Bush: We're winning. Gates: No, we're not

Forums: Politics, Iraq, George W Bush, Robert Gates
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In his press conference on October 25, 2006, President Bush had the following exchange with a reporter:

Q Mr. President, the war in Iraq has lasted almost as long as World War II for the United States. And as you mentioned, October was the deadliest month for American forces this year -- in a year. Do you think we're winning, and why? ... Q Are we winning? THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely, we're winning....Today, in his senate confirmation hearing for the post of secretary of defense, Robert Gates was rather more circumspect:

Asked point-blank by Sen. Carl Levin whether the U.S. is winning in Iraq, Gates replied, "No, sir." He later said he believes the United States is neither winning nor losing, "at this point."And finally, when asked if the US was winning the war in Iraq, General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, replied: You have to define winning." (NYT registration req'd).

So, are we winning, losing, not-winning-but-not-losing, or still in search of a definition of "winning" the war in Iraq?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,617 • Replies: 47

No top replies

My guess is neither of them can detail exactly what it is we are neither winning or losing.

0 Replies

Double-speak lives ! ! !

Amusing times, no, Joe?

0 Replies

we're not winning... they know it.... but don't have the balls to out and out say it for fear of angering bush/cheney.

I smell pussy and another typical bush rubber stamp.

0 Replies

Perhaps you should have Squinney put her pants on?

Laughing

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Perhaps you should have Squinney put her pants on?

over the line buddy.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Perhaps you should have Squinney put her pants on?

over the line buddy.

0 Replies

I agree, that was rather crude

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I'm just messin with you, Bi-Polar Bear.

0 Replies

What I haven't heard in some time is a defined objective. We've overthrown Saddam, we're sure now he doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqis have elected their leaders, what is the mission now that must be accomplished before US forces can come home?

0 Replies

In case Brandon doesn't show up soon, I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that the US invaded Iraq because it justifiably feared that WMDs would fall into the hands of very bad people.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

What I haven't heard in some time is a defined objective. We've overthrown Saddam, we're sure now he doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqis have elected their leaders, what is the mission now that must be accomplished before US forces can come home?

still some more money to make... and I'm not really being silly here. that's what it's about and that's ALWAYS what it's been about.

0 Replies

Well, that and the fact that we spent all that money on permanent bases. We wouldn't want that to be for nought.

0 Replies

You haven't heard the defined objective? Have you been listening?

Quote:

* Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
o Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
o Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
o Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

0 Replies

I am sure the Iraqi military will be very happy with the new military installations when we leave. In the mean time, they make the lives of our armed forces more enjoyable in an otherwise miserable place.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

You haven't heard the defined objective? Have you been listening?

Quote:
* Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
o Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
o Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
o Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

Seeing as though we're stuck on step one, it looks like we'll be there forever. Are we winning? Uh, no. Nor will we win, at least not in my lifetime. We have as much likelihood of achieving the longer term goal stated above as we have of convincing Fundies anywhere (including Christian Fundamentalists in the US) that the concept of 'live and let live' is ok with any and all gods.

0 Replies

Anything Bush does is always "winning." He aways gives good reports on everybody that has ever worked in his administration - even Browne and Rumsfeld. No negatives for this president; he lives in his own world where he never makes mistakes in who he chooses - or fires - from his administration. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are successful, our economy is successful, our national debt is successful, our trade imbalance is successful, and our foreign politics and policies are successful.

You just have to be crazy to believe what Bush says and does is successful/winning; after all, he communicates with god.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

You haven't heard the defined objective? Have you been listening?

Quote:
* Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
o Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
o Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
o Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

Those don't look like military objectives to me. Maybe I'm just not listening. Any indication of how the American military can further these goals?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
You haven't heard the defined objective? Have you been listening?

Quote:
* Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
o Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
o Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
o Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

Those don't look like military objectives to me. Maybe I'm just not listening. Any indication of how the American military can further these goals?

Did you follow the link provided?

0 Replies

McGentrix lickspittle Whitehouse sourece wrote:

o Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.

Political milestones is sufficiently vague as to be meaningless, as is building democratic institutions. Once can "pass milestones" and "build" until the cows come home, but it is not a specific answer to the question of what goals are to be attained--it's just political fuzzy-thinking which relieves the speaker of the necessity of addressing reality. "Standing up" security forces also leaves a rhetorical escape hatch, but becomes poignant in light of what has happened since security forces were established in Iraq (see below).

Quote:

o Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.

Of course, we'd have to ask Halliburton and Bechtel what they intend economic potential to mean--after all, they're the only ones profiting from this war. As for "defeating terrorists" and providing its own security, as i pointed out in another thread:

As one cogent observer has put it, the torturers and murders don't dress up like the police or the army, they are the police or the army.

Iraqi police linked to death squads--The Times online (UK)

Iraqi police killed 14 year old boy for being homosexual--The Independent online (UK)

Iraqi police barred over killings--BBC

26 dead in Iraqi "revenge killings"--CNN

Of course, McG ignored this information in that other thread, so i have no doubt he will ignore it now.

Quote:

o Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

In light of the terror which Shi'ite members of the security forces are inflicting on the Sunnis, while the Sunnis continue to gleefully slaughter Iraqis and American troops, this would be material to make one laugh, were one not crying for the thousands who die each month.

Pretty pathetic performance, McG.

0 Replies

Bush: We're winning. Gates: No, we're not

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know