retired generals have come out and criticized him is because he actually asserted civilian control over the military as directed by our Constitution.”

    Well, the civilians most definitly are supposed to have control over the military. However, I hardly think this is their reason for wanting to boot him. While it IS good to have civilian control over the military, the civilian who has control should be qualified, and be able to demonstrate that he’s qualified. Rumsfeld did not.kb

    “He was vilified by the halfwits in the media because he doesn’t suffer fools easily.”

    The media? The media do litle more than glorify him. Always have. Don’t know what you’ve been watching, but the MSM in the U.S. rarely does anything but. Had they actually been doing their job and reporting the facts, Rumsfeld, Bush, or any of the other of their criminal cronies would never have gotten so far. The media is precisely what helped them do so. You act as if there is, or ever was, some sort of aggressive media watchdog somewhere. Doesn’t exist. Never has. The media is not “liberal” nor has it ever been, at least according to all studies, respectible ones anyway.kb

    “Same could be said for the “experts” in congress.”

    Well, you may be onto something on this one.kb

    “He has been an honorable and able public service and I thank him. I hope he has a long and enjoyable retirement.”

    Hey, he may be a perfectly nice guy. It’s his institutional role which is the problem. Hitler was probably nice to children and little old ladies crossing the street, too, perhaps not Jewish, but his role in the system which developed, well, you know what it led to. The systems and the institutions are what need to be changed. Simply changing one face with another, which perhaps having some slight marginal affects, which may or may not be good, will probably not really help much.kb

11. 10/11/2006RedDragon says:

    This move is a foreshadow to a war with Iran. This was planned.

12. 10/11/2006RedDragon says:

    Interview with Robert Gates, Deputy National Security Advisor

    CIA had provided us with some very good information on what Iraqi capabilities were, and what kind of chemical weapons they had and so our troops were provided with, or at least the front elements of our troops were provided with protective equipment; a number of them were given inoculations. I remember we had a serious logistics problem in trying to get enough of the serum or the inoculations for the troops. If you took all of the supplies available all over the United States it was enough only for a fraction of our forces and for very few of our allies as well. So we were trying to figure out which units should receive this.
    But the general view I believe in the government at the very highest level was, first of all there was a real likelihood that Saddam would use chemical weapons. And we had then very carefully to focus on military targets and infra-structure bridges, roads and things like that. We really worked hard to avoid civilian targets. In fact at one point, just before the air war began, the President sent me over to the Pentagon and I had lunch with Colin Powell and his Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dave Jeremiah. And my job was to review the target list one more time, or be briefed by them on the target list, to make sure from the President’s stand point that we would not be hitting civilian targets and we were completely satisfied on that score.

    In any event, the general feeling was that if the Iraqis used chemical weapons that we would simply expand that target base significantly and damage Iraq and the civilian infer-structure and the economy much worse than we were under that war plan.

    Q: The land wars are approaching, and the Soviet initiative comes to the surface. How did you first know the Soviets were going to have one last try?

    Gates: We got word that a call was coming through from Gorbachev for the President, usually these things take a while to arrange–the long distance companies haven’t quite got the arrangement between Moscow and Washington figured out yet, but we knew in advance that Gorbachev would be calling. And I went up to his office in the residence where he took the call from Gorbachev, and that’s really I think the first time we were aware that there would be a last attempt by Gorbachev to find some way to avoid the land war. Gorbachev to me was making one last attempt to try and have it both ways. He wanted to stay with the United States, and the course of this conflict and yet he also was under, I think, great pressure from various elements of the Soviet bureaucracy to try and preserve this client relationship with the Iraqis and with Saddam Hussein who after all had been a Soviet client for many many years. And I think the KGB and the Military and the Foreign Ministry all had elements in that strongly wanted to keep that relationship alive.

    Q: Was there a moment when the President covered the hand of the mouth piece of the phone and say, ‘Hey he’s saying this?’

    Gates: Well I think that there was various times…..a certain rolling of the eyes as though, do we have to go through this one more time?…..here at the eleventh hour, before this thing starts? And it was clear that we did not want anything to interrupt going forward with the land war. After all we had all this preparation, we had gone through the air war and now for something to come up at the last minute that might delay the ground war was very frustrating for us. And so we were trying to figure out what there was about, what Gorbachev was saying that was simply unacceptable. And it was the question of how to deal with Gorbachev that really was the subject of the meeting that the President called for after his return from Fords Theatre that night.

