|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| I've not got the time nor the patience, nee, the need, to hunt down any report. The SWORN statements of those he worked with suffice. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. |
But there is a need to support your assertions with evidence. I note that not only do you have no evidence to cite. You also have decided that you will not look for any, either.
Par for the course for you, where intuition, innuendo, mistrust, fear, cynicism, and hysteria explain your brain's most complex inner workings. Reason does not live there.
And, finally, citing second-hand a hostile press account that quotes (in or out of context, we have no way of knowing) or misquotes someone -- that is, someone, one person -- who dislikes Gates hardly constitutes reliable reference to his "sworn statement" and falls far short of the plural "those he worked with" you are presenting it as.
In fact, Gates is highly and widely respected as a cool, non-partisan professional. He would very likely shut down any influence or information passing back and forth between Cheney and the Pentagon; he would bring a lifelong career as an intelligence professional's perspective to the NSC and Iraq; and, speaking of Iraq, I understand that he participated in a recent study of this conflict and has made or is going to make policy recommendations based on it to the President. Have you seen this report yet? No? Of course, not. Bet I wager you have already decided that it is "a lie" even though it hasn't even been published or talked about in detail in the press yet -- just as you denounced the elections as fraudulent and stolen before they even occured.
In any case, unless you have any evidence to cite, that will be all. You may go back to your own partisan-driven, hate-inspired Google searches for antiBush op-eds now... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gates on then-SecDef Cheney (Part I)
| Robert M. Gates wrote: |
Cheney was very impressive. He was a team player and, while he presented his views forcefully and consistently, when he lost he didn't leak or try to play games behind people's backs. He and Powell (who became Chairman of the Joint Chief[s] of Staff in the fall of 1989) were a strong team, and when they disagreed -- which was rare -- Dick would encourage Colin to offer his views to the President. Cheney was quite conservative, and a forceful advocate for Defense both publicly and on Capitol Hill. He was always very steady, unflappable. He could also be very stubborn, especially when Defense Department interests were at stake. Cheney was the only senior member of the administration more skeptical than I that Gorbachev would be successful at home...
Neither Cheney, Baker, nor Powell would ever think of Scowcroft as a soft touch on the issues. Scowcroft was less flexible than Baker in negotiating, but more radial in his thinking on future military force structures and arms control than Cheney; there were some battles royal in Scowcroft's corner office. But nearly all ended in good humor and friendship...
[In a spring 1989 White House strategy session,] Scowcroft, as arranged beforehand with the President...tabled a radical idea: how about setting a goal of removal of all U.S. and Soviet ground troops from Europe by the turn of the century...? Cheney looked at Scowcroft as if he'd lost his mind. He countered with the idea of challenging Gorbachev to open up military information. Baker threw out another idea -- let's propose getting rid of all tanks in Europe. Cheney came back again, arguing that this was not the time to get out front on withdrawals from Europe because of uncertainty about what was going to happen in the USSR. Bush ended the meeting grumpily. His last words: "If we don't regain leadership, things are going to fall apart..."
Finally he moved. On May 15...[Bush] convened a meeting of his principal advisers to discuss a new initiative Scowcroft had developed for troop cuts in Europe...The Secretary of Defense didn't like it. Cheney argued that NATO was a "goosey coalition," that the United States was "the rock," the troop proposal would "unhinge the Alliance," and "the British and French would go crazy." He complained that, in an effort to get out front politically, "we would be making a big move that was not well thought out." General Bob Herres, representing the Joint Chiefs, said he thought the Chiefs could accept some form of Scowcroft's proposal... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gates on then-SecDef Cheney (Part II)
| Robert M. Gates wrote: |
...in January 1990...Bush's national security team met repeatedly in the Oval Office...I was the notetaker in each meeting, and what is readily apparent from the discussion is the fact that Bush and Scowcroft together and alone consistently pushed for bolder initiatives, especially in arms control, and were resisted equally consistently by Baker, Cheney, and Powell. Cheney resisted because he hated arms control in principle and, paradoxically, saw it as an obstacle to arms reductions...
