Posted by Frank James at 1:05 pm CST
Robert Gates, President Bush’s nominee to be the new Defense Secretary, appears to be winning hearts and minds, at least in the Senate if not in Iraq, with his testimony on Capitol Hill today.
Gates scored big points for candor during questioning by Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat, who will be the next chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. This was the moment when it was clear Gates would be a clear break from Donald Rumsfeld who the president fired the day after the mid-term elections.
LEVIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gates, do you believe that we are currently winning in Iraq?
GATES: No, sir.
A few minutes later, Levin sounded like a relieved man who had just opened a window to let crisp, fresh air into a stale-smelling room.
LEVIN: Thank you, Dr. Gates. Your acknowledgment that we're not winning in Iraq, frankly, is a necessary, refreshing breath of reality that is so needed if we're going to look at ways of changing course in Iraq to maximize the chances of success. I thank you for that and the other candid responses that you've given here.
There was another moment that was a striking departure from past hearings. Gates, who is stepping down as president of Texas A&M University, knew the latest statistics for U.S. military deaths in Iraq. During a response to a question by Sen. Edward Kennedy, it became obvious he had a personal connection to some of the dead of the sort that has rarely been expressed by Pentagon officials at past congressional hearings.
GATES: Senator Kennedy, the -- 12 graduates of Texas A&M have been killed in Iraq. I would run in the morning with some of those kids. I'd have lunch with them. They'd share with me their aspirations and their hopes. And I'd hand them their degree. I'd attend their commissioning, and then, I would get word of their death. So this all comes down to being very personal for all of us. The statistics -- 2,889 killed in Iraq as of yesterday morning. That's a big number, but every single one of them represents not only an individual tragedy for a soldier whose been killed, but for their entire family and their friends, and I see this.
Contrast that with Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy Defense secretary who, when asked about U.S. service members deaths in 2004, was off by nearly a third.
There was more from Gates in this vein.
GATES: Somebody asked me about the pressures of this hearing and I said, the pressures of the hearing are nothing compared to the pressures I got from a woman who came over to me at the hotel while I was having dinner the other night, seated by myself, and she asked if I was Mr. Gates, and I said yes. She congratulated me on my nomination and she said, "I have two sons in Iraq. For God's sake, bring them home safe. And we'll be praying for you." Now that's real pressure.
In terms of the way forward in Iraq, Gates indicated two things. He would always tell the truth about what is happening there and that every option was on the table.
This was also from a response to Kennedy:
GATES: Senator, I am not giving up the presidency of Texas A&M, the job that I've probably enjoyed more than any that I've ever had, making considerable personal financial sacrifice, and, frankly, going through this process, to come back to Washington to be a bump on a log, and not to say exactly what I think, and to speak candidly, and, frankly, boldly, to people at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue about what I believe and what I think needs to be done. I intend to listen closely to people. I intend to draw my own conclusions. And I'll make my recommendations. But I can assure you that I don't owe anybody anything. And I've come back here to do the best I can for the men and women in uniform, and for the country, in terms of these difficult problems that we face.
Gates said a lot of what senators wanted to hear. Which means he said some things the president might not want to hear.
For instance, he appeared to break with the Bush administration position that everything is on the table, including the use of military force, in dealing with Iran and Syria.
This came up when Sen. Robert Byrd of W. Virginia asked him whether the congressional authorization Bush used to launch the Iraq War would cover attacks on Iran and Syria.
Gates said he didn’t believe so.
Then Byrd asked Gates what the results would be if the U.S. attacked Iran and Syria.
SEN. BYRD: Would you briefly describe your view of the likely consequences of a U.S. attack on Iran.
MR. GATES: It's always awkward to talk about hypotheticals in this case. But I think that while Iran cannot attack us directly militarily, I think that their capacity to potentially close off the Persian Gulf to all exports of oil, their potential to unleash a significant wave of terror both in the -- well, in the Middle East and in Europe and even here in this country is very real. They are certainly not being helpful in Iraq and are doing us -- I think doing damage to our interests there, but I think they could do a lot more to hurt our effort in Iraq. I think that they could provide certain kinds of weapons of mass destruction, particularly chemical and biological weapons, to terrorist groups. Their ability to get Hezbollah to further destabilize Lebanon I think is very real. So I think that while their ability to retaliate against us in a conventional military way is quite limited, they have the capacity to do all of the things, and perhaps more, that I just described.
SEN. BYRD: What about an attack on Syria? Could you briefly describe your view of the likely consequences of a U.S. attack on Syria.