    Q: Did you feel that Gorbachev was desperate, was he really pushing this, or was he just going through the motions?

    Gates: Somewhere in between, I didn’t have any sense that he was desperate by any means. And by the same token there was a certain urgency to what he was saying that conveyed the sense that, you know that this was something that he really hoped might come to pass. I think he knew, that the chances of successwere negligible. But I think he really did hope that maybe he would hit on something that might click with the President, and where he might at least get a delay in the ground war, while something was explored.

    Q: What did the President say to him, what was the President’s basic position.

    Gates: The President that night was basically in a listening mood. He clearly was taking aboard what Gorbachev was saying, but was not giving him anything that could be considered a definitive response by any means, said it clearly that will come later.From the very beginning in this process there had been a tension inside the administration of over how to deal with the Soviets. Between those such as Dick Cheney, who basically wanted to kiss off the Soviets and considered them a complication in the whole process. To Baker and, I think ultimately Bush, who felt that the Soviets were immensely useful allies, especially in the United Nations Security Council. And wanted to do everything they could to keep the Soviets on board as long as it didn’t interfere with accomplishing our objective and I think it was in that vain that Bush took that call that night, and in that vain that he responded to Gorbachev. He did not rain on Gorbachev’s parade that night, he did not say, well, hell this is just out of the question, or anything like that. He agreed as I recall to think about it and, and that he would get back to Gorbachev.

    Q: Describe the scene afterwards. What do you remember the President saying when he returned from the theatre?

    Gates: We gathered in the Oval Office later that night, and the preliminaries in some respects were as interesting as the actual meeting. It was a very strangely dressed group of people, as I recall the President and one or two others wearing black tie from the performance at Fords, others were in turtle necks and sweaters, others were in coats and ties and so on. But the eight of us gathered in the Oval Office, and the President decided that he wanted a fire in the fireplace, as he often did, and what I don’t think any of us realised was, that the flue in the chimney was electronically operated by the Secret Service. So the President started the fire, but the flue was closed, and so the Oval Office quickly filled with smoke. And we were all sitting there trying to look cool as we were choking on the smoke and finally Dick Cheney got up and went out and found the Secret Service man who could open the flue and, Dick was even looking for a fire extinguisher. And anyway we ended up having this meeting in the middle of February with all the doors to the Oval Office including to the outside open to try and get the smoke out of the room. And all of us reeking of this wood smoke from this failed attempt to have a fire in the fire place. The basic issue at the meeting was how to deal with Gorbachev, and it was a repetition of the basic argument that had been going on from August. And Dick Cheney and my recollection is that Brent as well, were basically inclined to tell him to buzz off. To not get in the way, and that what he was proposing was totally unacceptable. The President and Baker were much more inclined to go back to Gorbachev and very carefully point out the shortcomings and the proposal for the ceasefire and how it didn’t require the Iraqis to leave immediately, it made no provisions for a whole host of things, such as the repatriation of Kuwaiti, wealth, and reconstruction of Kuwait and so on and so forth. And that was ultimately the decision that was made. But the back and forth of the meeting was basically about how to go back to Gorbachev. I didn’t have the sense at the time that, people believed, the entire enterprise was about to go off the rails. It was really more a tactical question of how to deal with Gorbachev in a way that would try and go the last mile to keep the Soviets on board. There was no question in my mind that the President was going to order the commencement of the land war. And it didn’t matter what Gorbachev said or thought.

    Q: And what was the bottom line of the meeting, how did that come about?

    Gates: Well the bottom line was basically the President went back to Gorbachev the next morning, with a very, very long telephone call which was basically a hand holding call. And he told Gorbachev all the things that were wrong with the proposal and so on and so forth. And then indicated that he may have agreed that we would give them another 24 hours or something like that. But basically, he conveyed I think to Gorbachev that we were going forward unless there was just a total capitulation on the part of Saddam.

    Q: It wasn’t enough at this stage for Saddam just to say, ‘Hey, I’m withdrawing?’