[On Gorbachev's fall and Yeltsin's rise...]While the negative tidbits largely faded...Bush, Baker, and Scowcroft remained skeptical of Yeltsin and worried that any major overture toward him would both anger and weaken Gorbachev. Cheney and I were probably the strongest proponents of reaching out to him...CIA was another cheerleader for Yeltsin, not in so many words but through a series of assessments highlighting his popularity in and out of Russia, his reform initiatives, and his approach to dealing with the nationalities. The two strongest CIA voices speaking positively about Yeltsin were George Kolt, head of the Soviet analytical office, and Fritz Ermarth, chairman of the National Intelligence Council... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gates on President Jimmy Carter and the other Presidents he served...
| Robert M. Gates wrote: |
Carter was the first President I would see often...There was never a President who worked harder at the job -- who read more, worked longer hours, or who was more conscientious...And when he established a priority -- like the Panama Canal Treaties or Camp David Accords -- he would demonstrate unshakable determination and political skill until victory was won. Casey would often point to the political campaign to win ratification of the Panama Canal Treaties as an extraordinary example of political maneuver and organization worthy of emulation...
Bedeviled with an economy marked by extraordinarily high interest rates and high inflation, as well as with the hostage crisis in Iran, Carter's defeat in 1980 -- and the rhetoric of that campaign -- clouded a foreign policy record that had a number of important successes. If people had known what he was doing secretly to take on the Soviets, perceptions of his record likely would have been different...
Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush were all good men, men of character and strenght. I saw them, warts and all, and I liked what I saw. I saw how much they cared about the country, how much they loved it...They were all worthy. And it saddened me to see three of them defeated, rejected by the people for whom they had given their all. Public service in a rough-and-tumble American democracy is not for the weak of faint of heart... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
More links on Gates...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6457302
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/gates/1.html
And, finally, Gates on Iran's nuclear ambitions...
| Quote: |
Gates on U.S. Iran Policy
In 2004, Robert Gates was among a group of foreign-policy experts who advocated a selective engagement with Iran:
"It is not in our interest for Iran to have nuclear weapons," Gates said. "It is not in our interest for Iran to oppose the new governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. And if we can engage them and try and bring some progress in those areas, then our interests have been served. And that's what it's all about."
Gates also said that if the United States were to open lines of communication with Iran, that would not be sending a mixed message.
"Well, are we rewarding bad behavior by talking to the Libyans?" Gates said.
"Are we rewarding bad behavior by talking to the North Koreans? We're trying to figure out how to limit the national security risks to the United States from policies that Iran is following.
"We don't have much of a voice in that effort right now. We're basically sitting on the sidelines," Gates told NPR's Michele Kelemen in July 2004. |
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6456933
Now let's see how the confirmation hearings go... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good news...
| CNN wrote: |
| Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously approves confirmation of Robert Gates as Defense Secretary, sending nomination to full Senate. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He has a squeaky voice.
yep, he'll pull out of Iraq.
maybe leave a token force.
What is needed is partitioning into semi/wholly autonomous regions along ethnic lines.
Clearly the Iraqis are clueless when it comes to taking responsibility for their country and winning law and order.
Because their ethnic loyalties are all they care about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I watched the whole confirmation hearing. He has no fresh ideas and gave his answer twisted to appeal to whoever he was being questioned by. Gumbo boy.
This is exactly NOT what the process needs but what it will get. So what does that mean? having a yes man , a bendable man there? Well for one, it could mean compromise but won't . Not with Bush, the bully. A good example is one I read yesterday.
| Quote: |
At a reception following the midterm election, President Bush approached Senator-elect James Webb.
�How�s your boy?� asked Mr. Bush.
�I�d like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President,� replied Mr. Webb, whose son, a Marine lance corporal, is risking his life in Mr. Bush�s war of choice.