MR. GATES: I think the Syrian capacity to do harm to us is far more limited than that in -- of Iran, but I believe that a military attack by the United States on Syria would have dramatic consequences for us throughout the Middle East in terms of our relationships with a wide range of countries in that area. I think that it would give rise to significantly greater anti-Americanism than we have seen to date. I think it would immensely complicate our relationships with virtually every country in the region.
SEN. BYRD: Would you say that an attack on either Iran or Syria would worsen the violence in Iraq and lead to greater American casualties?
MR. GATES: Yes, sir, I think that's very likely.
SEN. BYRD: Your answer is yes on both questions.
MR. GATES: Yes, sir. Very likely.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The Republicans on here should love this Gates guy.
He used to lie for the Reagan administration,so that should qualify him for a job with the W. administration right away.
Posted by: John E. | December 5, 2006 1:23 PM
The bottom line on this that is so sad is the fact that Gates doesn't have a silver bullet,
or a real plan, just that he seems to be open and honest. What does that say about the bull we have been handed out from this administration?
Posted by: bill r. | December 5, 2006 1:43 PM
Could we possibly end up with a somewhat sane person in the Bush foriegn policy apparatus for the first time since Powell got pushed out?
When it's big news that an administration official admits what the rest of the world has know for months or years, it's a sad reflection on the quality of the people Bush has syurrounded himeself with.
Posted by: Tony | December 5, 2006 2:21 PM
SEN. BYRD: Would you say that an attack on either Iran or Syria would worsen the violence in Iraq and lead to greater American casualties?
MR. GATES: Yes, sir, I think that's very likely.
SEN. BYRD: Your answer is yes on both questions.
MR. GATES: Yes, sir. Very likely.
Senator Byrd should have asked him if he had a problem with that. Because the rest of this administration wouldn't care.
Posted by: Cheryl | December 5, 2006 2:51 PM
I am impressed so far with what I am hearing from Mr. Gates. I hope that his appointment along with the democratic majority brings this mess in Iraq to and end soon.
Posted by: Juanita | December 5, 2006 2:53 PM
No matter what this guy has for background, thank god someone is finally calling our Iraq squatting what it is. Stupid stupid Americans. Why are we as a country so willing to be fed bullshit by the ton and believe its ice cream because some fallible human that got voted in place(or did he)says it is?
Posted by: Mike K | December 5, 2006 2:55 PM
I dont expect you to post my comment. Censorship is the American way.
Posted by: Mike K | December 5, 2006 2:56 PM
I love the grease job the press always gives these guys in advance, so we know what to think of them.
Gates, Roberts, Alito;
'They're nice guys! They have to be approved. No other way. Just too nice and affable. Likable, must pass them...'
Iron fist in the velvet glove.
Posted by: c.morris | December 5, 2006 3:01 PM
Ohhh, so now the dems praise Bush's choice. Do you honestly think that Gates will sit there and answer Kennedy and Byrd and say: "Sir, we need to blow Iran and Syria to hell. I'm all for it, and I can't wait to get in office this January and do so. The only question now is nuke, or carpet bomb."
Now that's a blatant exaggeration, but he ain't gonna admit his true feelings solely because his job today was to get confirmed, be liked, gain support, and GET IN.
We're not pulling out of Iraq; not until the job's done.
The Tribune and Pelosi can whine all they want and covince themselves that Rumsfeld's successor is anti-Iraq, but he's not. Bush may speak poorly, but he thinks well, and he wouldn't nominate someone with diametrically different viewpoints then his own.
3,000 deaths will not be the total loss of American life by the time this war is over. We have work to do, and Gates will only finalize it.
Posted by: Carson | December 5, 2006 3:07 PM
Gates is only saying what the democracts want to hear.If we are so bad, then why are we not having more problems here in this country?
The only reason we are not being attacked here is tha Irians want the Americans to fall asleep. When the time is correct, they will attacks us, but from within and in a way most will not see until it is too late. I will be dead, my children and grand children will be dead. But in generations beyoud me they will conquers us. Why? We will not stand up for God. We are becoming a Godless nation. What happens to us we deserve.
Posted by: Robert Daehn | December 5, 2006 3:10 PM
Bill R your right no silver bullet for Iraq. I just hope he can fix the damage to the military that Rummy did.
Posted by: Dale Peters | December 5, 2006 3:14 PM
I consider the answers Mr. Gates has given during his Senate hearing to the most troubling problem of our time, the Iraq war, as being the most promising for future times, following all the lies and bulls from the Bush government up to this point.