    Gates: Absolutely not. We had done a great deal of contingency work on this in the government. Because we figured from the time that we began assembling offensive force in the Gulf after the end of October, that Saddam at some point, might agree to withdraw or might make some gesture that would immensely complicate our situation. We were afraid that, you know, he would say, well I will get out, or I will withdraw over a period of time. And so we drew up contingency plans where he had said, ‘I will get out.’ We had contingency plans and datelines in which we would have said, ‘Alright, now if you are serious, within 24 hours you have to be out of Kuwait City within 24-28 you have to be out of the Rumaila Oilfields, within 72 hours you have to be out of the islands off the coast. In other words we were going to make him withdraw from the most valuable parts of Kuwait first, rather than allow him simply to withdraw some of his forces from the border with Saudi Arabia pull them back a few kilometres or something and pretend like that counted for a cease fire.

    So we had done a lot of thinking about the different ways in which Saddam could try and play a game with us, and as far as we were concerned this last call from Gorbachev was just another part of that. and Saddam’s sort of half- hearted, acceptance of some of the demands.

    Q: Tell me the story about the Kuwaiti oilfield.

    Gates: We were having a Deputies meeting in the White House and the situation room on, sort of next steps in, diplomatic course and so on, and the President was on the telephone with a call from President Mitterrand of France, who was a little concerned I think about going forward, and should we wait a while and so on. And we received word and I don’t remember whether it was from CIA, or the military, or whoever, that Saddam had blown the oil wells. That the oil wells in Kuwait were on fire. So I took this piece of information and wrote it down on a slip of paper and rushed up and went into the President’s study which is right off the Oval Office, a very small office, maybe 10 by 10. And gave him this slip of paper,and Bush used it right then in the telephone call– we just received this piece of information that shows that we cannot delay. That Saddam is going to produce catastrophe in Kuwait, he’s already set all the oil wells on fire and God knows what he may do next. And that pretty well resolved that issue.

    Q: Do you remember running down the corridor and bumping into Paul Wolfowitz? Tell me that story.

    Gates: Well, I mean we had been immensely fortunate, no country in history, I think, has ever been so fortunate in the nature of its adversary as the United States was in facing Saddam Hussein. Because every time the coalition was about to fragment or every time that we had a problem at home, the domestic support was slipping away, Saddam would do something stupid and play right into our hands. And that was exactly the case with setting the fires in Kuwait and I told Wolfowitz at the time, when going to the Oval Office excited and Paul had been in the Deputies meeting, and he said he’s done it again, he’s pulled our chestnuts out of the fire.

    Q: Do you have any memories of the beginning of the land war?

    Gates: No, not really. I have been in the White House on a number of occasions when military operations are launched and once the decisions are made and the orders have been issued the people in the White House from the President on down are really out of the action, at least is they are smart. And President Bush was a specially good as was President Reagan of giving the military their mission, their orders and staying the hell out of the way. And not trying to micro-manage the conflicts, so you don’t have a Lyndon Johnson going down the situation room picking targets as he did in Vietnam. Bush and Reagan stayed out of the way, so when the land war started we were basically in the receive mode, just waiting for information to be past in the Presidents case from either Powell or Cheney and in our case the same way, about how things were going and the only information we really had after the beginning of the ground war was simply that it was going well and that the units had broken through the lines very fast.

    Q: What would you have done if Saddam Hussein in that land war had used chemical weapons, biological weapons and started to cause serious casualties?

    Gates: We had prepared for the possible use of chemical and biological weapons by the Iraqis. CIA had provided us with some very good information on what Iraqi capabilities were, and what kind of chemical weapons they had and so our troops were provided with, or at least the front elements of our troops were provided with protective equipment; a number of them were given inoculations. I remember we had a serious logistics problem in trying to get enough of the serum or the inoculations for the troops. If you took all of the supplies available all over the United States it was enough only for a fraction of our forces and for very few of our allies as well. So we were trying to figure out which units should receive this.

    But the general view I believe in the government at the very highest level was, first of all there was a real likelihood that Saddam would use chemical weapons. And we had then very carefully to focus on military targets and infra-structure bridges, roads and things like that. We really worked hard to avoid civilian targets. In fact at one point, just before the air war began, the President sent me over to the Pentagon and I had lunch with Colin Powell and his Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dave Jeremiah. And my job was to review the target list one more time, or be briefed by them on the target list, to make sure from the President’s stand point that we would not be hitting civilian targets and we were completely satisfied on that score.