�That�s not what I asked you,� the president snapped. �How�s your boy?�
�That�s between me and my boy, Mr. President,� said Mr. Webb. |
So we will get waffling, just giving the democrats enough and then BAAAAMMMMM , the made crisis whereby America must put men in there, must finish the job......yahooooooooo and relief by the Republicans.
They are bidding their time and Gates just the man to keep things smooth and unruffled.
Pity, young men will continue to die and Iraq will wither on its vine.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Good news...
| CNN wrote: |
| Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously approves confirmation of Robert Gates as Defense Secretary, sending nomination to full Senate. |
|
If you like lying, evidence-manipulating SecDefs.
He's irrelevant at this point. The position is irrelevant. It won't be relevant again until 2008. His sole job is CYA for Dumbya. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The Senate voted 95-2 Wednesday to approve Robert Gates as President Bush's choice to replace Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary.
The vote came a day after the nomination sailed through the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Gates, a former CIA director, will be sworn in December 18.
Two Republican senators -- Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Jim Bunning of Kentucky -- cast the only no votes.
"He's the right guy at the right time," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina.
During Wednesday's debate on the nomination, it seemed Democrats had been successfully wooed by Gates.
Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he was "favorably impressed" by Gates' candor and forthrightness.
Sen. Ted Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat who has been a vocal critic of Bush's Iraq policy, added that he believes Gates will be "an independent thinker and give candid and frank advice to the president about a way forward in Iraq..."
No significant opposition to Gates' nomination surfaced during the confirmation process... |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/06/gates.confirmation/index.html
And that is all she wrote. As of 18 Dec., that is approx. 12 days, we are in a whole new game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sounds like EFL would have preferred Rumsfeld.
Is there anyone, aside from Noam Chomsky, who he would find acceptable? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ASSumptions. Stupid comments. Why bother?
While news, I think it a stretch to call it "good" news, except in the sense it is not Rumsfeld.
Again, why be an ass? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
I watched the whole confirmation hearing. He has no fresh ideas and gave his answer twisted to appeal to whoever he was being questioned by. Gumbo boy.
This is exactly NOT what the process needs but what it will get. So what does that mean? having a yes man , a bendable man there? Well for one, it could mean compromise but won't . Not with Bush, the bully. A good example is one I read yesterday.
| Quote: |
At a reception following the midterm election, President Bush approached Senator-elect James Webb.
�How�s your boy?� asked Mr. Bush.
�I�d like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President,� replied Mr. Webb, whose son, a Marine lance corporal, is risking his life in Mr. Bush�s war of choice.
�That�s not what I asked you,� the president snapped. �How�s your boy?�
�That�s between me and my boy, Mr. President,� said Mr. Webb. |
So we will get waffling, just giving the democrats enough and then BAAAAMMMMM , the made crisis whereby America must put men in there, must finish the job......yahooooooooo and relief by the Republicans.
They are bidding their time and Gates just the man to keep things smooth and unruffled.
Pity, young men will continue to die and Iraq will wither on its vine.
DD |
How much longer do we have to put up with this "hate" mongering ? That is all it is, this post does nothing to spur debate. Rather it is just another one of a continual spamming of discussion with his vision that Americans are dirty, vile etc......
Enough of these posts, this obsession. If you have anything reasoned to say, it was said long ago. Now it is just a tired, Truman show. But the hate with it is just awful.
I can only wish that you one day, inquire into the nature of how you got to be who you are.....
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
ASSumptions. Stupid comments. Why bother?
While news, I think it a stretch to call it "good" news, except in the sense it is not Rumsfeld.
Again, why be an ass? |
Pot, kettle.
Based on your posts here and your posting history, it was a valid conclusion.
I submit that there is no one who could be nominated that you wouldn't have complaints about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| I submit that there is no one who could be nominated that you wouldn't have complaints about. |
Given his violent reactions against Pelosi and Reid and the rest of the new Democratic leadership, not to mention Gates on this thread, I do not think that anyone here would challenge such an assertion, Bulsajo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