History will recognize the Bush government as having been the most unethical und shameful in the history of the USA and its reputation in the world.
I would like to see Mr. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld impeached.
Otto Tomasch, Austria.
Posted by: Otto Tomasch | December 5, 2006 3:16 PM
Come on...where is the evidence that he lied. This guy is amazing. He's very open and honest, and really has an attitude of compassion about his country. He's not worried about being a "good" politician...his whole attitude is about taking care of the people...making this a better country for us all. Let's not be negative.
...take a look at what he's done for Texas A&M in just three years. That'll give you an idea of where he's headed for our country.
Posted by: Carie | December 5, 2006 3:21 PM
Clearly Mr. Gates thinks he can make a difference, otherwise he would not leave a comfortable job as a university president. With a hostile Congress on one side and a potentially disagreeable President on the other and having only 2 years to make his mark, I think any difference will be negligible.
I hope he goes with the flow on Iraq and concentrates on reforming our military to fill its changing role in the future.
Posted by: Curt Putnam | December 5, 2006 3:46 PM
How very perceptive of Gates, quite remarkable.
But then he is a lifer CIA bureaucrat who never uttered a sentence that wasn't vetted to a platitude.
The real question is: what would "winning" even look like?
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN | December 5, 2006 3:47 PM
"We are becoming a Godless nation. What happens to us we deserve."
Posted by: Robert Daehn | Dec 5, 2006 3:10:23 PM
WOW!!! And they call Democrats defeatists.
Posted by: jethro | December 5, 2006 3:52 PM
When Dr. Gates became President of Texas A&M I was skeptical of him doing a better job with such a respected and distinguished institution. After witnessing the path he's set for Texas A&M I gurantee you he will do the best job he can. He worked with the students and faculty in a lot of ways to improve Texas A&M. I think here at A&M is where he began to develop leadership working with different factions to make important decisions. He didn't leave the university so Bush could tell him how to think. I think he's going to surprise some people.
Posted by: Daniel | December 5, 2006 3:56 PM
I'm suspicious...This morning on NPR, Sen Reid made a comment to the effect that they will vote for him just to get rid of Rumsfeld. I don't think rubber stamping the guy just to oust Rumsfeld is doing the job we elected these people to do. What about getting someone QUALIFIED??? Don't forget, this guy was part of Iran-Contra and GHW's administration.
Another thing to note is he has always aspired to be head of a college which is his position now. Just why is he giving it up when he has reached his goal? Makes me wonder.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | December 5, 2006 4:04 PM
OMG you guys better read this it opens the door for take over of America by Bush
http://public.cq.com/public/20061201_homeland.html
Posted by: Dale Peters | December 5, 2006 4:23 PM
Be careful who you endorse. Remember it was the CIA advising the Pres, on WMD.
Anybody think that there was no WMD is a child in their thinking and should address the 100k Kurds he gassed.
There is one way to win and thats with an iron fist, then let the Iraqis sweep up the pieces.
I am an Independent Conservative
And I love my country
Posted by: Mikel | December 5, 2006 5:11 PM
""We are becoming a Godless nation. What happens to us we deserve."
Posted by: Robert Daehn | Dec 5, 2006 3:10:23 PM"
....and, they call Democrats hateful!
Posted by: c.morris | December 5, 2006 5:24 PM
Dale,
Thanks for the heads up. I read a little about this before, but this article is very good.
You know, libs and cons should be united in opposition to this measure, but,,,,,silence all around.
This is what 25/30 years of bitter, divisive politics will accomplish.
Posted by: c.morris | December 5, 2006 5:29 PM
I think the Gates will do a great job and the Bush Administration is doing exactly what needs to be done. I think that people forget that the bad guys on 9-11 started this war and we are going to finish the war. I am so glad that we are in Iraq and fighting the bad guys there because if we didn't we would have the bad guys in our neighborhoods. So lets thank the troops who are fighting for our freedom because freedom does not come free. If we are not careful this country will forget 9-11 and trouble will be at our door.
Posted by: Jason Bunker | December 5, 2006 5:55 PM
Dale....The faithful sheep have no idea what they have done. Absolute power...........
Posted by: bill r. | December 5, 2006 6:41 PM
Tell me Jason....are the good guys wearing white hats?
Posted by: bill r. | December 5, 2006 7:41 PM
Tell me Jason...are the good guys wearing white hats?
No bill r. They wear helmets and have The American Flag on their uniforms...Grow up.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | December 5, 2006 9:25 PM
Ronald Reagan must be smiling.