    In any event, the general feeling was that if the Iraqis used chemical weapons that we would simply expand that target base significantly and damage Iraq and the civilian infer-structure and the economy much worse than we were under that war plan.

    Q: What type of things would have been bombed. And what would the United States have done?

    Gates: Well I don’t remember specifically some of the targets. We might have hit the petroleum infra-structure much more heavily. We might have hit the manufacturing section much more heavily. I don’t think there was ever an explicit warning to Saddam on this issue. I don’t think there was a letter or anything like that. But there was a good deal of thought given to it in our Government and that was the general way we looked at it.

    Q: Why didn’t he use chemicals, did you ever get a satisfactory answer to that?

    Gates: I believe that his not using the chemicals is one of the great mysteries of the Gulf War. We expected him to, we knew he had the capability. We had some information that they had been moved forward, and it may be that he did grasp in this case that the consequences of using those, would be devastating for Iraq. And he may have believed that we would have used nuclear weapons. But I don’t believe anybody ever said that. And it was never even discussed.

    Q: Ending the war… How was the decision taken?

    Gates: On Tuesday morning the 26th, Colin Powell and Dick Cheney came over to the White House to give the President the daily report on how the war was going, and by that time we knew both from the military reports and by satellites about the ‘highway of death’ leading north out of Kuwait City and the incredible destruction of the Iraqi convoys and so on, we knew all this would eventually be on television. And I remember very clearly Colin Powell saying that this thing was turning into a massacre. And that to continue it beyond a certain pointwould be un-American and he even used the word unchivalrous.

    And he said that he thought that they were probably within 24 hours of concluding the war of completing their objective and as I have said on other occasions, once the orders were given the President basically stayed out of the military decision making and was essentially deferring to the military in terms of their judgement about the course of the events in the region. In any event Colin said that he thought that another 24 hours would do it and so President said well let’s be thinking along those lines then.

    When Colin came in then, Colin and Dick Cheney came in the next day the morning of the 27th, Colin said we’d basically done it. We have destroyed the Republican Guard, we have expelled them from Kuwait, we have essentially completed our objectives and I believe we are just a few hours from completing that effort and to avoid this thing looking like we are just killing Iraqi soldiers for the sake of it, is probably getting close to the time that could cut this off.

    At that point President said well, you ready to conclude today, and Colin said he thought so, and, I don’t remember the exact conversation but in essence ….why don’t you call General Schwarzkopf and see what his view is upon this and make sure that he is comfortable with this approach and with this decision. So, sort of like a spy reaching out for his shoe for the phone, President pulls out the bottom, well actually President didn’t pull out the drawer because Colin as National Security Adviser already knew that in the lower right hand corner of the President’s desk was a secure telephone. So he pulls that phone out, calls Schwarzkopf, and they talk and Schwarzkopf as I recall, asks for a few more hours, he says that we have encircled the final battle against the last two Republican Guard Divisions is under way. They have engaged and we just need a few hours to complete that. If you can give us those few hours then my recollection of the conversation as Colin reported was, I am comfortable with decision to end the fighting at that point. Now we were all very careful.

    We were not really talking about a cease fire we were simply talking about a cessation of the fighting and then we would talk about what the terms would be. But it clearly was a discussion between the two military officers in terms of the timing and only when at the end of war–at that particular juncture–first being raised by Colin and then be ratified by Schwarzkopf with the addition of several additional hours, at Schwarzkopf’s request, that the decision was made to end the war. And in fact we added a couple of more hours on to that for the announcement to be made at the appropriate time on American television and also because it made a nice even hundred hours.

13. 10/11/2006lm says:

    KB…superbly logical, unemotional response to an illogical emotional post. Well done. lm

14. 15/11/2006BTE says:

    kb, from your statements all war must be a crime. Tell me what we should have done and what should we do now. War has existed on this planet for all its existence. Why does war occur? Many reasons but normally some kind of differene in culture. We and the people we are fighting are very different. I am not saying that our culture, our government is right. But our enemy hates us. They are preaching jihad, they want to see the destruction of everything american. im sorry that i dont want to see that. my friends and family serving in our military, your military dont want that.

15. 16/11/2006John Simkin says:

    Why did George W. Bush nominate Robert Gates as his new Secretary of Defense? In doing so, he will only resurrect the Iran-Contra scandal that his father did so much to cover-up.

    When George H. W. Bush became president he set about rewarding those who had helped him in the cover-up of the Iran-Contra Scandal. Bush appointed Robert Gates, as Director of the CIA, Richard L. Armitage as a negotiator and mediator in the Middle East. Donald P. Gregg was appointed as his ambassador to South Korea. Brent Scowcroft became his chief national security adviser and John Tower became Secretary of Defence. When the Senate refused to confirm Tower, Bush gave the job to Richard Cheney. Later, Casper Weinberger, Robert McFarlane, Duane R. Clarridge, Clair E. George, Elliott Abrams and Alan D. Fiers, Jr., who had all been charged with offences related to the Iran-Contra scandal, were pardoned by Bush.

    Currently, there is a massive disinformation campaign concerning Gates. If you do a search for Gates on Google you will find a list of websites that provide a very flattering picture of this man.

    Wikipedia comes first. Although it contains one significant piece of information about why his nomination to be director of the CIA in 1987 was withdrawn (I expect this to be removed soon) it gives him a very easy ride. It is highly significant that the page has been locked and can’t be edited (this is highly unusual).

    Second is a biography by the Texas A&M University. This does not mention Iran-Contra Scandal or the rejected nomination in 1987. Nor does it mention the huge opposition to him obtaining the post in 1991.

    In 3rd place is the BBC site. This is a good example of how his career is portrayed (this was mirrored in the press yesterday).

    “Mr Gates’ early career was dogged with controversy, particularly over the Iran-Contra issue, and his first nomination as CIA director was withdrawn by Ronald Reagan in 1987…But the most controversial moment in his career was the 1982-86 period when he rose through the CIA’s top echelons to become acting director. As such, he was in a position to know about the so-called Iran-Contra scandal, which involved the illegal diversion of funds from the sale of arms to Iran to fund the Contras, who were fighting against the left-wing Sandinistas who had taken power in Nicaragua. Mr Gates was investigated by the office of the independent counsel in 1991, but was never prosecuted for any offence.”

    The BBC does not refer to what Lawrence E. Walsh, the Independent Counsel who investigated the Iran-Contra case, actually said about Gates. Walsh discovered that Gates repeatedly gave inaccurate information about what he knew about Iran-Contra. When other officials provided contradictory information Gates was forced to admit his mistakes. He claimed that these mistakes were due to a failure to remember correctly what happened. Walsh admits in his report:

    “Like those of many other Iran/contra figures, the statements of Gates often seemed scripted and less than candid. Nevertheless, given the complex nature of the activities and Gates’s apparent lack of direct participation, a jury could find the evidence left a reasonable doubt that Gates either obstructed official inquiries or that his two demonstrably incorrect statements were deliberate lies.”

    What the BBC report does not mention is that lying about what he knew about Iran-Contra was not the main reason Reagan had to withdraw Gates’ nomination. The main concern of the Senate Intelligence Committee was the information that Gates was suspected of passing information from classified documents to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.

    In other words, Gates was suspected of treason. It is one of the great ironies of history that he has been appointed to solve the problems of the invasion of Iraq, when on a previous occasion, as a consequence of a secret arms deal, that Gates was passing secret information obtained by the CIA to Saddam Hussein.

    Even when his nomination by Bush of Gates was accepted in 1991, he received 31 negative votes, more than all of the votes against all of the CIA directors in previous history.

    In his memoirs Gates admits it was a great shock to him that three men who worked with him in the CIA, testified against him. He considered two of these men as personal friends. Melvin Goodman, recently explained his reasons for taking this action: “Bob Gates, over the period of the 1980s, as a deputy for Intelligence and then as a deputy to CIA director Bill Casey, was politicizing intelligence. He was spinning intelligence on all of the major issues of the day, on the Soviet Union, on Central America, on the Middle East, on Southwest Asia. And I thought this record, this charge, should be presented before the Senate Intelligence Committee.”

    As Goodman remarked when he heard the news about his 2006 nomination: “I think there is a rather delicious irony in the fact that here is a nation that went to war with politicized intelligence, and now it’s naming as a CIA director someone who was the most important practitioner of politicized intelligence in the history of the CIA. So, as Yogi Berra would have said, “This is deja-vu all over again.”