I see that we have a bunch of the "we have to fight them over there,so we don't have to fight them here" crowd on here.
Didn't you guys get the memo??
America knows that that is a NeoCon lie.
It's why you guys lost the election....remember??
I'm glad W. got another one of his Texas croonies in office with him,I want them ALL to go down with the W. ship.
After W. is thrown in prison,in a couple of years,I propose a 20 year ban on all Texas Yahoo's holding a high level elected,or unelected office.
Posted by: John E. | December 5, 2006 9:29 PM
Mikel-
We all know Saddam had WMD's BEFORE he First Gulf war. Hell, we helped him develop them.
The question is, Did he have them at the time of our invasion in 2003? The anser to that question, by all the evidence, and the admission of this administration, is NO.
N. O.
Posted by: Tony | December 5, 2006 10:06 PM
As with the lying-to-the-world former Secretary of State Colin Powell, this previous multi-time
liar--Bob Gates--was freely permitted by
Committee Chairman John Warner (R-VA), an exceptional affront again toward the American
people--he presented himself before a Senate
body without being duly sworn in, as required
by law. Another pass for Repuglicrites;
more lies and deceit to follow sans accountability!?!
Posted by: ABE | December 5, 2006 11:07 PM
Tony...Before President Bush won in 2000,President Clinton,John Kerry,Hillary Clinton and most senate democrats thought Saddam had W.M.D's before and after the first Gulf War and up until the second,but when the going got tuff,the dems bailed out on their statements and went yellow.
So the democrats and the President were wrong....is that your point?If it is,you still must be proud that this nation free'd 25,000,000 people in Iraq.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | December 5, 2006 11:19 PM
Paulo,
I take it back. You apparently do have a friend. His name is Jason. Paulo, Jason. Jason, Paulo.
Posted by: Bubba | December 6, 2006 12:13 AM
Regardless of any criticism of Gates, he has got to be better than Rumsfeld. We have not been told how the grunts who are fighting for their lives in Iraq felt about Rummy, but I am sure they are celebrating any way they can that he is gone!
Perhaps Gates learned the importance and power of truth as a result of his Reagan service or perhaps he has evolved as a leader since then. We can only determine the caliber of his dedication to his job as his oversight continues. We must pray that his focus is on ameliorating the situation and not just putting politics ahead of policy as most in the Bush Administration do.
Posted by: sidtheil | December 6, 2006 5:37 AM
"I am an Independent Conservative
And I love my country
Posted by: Mikel | Dec 5, 2006 5:11:55 PM"
You don't sound too independent to me.
****************
"The faithful sheep have no idea what they have done. Absolute power...........
Posted by: bill r. | Dec 5, 2006 6:41:53 PM"
bill r,
True, but in handing huge power to themselves, with the notion of permanent majority power, the Repubs have handed it over to the Dems. Hope they use it.
Here's one example;
Dan (I cheated too) Burton, the Repub chair of the House Gvmt. Reform Committee granted himself subpoena authority with no need for a vote from his own committee. He used this power to issue over 1K subs. during ClintonTime. Spent 140 hrs. on the xmas card list, 12 on Abu G.
Now comes the funny part;
Henry Waxman will inherit this power, and hopefully will administer a harsh 'waxing' on the remaining two years of GWB's sentence.
Posted by: c.morris | December 6, 2006 7:57 AM
Paulo,
Over 60% of Iraqis want US soldiers killed. Are you proud of that? Is that what you call being greeted as liberators? If Iraqis want freedom and democracy they can fight for it.
Posted by: jethro | December 6, 2006 9:01 AM
Dale, thanks for the post about the John W. Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2006 (your link). It is indeed troubling to see Executive power growing like this -- quietly, insidiously, silently.
This comes about from the legacy of Newt Gingrich and especially Tom DeLay (and I believe it still continues) under the Speaker of the House's authority to control what comes before the House and under what circumstances. Bills that are presented to the House for voting (unlike the past) are presented without allowing for amendment before vote is taken; further, an amazing amount of bills are being presented as "emergency," which means they have to be voted on without the customary 48 hours they used to be allowed so that the members of Congress could READ the thousand-or-so pages of legal documentation before voting.
Stuff like this scares me.
Posted by: John | December 6, 2006 10:03 AM
Paulo-
Does the 25,000,000 freed include the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties that have resulted from the invasion? Is that something you're proud of? How free do you think that makes the average Iraqi feel?
Posted by: tony | December 6, 2006 11:10 AM