    For the truth about Robert Gates I would suggest the following:

    Lawrence E. Walsh’s report on Gates:

    http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_16.htm

    Robert Parry’s account of Gates involvement in October Surprise and Iran-Contra

    http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/110906.html

    The document sent to Lee G. Hamilton, Chairman of the Working Group of the House Foreign Relations Committee of the U.S. Congress, in 1991.

    http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/russiantext.html

    Robert Parry and Melvin Goodman discussing Gates on Democracy Now:

    http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/09/1444242

    A summary of his career with links can be found here:

    http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MDgatesR.htm

    John Simkin

16. 10/12/2006kb says:

    BTE said:

    “kb, from your statements all war must be a crime.”

    Well, most people that I know or am even aware of consider killing to be a crime, so, yes, I probably would consider all war to be a crime. That being said, I also believe one has the right to defend oneself against this crime. And when I say “defend oneself”, I mean from an actual attack. The case in Iraq does not come close to even resembling being attacked, other than the U.S. attacking Iraq.kb

    “Tell me what we should have done and what should we do now.”

    First I would ask you what gives you the notion that you should, or even have a right to, do anything? Who gave you that right? Do other countries have the same right? If someone considers the U.S. a threat, as many do, probably most other countries, do they have a similar right to invade and try and set up a government to their liking? If not, why not? This notion of “needing to do” something should be looked at very carefully. Perhaps we could followed the example of actual folks who care about the U.S. like Noam Chomsky who were supporting the anti-Saddam democratic resistance when Rumsfeld, Bush 1, and the U.S. government was spooning with him. You know, DURING the time, not to mention before AND after, he had committed his worst crimes like gassing the Kurds. It was even illegal, if I recall correctly, to support the anti-Saddam democratic resistance. What’s ironic is that true patriots like Chomsky were being called “anti-American” then because they were smart and moral enough not to support the murderer. Now, they’re called “anti-American” because they believe that carrying out massive terrorism against an already deprived society is probably no the best way forward, especially given the fact that OIL is the reason. And it IS the ONLY reason we’re there.kb

    “War has existed on this planet for all its existence.”

    Yes, so had slavery, many diseases (war being one of them), etc..which have all been weeded out thanks primarily to those who thought that they were UNnatural and should be overcome. The notion that because there has always been war, that it’s natural, or cannot be stopped, is 100% nonsense, as well as the sort of notion which almost for sure will keep it perpetuating. Someone wanting to find the cure for cancer doesn’t start from the position that “cancer has always existed so therefore it’s natural, so why try..” or there would never be any progess made at all.kb

    “Why does war occur?”

    Yes. Good question. Usually because a very few people have some notion which they manage to convince others is worth dying for. Here’s a good quote from someone who helped construct such war. Perhaps you know him:

    “Naturally the common people don’t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY.”

    –Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

    See anything familiar here? “Tell them they are being attacked”? “Denounce the peacemakers”? Sound familiar at all? It sure does to me. It’s quite common and quite consistant over time.kb

    “Many reasons but normally some kind of difference in culture.”

    That’s possible. There are probably many other reasons as well. I’d have to say that some perceived economic threat was near the top as well. The “Clash of Civilizations”, however, is mostly just a concocted clash. And while there are those whose job it is to try and persuade others that there are “terrorists”, “communists”, “Islamic fundamentalists”, etc…just around the corner waiting to pounce on you, there is little evidence for this at all. The vast majority of the population of the world get along just fine, and that even includes Muslims and Christians. Those we see on the TV day after day are the exceptions, NOT the rule. They are the abberations, NOT the norm. However, foamenting the notions that “They” whoever “they” are this week are “the enemy”, creating the pretexts why we should hate “them”, etc…will most definitly help to ensure that paranoia, distrust, misunderstanding, etc…and eventually war will be more likly to happen. Here’s an easy example of two approaches: One person starts from a position of thinking “the others” are radically different. They hear and see everything the “others” do through the lenses which focus on the differences, amplifying them, etc…They eventually will have internalized that “Those folks over there” are the devil or whatever. What sorts of responses would one expect? On the other hand, what if you start from a point which is that most people are FAAAAAR more alike than they are different? You focus on the similarities. You assume that the differences are not only nothing to fear, but something to appreciate which sets them apart from you. You respect their individual unique characteristics, even if you don’t really understand them. What sorts of ways of relating could one expect from this approach? Better understanding, perhaps? The ability to be able to sympatize with others who appear to be different, as we do to them? And on and on….kb

    “We and the people we are fighting are very different.”

    Not really as much as some wish you to believe. But in a sense you are correct. “WE” or our culture led us to the invasion of their country even though they had never even threatened to do so to us. ANd even had they threatened, that would still not be enough of a reason. And if you believe it IS a good enough reason, then you have just made an unwitting apologetic for bin Laden and the entire 9/11 incident. He could just as easily, and would have a VERY strong case, that the U.S. was planning to attack them, so he was practicing a “preventive war” policy (i.e., little more than a nice sounding justification for terrorism). Well? Was bin Laden doing the right thing?kb

    “I am not saying that our culture, our government is right. But our enemy hates us.”

    I’d have to start by asking “What enemy”? The Iraqi people whose country we invaded, of which the vast majority want the U.S. out, and view their presence as an “occupation” and NOT a “liberation”? Or perhaps we might look into the reasons why you think “they hate us”. Do “they” just naturally “hate us”? ANd it’s most definitly not the “They’re jealous of the U.S., hate democracy, etc…” and all the rest of the nonsensical notions which have been put forth by many naive folks. Usually when someone hates someone there’s a good reason for it, or at least understandable, and it’s exactly these reasons which are rarely, if ever, examined in the media, as they’re too busy NOT covering them. If there was anything remotely resembling a “liberal media”, which, unfortunately there’s not, items like exploring why “they (supposely) hate us” would be on the tube every day. It’s not. It’s never on. That being said, there have been a few places where one could find something resembling seriousness. I mean, even the Wall Street Journal, hardly a left-leaning rag, managed to have at least some good articles which explored these issues. The problem is, however, the answers they found. The answers are sort of in conflict with the perceptions which the government wants the population to have. You are not supposed to know the reasons. You are supposed to just get riled up over the perceived “differences” there are. It makes it much easier to kill “them” this way.kb

    “They are preaching jihad”

    There are a VERY few out of the total who are, though U.S. actions have most definitly increased the numbers. Personally, I don’t consider this a very intelligent way of “fighting terror”. I mean, taking actions to help create more, and then saying you must fight against it, as if it just popped up from nowehere, is probably NOT the smartest approach. How much credit do you give to a mafia don who sells drugs all over the place, and then when a few folks taking the drugs get out of hand, they go and kill them? Are they to be viewed as saving everyone from the threat of a crazed drug user?kb

    “they want to see the destruction of everything american.”

    This is 100% nonsense. The “they” you are talking about is an almost invisible number of people, and there are MANY things which could be done which would reduce their already small numbers. Take Iraq. There are now about 300,000 young men, last I heard, though I’d guess it was MUCH higher, who are out of work thanks to the invasion. Well, what are they going to be doing every day? What are they going to be thinking every day? And I’m not talking about anti-American anyone, as there was virtually little to no anti-Americanism in Iraq in the first place, until the first slaughter in Gulf War 1 which killed over half a million children. So, what do you think these young men are going to do? Do you not think they may join up with someone who could probably easily persuade them to fight against the folks who invaded their country? This IS creating a greater threat, as most studies, even the governments own, have shown.kb

    “im sorry that i dont want to see that.”

    Then you need to tale steps which will decrease the likelihood of making it happen even more.kb

    “my friends and family serving in our military, your military dont want that.”

    Nor do they want to be lied to about why they are supposedly fighting. There was NEVER a threat from Iraq. The military is for exactly ONE reason, and that is to protect the country. Invading other countries on false pretexts, perceived threats, or anything of the sort does NOT help the country, it hurts it, as it has done with the Iraq fiasco. It has killed thousands of people, left many places in the country in ruins which will take a long time to fix, and many other lingering effects which aren’t even being considered now, such as creating even more hatred toward the U.S. And for what? There is exactly ONE answer, possibly two, which are serious. One, which is the most obvious, is oil. This is a non-issue so it needs not even be discussed here. The second is that which Chalmers Johnson writes about quite well in his book entitled “The Sorrow of Empire”, which I highly recommend, as well as his earlier “Blowback”. If you seriously want to try and understand things from a slightly more insightful position, you should start by looking at the facts. That “they hate us” isn’t one of them.kb

Write a comment: